Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Fighting Back!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    What you really crave is the freedom to discriminate in the public square against anyone who isn't the image of you.
    This shows how buttdumb stupid you really are. The SAD part is you probably really believe this CRAP.

    That may be a bit harsh with regard to you personally,
    It's not harsh -- it's completely asinine.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      That's not what the prohibition was for. It was simply "failure to remove their colors". It had nothing to do with "real" threats. They were PERCEIVED threats which amounted to fashion choice discrimination.
      In that case the prohibition has been misapplied. Although, that said, biker gangs can be riotous, intimidating and destructive. I suspect there may be more to the story than the mere demand by bikers to make a fashion statement.

      Sure it is, but the SCOTUS calls such bullying allowable due to being denied service as a "badge of slavery", despite having other reasons to allow discrimination based on other perceived factors (like choice of clothing by a biker).
      Just because you disagree with the SCOTUS ruling does mean you have been “bullied”. It simply means that you don’t like the outcome. It’s not very mature to sulk about it.

      No. Only with those you don't want to serve.
      You don’t have the choice. The Civil Rights Act clearly states that: “ALL persons shall be entitled to the goods, services facilities, advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination…”

      You mean like CHOOSING to wear a particular patch into a bar?
      It's a bit desperate to argue that the Civil Right's Act - which is intended to protect hitherto discriminated against segments of the population such as Jews, blacks and homosexuals - is militating against the civil rights of bikers. Regardless, the solution for service providers is simple: don't discriminate against anybody for any reason. If the bikers run amok and wreck the bar they can be charged under criminal law.

      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      This shows how buttdumb stupid you really are. The SAD part is you probably really believe this CRAP.



      It's not harsh -- it's completely asinine.
      Not really! All Jim is saying that you are demanding the right to discriminate against those whose views you disagree with. In what way is this an inaccurate assessment of your position?
      Last edited by Tassman; 10-15-2014, 12:26 AM.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
        Tassman-
        Playing to the gallery again are we Max? Try to remember that Discussion Group protocol requires interaction, NOT ex cathedra style pontifications.

        Earlier in the thread you objected to Christians campaigning for their moral views.
        Incorrect! I objected to Christians demanding special treatment under the Law. In this instance, the Giffords refusing to host a same-sex wedding ceremony on their property on the basis of their religious beliefs. This was rightly ruled against.

        I would make the same objection if the Giffords were Muslims refusing to allow pork be served for religious reasons or atheists refusing to allow Christian marriages on the basis of their non-belief or Jews being refused on the basis of anti-Semitic views.

        Nobody can be above the law on the basis of their personal beliefs. This is the only argument I'm making.

        Yet Christians are and have been on both sides of many moral changes in society.
        You’re shifting position. You initially implied that Christians led the way in social reform. Generally speaking they did not. The Church has a history of resisting social reform in the name of God – often supported by biblical texts. Not just gay law reform but universal suffrage, the abolition of slavery, and the dismantling of the Jim Crow Laws, etc.

        E.g. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. But integrating public schools met fierce resistance from white Christians (a reasonable assumption given that 80% of the population is Christian) and the “Brown-shirts” were obliged to enforce the law. See link. Was this a bad thing?

        http://brightgreenscotland.org/index...abeth-eckford/

        So your objection to Christians expressing their views in the public square can't be based on the views themselves - some Christians support gay marriage, some oppose it -therefore you're objecting because they are Christians. In short, you're a bigot. You're prejudiced against religious people just because they are religious.
        You have a genius for missing the point. It’s got nothing to do with “because they are Christians” – in fact many Christians support it. I'm objecting only to those who oppose it. The argument is that ALL citizens are entitled to equal civil rights in a secular democracy like the USA, regardless of the religious opposition of some.

        Your views on social matters seem to be based entirely on whatever it is that society currently thinks is good and moral. You apparently have no other guiding moral principle than that of following society at large. If that's the case, then there's no reason why you couldn't have been one of Mao's Red Guards, conducting show trials of degenerate landowners; or cheering on the Brownshirts as they smashed up shops and terrorised Jews; or one of a mob ready to deal to those uppity Freedom riders. In short, you're a moral weathervane, pointing whichever way the wind happens to be currently blowing.
        Nice straw man for you but incorrect. See above.

        You're a sanctimonious hypocrite, outraged at others' use of objectionable language, yet quite ready to fling it about yourself; arguing for freedom yet denying it to people you disagree with; determined on people's rights to choose for themselves, yet an expat Aussie posting here on TWeb to tell Americans how they must run their country; looking down your nose at the superstitious religious,
        Typical MaxVel manufactured outrage based on missing the point.

        yet married to a Buddhist. In short, you are just the kind of person you think you're fighting against.
        That’s OK. Just so long as she never becomes a Christian like you!
        Last edited by Tassman; 10-15-2014, 05:19 AM.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
          And the Supreme court ruled against your bigoted interpretation of the law in that case seer. But please go read the freedom of association clause and point out how the intent of the act has anything to do with this case. It doesn't.
          Well of course - as I said, liberal courts have been dismantling the Constitution for a while now. No court ever found such rights in the Constitution for close to two hundred years - until these liberal whack jobs got on the courts.


          There is no such thing as complete freedom in civil societies seer, if you want complete freedom then you should go find yourself an isolated island and hide yourself away in a cave. What you really crave is the freedom to discriminate in the public square against anyone who isn't the image of you. That may be a bit harsh with regard to you personally, but that is about what your ideological perspective amounts to, which is indeed totalitarian!
          Nonsense, concerning the freedom of association we did just fine for most of our history. And you have it completely backwards again - when the government uses the threat of the law to force one man to serve another man - that is true totalitarianism - no matter how you try and spin it.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Playing to the gallery again are we Max? Try to remember that Discussion Group protocol requires interaction, NOT ex cathedra style pontifications.

