We have the "Black Lives Matters" that only cares about black lives when it's black criminals being shot by police.
Just how is a 12 year old kid with a toy gun a "criminal"? And even when the person is a criminal, so what? You may believe that police should serve not only as law enforcement, but also as judge, jury, and executioner when dealing with black citizens, but most people do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple
Funny how they refuse to acknowledge that most black lives are taken by other blacks and the biggest killer of blacks in America is abortion.
I don't care if the majority of black people are killed by sickle cell anemia and meteor strikes -- it does not give the police a license to brutalize and kill black people. When we give someone a gun and a badge and send them out there to defend our citizens, we damned well better hold them to a high standard and not just turn a blind eye to brutality and murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple
At the democratic debate all the candidates were asked do black lives matter or do all lives matter and not one of them could gather the courage to say all lives matter. That is beyond pathetic and shows these moments do nothing but divide a nation.
What's beyond pathetic is you trying to harm that movement with stupid wordplay. If we say "all lives matter," then it takes the focus off of the systematic mistreatment and killing of black people by police. And that's exactly what you want to do, so that you can go back to pretending the racism does not exist any more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple
As for gay rights, different situation yet in many cases the same. Take the most extreme people, try to apply political pressure and raise as much money as possible by trying to divide people. Courts don't change the hearts and minds of people, the same people that were against gay marriage before the SCOTUS ruling were the same people afterwards.
The job of the SCOTUS is not to change the "hearts and minds" of bigots. A gay couple's right to equal protection under the law is a Constitutional right, not something that should be put on hold until/unless the bigots and religious zealots all change their minds or die off.
When he is noncompliant and threatens the lives of police and citizens. Nice “think of the children” fallacy, by the way.
The name of that "fallacy" was 12 year old Tamir Rice. A report was phoned in by a citizen who said "It's probably fake, but you know what, he's scaring the (expletive) out of (inaudible). ... He's sitting on the swing right now, but he keeps pulling it in and out of his pants and pointing it at people. Probably a juvenile, you know? … I don't know if it's real or not, you know?" Two seconds after police arrived, they shot him dead.
And how was 43 year old Eric Garner, choked to death by police, threatening the lives of police and citizens by allegedly selling loose cigarettes without collecting tax?
That tells us everything we need to know about your “beliefs”.
Yes, I believe that police don't have a right to shoot people just because the people are criminals. Fortunately, the laws and courts agree with me on that.
There is no systematic mistreatment or killing of blacks by police. That’s sort of why we’d like to take the focus off the delusion.
Stop the strawmen, please.
Your own sentence just proved it was not a straw man argument. You want to pretend that racism doesn't exist -- even to the point of ignoring the Justice Department report on the Ferguson Police Department:
In all seriousness and I appreciate the supportive post, but I just don't understand so called atheists banding together. I have zero in common with the next atheist. Not being a member of some club, in this case some a mythology group, doesn't make you have anything in common with someone else who isn't a member. I use tennis as an example in most of my discussions on the subject, so again I ask, if you don't play tennis do you therefore share the beliefs of another person who does't play tennis? Of course not. So I avoid any group calling themselves atheists as to me they are just another bunch of people looking to belong to something. What next, the church of atheists? LOL
I hope this makes sense.
Reminds me of a funny bumper sticker or t-shirt I saw a while back..."Anarchists Unite!" (I just hope they really were being sarcastic).
Then there is the famous Groucho Marx quote: "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member."
Fred was a bit over the top, I can only read "I have a dream" so many times. We have reached a point in this country where it's hard to take any "movement" seriously. We have people like Al Sharpton that needs one or two blacks to get shot just to keep the bills paid. We have the "Black Lives Matters" that only cares about black lives when it's black criminals being shot by police. Funny how they refuse to acknowledge that most black lives are taken by other blacks and the biggest killer of blacks in America is abortion.
They care so much about black lives they encourage them to riot, destroying their own communities to the point of burning them to the ground. I always find it interesting to watch them carry their signs about black lives while they are setting their entire community on fire and stealing from innocent store owners.
At the democratic debate all the candidates were asked do black lives matter or do all lives matter and not one of them could gather the courage to say all lives matter. That is beyond pathetic and shows these moments do nothing but divide a nation.
This is just one example there are many more.
As for gay rights, different situation yet in many cases the same. Take the most extreme people, try to apply political pressure and raise as much money as possible by trying to divide people. Courts don't change the hearts and minds of people, the same people that were against gay marriage before the SCOTUS ruling were the same people afterwards. Our court system doesn't resolve conflict they make it worse. That nut job Kim Davis the court clerk is a perfect example. Some woman that has been married 3-4 times casting judgement on people that just want to get married.