            I addressed the post to you by name.





            Originally posted by Tassman
            Incorrect! I objected to Christians demanding special treatment under the Law.

            Your post #39

            Originally posted by Tassman
            It’s reasonable, I think, for oppressed minorities to stand on the street demanding equal rights. Such was the case with the Suffragette Movement, the Martin Luther King Civil Rights Marches and Gay Rights demonstrations etc.

            It is not the case with those seeking to use public spaces as a pulpit to discriminate personal beliefs, which promote discrimination against the very segments of the population already unjustly discriminated against.

            You objected to Christians putting forward their beliefs in public spaces. Which means that Christians who supported and/or led previous movements like Civil Rights, suffrage, abolition of slavery were - according to you - wrong to do so in public.



            Originally posted by Tassman
            Nobody can be above the law on the basis of their personal beliefs. This is the only argument I'm making.

            Which means that the Civil Rights movement (you know, the one led by MLK, a Christian...) was wrong, according to you. Ditto gay campaign for changes in the law to decriminalise homosexual sex. Ditto any movement that seeks to change public laws and involves any kind of civil disobedience.

            Your position is just plain incoherent. That's what happens when you abandon all principles except following society as whole.

            Dress it up however you like, Tassman. People see through you. You're just as bigoted and prejudiced - in your own special 'non-religious' way - as pretty much anyone else on this forum. (I'll give you a pass for Epoetker. Just.)
            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              What you really crave is the freedom to discriminate in the public square against anyone who isn't the image of you. That may be a bit harsh with regard to you personally, but that is about what your ideological perspective amounts to, which is indeed totalitarian!
              I can't wait to see how you justify the actions of the Lesbian Mayor of Houston as she demands the sermon notes of local pastors to trample on their first amendment rights.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                I can't wait to see how you justify the actions of the Lesbian Mayor of Houston as she demands the sermon notes of local pastors to trample on their first amendment rights.
                Jim will repeat what he already said:

                There is no such thing as complete freedom in civil societies seer, if you want complete freedom then you should go find yourself an isolated island and hide yourself away in a cave.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Jim will repeat what he already said:
                  And Tassman will probably tell him "Great post!"
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                    I addressed the post to you by name.
                    Ah, so by mentioning my name at the beginning of your self-indulgent monologue counts as "interaction" for you does it? What about your highly selective responses with extensive snipping as per this post of yours? Is this your idea of interaction too? Your'e a laugh a minute Max.

                    Your post #39




                    You objected to Christians putting forward their beliefs in public spaces. Which means that Christians who supported and/or led previous movements like Civil Rights, suffrage, abolition of slavery were - according to you - wrong to do so in public.
                    Nope! I did not. I objected only to Christians opposing the constitutional civil rights of homosexuals. This opposition is utterly contrary to the goals of other civil rights movements you mentioned which were promoting civil rights, NOT denying them. Your attempt to equate the demand for black rights and other civil rights groups, with the denial of rights for homosexuals is plain dishonest. But typical!

                    Which means that the Civil Rights movement (you know, the one led by MLK, a Christian...) was wrong, according to you. Ditto gay campaign for changes in the law to decriminalise homosexual sex. Ditto any movement that seeks to change public laws and involves any kind of civil disobedience.
                    The civil rights movements, including “the one led by MLK”, was right, according to me because it was about obtaining the constitutional rights of black citizens. Whereas, to deny such rights to a different segment of the population, i.e. homosexuals, which is what you are demanding, couldn't be further away from the protests of MLK et al.

                    Your position is just plain incoherent. That's what happens when you abandon all principles except following society as whole.
                    It is you, not me, promoting incoherent double standards; you are demanding rights for Christians that override the rights of some citizens. My position is perfectly clear, namely equal rights for all regardless of race, gender, religion or sexual orientation. This also happens to be the position of the SCOTUS.

                    Dress it up however you like, Tassman. People see through you.
                    ALL people??? You know this do you - or are you merely referring to those 'on your side'? I suspect the latter.

                    You're just as bigoted and prejudiced - in your own special 'non-religious' way - as pretty much anyone else on this forum. (I'll give you a pass for Epoetker. Just.)
                    So you’re arguing that I’m just as bigoted as you are? I doubt that’s possible.

                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Well of course - as I said, liberal courts have been dismantling the Constitution for a while now. No court ever found such rights in the Constitution for close to two hundred years - until these liberal whack jobs got on the courts.
                    Stop whining and accept the verdict of the umpire.

                    Nonsense, concerning the freedom of association we did just fine for most of our history. And you have it completely backwards again - when the government uses the threat of the law to force one man to serve another man - that is true totalitarianism - no matter how you try and spin it.
                    Incorrect!

                    When one man refuses to abide by the laws of the land he is breaking the law and must suffer the consequences. This is what 'rule-by-law' means, namely the legal principle that law should govern a nation, and not arbitrary decisions by individuals or special-interest groups – like your lot.
                    Last edited by Tassman; 10-16-2014, 05:15 AM.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment

                    Related Threads

                    Collapse

                    Topics Statistics Last Post
                    Started by Cow Poke, Today, 07:29 AM
                    10 responses
                    34 views
                    1 like
                    Last Post Cow Poke  
                    Started by firstfloor, Today, 03:49 AM
                    34 responses
                    159 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post seer
                    by seer
                     
                    Started by Thoughtful Monk, Yesterday, 01:18 PM
                    3 responses
                    26 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                    Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:44 AM
                    2 responses
                    49 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post Sparko
                    by Sparko
                     
                    Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 01:15 AM
                    13 responses
                    107 views
                    0 likes
                    Last Post NorrinRadd  
                    Working...
                    X