She was elected to do a job yet when she doesn't do it she gains national attention. All of these groups feed on keeping people divided, angry and offended, if everyone actually got along and would respect each other even when we are different then they would be out of business. Lets face it spreading hate is a really good money maker.
"Black Lives Matter"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
When he is noncompliant and threatens the lives of police and citizens. Nice “think of the children” fallacy, by the way.
That tells us everything we need to know about your “beliefs”.
Guess what they don’t do.
The movement is mental illness predicated on lies. It deserves nothing but harm.
There is no systematic mistreatment or killing of blacks by police. That’s sort of why we’d like to take the focus off the delusion.
Stop the strawmen, please.
I wonder why "Black Lives Matter" focuses solely on issues with police, instead of also addressing the high numbers of black on black murders in cities like Chicago.
Oh, I haven’t. The problem is there’s a large sector devoted to doing just that to the population overall.
Partially quoting to try to make a weak point is pretty lame. However, I'd point out the 'large sector' you refer to is actually smaller than you may think, the Fox News viewership would not win a general election IMHO.
Better than the conservative taliban approach which is basically oppression. Wish they would realize that giving someone else equal rights its doesn't take anything away from them...
Fred, please tell me where this of no discrimination concept is stated in the Constitution?
It's not. That's why we enact legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Houston's anti-discrimination 'HERO' ordinance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDerby
Just look at the Oregon and Colorado bakers who are now forced to bake goods which directly flies in the face of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
If baking goods "directly flies in the face of their sincerely held religious beliefs," they probably chose the wrong line of work. But, seriously, Citing the First Amendment is not a trump card, whether your purpose in doing so is to defend your decision to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or to deny business services to people who are homosexual, transgender, black, Jewish, or handicapped. Your deeply held religious beliefs may direct you to stone to death the little old lady running the fortune telling business down the street ("A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27"), but that doesn't mean that you have a Constitutional right to do so protected by the First Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDerby
As for the Houston statutes. I believe the mayor demanded preachers submit their sermons for a political appropriateness review. When they refused, the mayor used the courts to obtain them.
That's not true. A group of Christians sued the city. In response, city attorneys issued subpoenas to five local pastors during the case’s discovery phase seeking all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession. The subpoenas were issued to pastors who had been involved in the political campaign to organize a repeal of Houston’s new equal rights ordinance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDerby
As for Apple, they ar free to act as they see fit - free enterprise, freedom of speech and all. However, I worry as an investor that their advocacy will cloud their fiscal judgement (many examples: the guy in Seattle who decided all workers should get he same salary of $70K a year is now on the verge of bankruptcy after losing all of his good employees) or drive away customers.
Your claim about the CEO in Seattle, Dan Price, is also incorrect.
Mr. Price set the minimum salary at $70K, not the maximum, and financed much of it by cutting his own pay to $70K from $1million.
He did not 'lose all of his good employees.' Two employees, both of whom felt that their salaries, though already higher than the $70K minimum, should have been raised even more. Two out of 120 is not an unreasonable attrition rate.
As to driving away customers, the company lost some customers, mostly those who disagreed with the new pay scale or who were afraid the services would be affected negatively. Price says he’s had dozens of new clients because of the move, but he won’t see the profits from those for at least another year.
What's sad, and despicable, is the giddy excitement among conservatives that a CEO trying to pay his employees a living wage (for an expensive locale) is suffering for it. Were they more decent people, they would be asking themselves how they could pressure competing firms to pay their American workers wages that let them buy homes, put their kids through college, and generally have a good standard of living.
If baking goods "directly flies in the face of their sincerely held religious beliefs," they probably chose the wrong line of work.
Refusal of service is freedom of association.
You would be in favor of forcing someone to do business with a front corporation for an Islamic terrorist organization, for example.
What's sad, and despicable, is the giddy excitement among conservatives that a CEO trying to pay his employees a living wage (for an expensive locale) is suffering for it.
What’s sad and despicable is your libelous perversion of the truth.
Were they more decent people
lol
...pressure competing firms to pay their American workers wages that let them buy homes, put their kids through college, and generally have a good standard of living.
Yeah, let’s just intimidate people into doing what we want! After all, it works for leftists.
...let them buy homes, put their kids through college, and generally have a good standard of living.
Or, you know, how about we not do that and stop pretending that inflation has to keep happening and actually go fix the root of the problem.
Those who bring up the first amendment should be aware of how constitutional law functions. The first amendment is not a free "get out of jail" card for anything and everything.
Free speech is limited - you may not reveal official secrets designated as such by the state, you may not scream "fire" in a crowded theater, you may not call for the violent overthrow of the government, libel anyone, and a million other limitations.
For that matter, the freedom to exercise your religion is severely limited - if there is a conflict between the law and religious behavior, the law trumps it - which is why you may not for example discriminate against black people and say "but my religion commands me to" (btw. going back to the Civil War, it is instructive to see how many used the purported teachings of the bible to justify slavery).
Freedom of assembly and association - same deal. That's how they can pass laws against gang members hanging together and it passes constitutional law review. Please get educated.
Laws that prohibit discrimination in business pass constitutional tests very easily - as has been shown by many supreme court decisions. The justification is extremely simple, at bottom: any business that is open to the public exists in a web of regulation and infrastructure that is funded by public money (lawful taxes upon the citizenry).
Your business is protected by the law enforcement and public safety agencies, the courts and the judiciary, regulatory agencies, public infrastructure (safe roads, access etc.). Without those, you would not be able to function. You would be robbed, cheated, defrauded - the very profits you derive would be for naught without the monetary system. Now, how do you imagine all of that is paid for? It is paid for by taxes from the public.
In exchange for all that infrastructure - that allows your business to function in the first place - the public through elected officials has the right to demand that you in turn comply with laws and regulations that are lawfully passed. It is illegal to pass a law that demands that businesses, discriminate against f.ex. black people. But it is entirely legal to pass a law that demands your business to not discriminate against gay people. Or that you not pollute the environment. Or any number of regulations.
You don't want to comply with those regulations? Fine. Don't operate a business in that jurisdiction. Don't take advantage of the infrastructure paid for by public taxes to make money for yourself, and then turn around and discriminate against a gay taxpayer that is funding the infrastructure through his/her taxes.
If you take advantage of infrastructure paid for by public money, you are obligated to follow the laws and regulations that come with it. And that's that.
You have a choice. You don't have to be in business. But if you are, and therefore are taking a public good (legal, safety, economic infrastructure), you are obligated to follow the laws passed by that public through their elected officials. Religion, free speech, freedom of assembly has limitations insofar as the expression of that right cannot conflict with existing laws.
Should the law in Houston pass, it will also be deemed constitutional - as I'm sure will be tested.
For that matter, the freedom to exercise your religion is severely limited - if there is a conflict between the law and religious behavior, the law trumps it - which is why you may not for example discriminate against black people and say "but my religion commands me to" (btw. going back to the Civil War, it is instructive to see how many used the purported teachings of the bible to justify slavery).
Just so you know:
Quote from Ken Ham:
Did you know that in the 1920s in America, a major biology textbook used in public schools was A Civic Biology by Hunter, and it stated the following?
At the present time there exist upon the earth five races . . . the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.
No wonder the late Stephen Jay Gould (famed evolutionist at Harvard University) stated in 1977:
Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.
There’s no doubt Darwinian evolution has fueled racism! Imagine the damage done by the public schools in the 1920s as students were taught that the “Caucasians” were the highest “race!” Had students been taught the correct account of history based on God’s Word, such racist teaching that causes prejudice would not have happened, for the Bible makes it clear there is only one race of humans, descended from Adam.
Just because people believe Darwinian evolution doesn’t mean they will be racists, but nobody can deny that Darwinian evolution is inherently a racist philosophy!
Win or lose in this instance - it really doesn't matter. The long term trend is toward victory for the angels. They (broadly conservatives) are always against the civil rights of the era, whatever the era may be - whether we should keep a king, or allow people to vote, whether we should keep slaves, or free them, whether women should be allowed to vote or not, whether civil rights should be extended to people of color, and so on forever. Today, the fight is whether civil rights ought to extend to gay people.
And they always lose. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it's faster. I have no doubt that one day, we will look upon those who argued against extending anti-discrimination laws to gay people the same way we look upon those who fought against civil rights for black people. Those twisted faces of hate in those photos from the 60's of people who taunted and insulted the black folks who wanted service in any given business establishment. These are the same kinds of people - they too wanted the unfettered right to discriminate. There are always those who would deny civil rights to others - yesterday black, today gay, tomorrow somebody else.
It is rather strange that some people are opposed to this extension of civil rights - as if by not having someone discriminated against you somehow diminishes your enjoyment of your civil rights. Freedom and civil rights are not a finite good - somebody else also getting them is not going to diminish what you have.
Why would I ever be interested in whom my customer chooses to love, or share a life with? Why is it my business to investigate the sexual orientation of anyone? The instinct to police the sexual behavior of consenting adults is really pretty sick - it's the panty-sniffer contingent of the GOP - so very, very interested in who is doing what to whom! We must inspect all bedrooms for sexual activity between consenting adults!
"Man on dog!", "child molesters!" etc., etc., etc. - failure to understand the phrase "consenting adults". Why do you care what others do with their private parts?
Well, thank you for illustrating why science is the only way to truth - not belief systems which are inherently unscientific (f.ex. religious). Science is the cure for such unscientific nonsense as you quoted from that textbook or other such beliefs. Quite clearly, those beliefs did not stand the scientific test of evidence. And therefore were rightly discarded. Science has a mechanism for rejecting unsound beliefs and wrong claims - unlike religion, where nothing and no one can prove that it's wrong to murder innocent people in order to get access to 72 virgins in heaven - because religion is not susceptible to objective evidence, it being purposely based on "you must believe". Good post, illustrating the importance of science as opposed to "belief" systems! Thank you!
Win or lose in this instance - it really doesn't matter. The long term trend is toward victory for the angels. They (broadly conservatives) are always against the civil rights of the era, whatever the era may be - whether we should keep a king, or allow people to vote, whether we should keep slaves, or free them, whether women should be allowed to vote or not, whether civil rights should be extended to people of color, and so on forever. Today, the fight is whether civil rights ought to extend to gay people.
And they always lose. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it's faster. I have no doubt that one day, we will look upon those who argued against extending anti-discrimination laws to gay people the same way we look upon those who fought against civil rights for black people. Those twisted faces of hate in those photos from the 60's of people who taunted and insulted the black folks who wanted service in any given business establishment. These are the same kinds of people - they too wanted the unfettered right to discriminate. There are always those who would deny civil rights to others - yesterday black, today gay, tomorrow somebody else.
It is rather strange that some people are opposed to this extension of civil rights - as if by not having someone discriminated against you somehow diminishes your enjoyment of your civil rights. Freedom and civil rights are not a finite good - somebody else also getting them is not going to diminish what you have.
Why would I ever be interested in whom my customer chooses to love, or share a life with? Why is it my business to investigate the sexual orientation of anyone? The instinct to police the sexual behavior of consenting adults is really pretty sick - it's the panty-sniffer contingent of the GOP - so very, very interested in who is doing what to whom! We must inspect all bedrooms for sexual activity between consenting adults!
"Man on dog!", "child molesters!" etc., etc., etc. - failure to understand the phrase "consenting adults". Why do you care what others do with their private parts?
It is not a civil rights issue. "Civil" rights are about unchangable characteristics that a person is born with. A person can't change their skin color, nationality, gender (irregardless of outward appearances), etc. being gay is a choice, and by definition should not be a civil right. It can be whatever right you want to call it, but it's not a civil right. (Might I suggest post modern or liberal rights?)
A person is going to do what a person is going to do. We can't stop that. However, the institution of marriage was defined and given by God, and He was explicitly clear. To step outside of those bounds man is taking it upon himself to redifine what God has put in place, in essence saying we know better than Him. Gay marriage is not marriage at all, but wishful, lustful desires and ultimately a form of rebellion against God.
Ultimately, it is not my place to judge, because 1: many liberals have not accepted the gospel, 2: I am a sinner myself and have my own tendencies to keep in check, and 3: God is the ultmate, perfect judge who will judge all in the age to come.
I can't change people's minds. Only the Holy Spirit can. It is my job though to spread the gospel, that is to say that while we were still sinners, the Lord Jesus Christ died to save us from the punishment (wrath) from God for those who believe.
In the same sense that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is freedom of expression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You would be in favor of forcing someone to do business with a front corporation for an Islamic terrorist organization, for example.
Because that's totally analogous to baking a cake for a couple about to get legally married, right? Quit trying to conflate terrorism with gay marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What’s sad and despicable is your libelous perversion of the truth.
What I stated was accurate. There is a giddy excitement among conservatives that a CEO trying to pay his employees a living wage (for an expensive locale) is suffering for it. I can cite multiple right-wing websites and comment sections where conservatives are gloating about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, let’s just intimidate people into doing what we want! After all, it works for leftists.
It's not "leftists" who put up "wanted posters" with the names, addresses, phone numbers, pictures of doctors who provide abortion services -- doctors who, in several cases, were later murdered by some of your fellow conservatives. I'm talking about people choosing to do business with companies that pay living wages to their employees -- you know, freedom of association.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Or, you know, how about we not do that and stop pretending that inflation has to keep happening and actually go fix the root of the problem.
Learn something about economics. Investopedia's article on inflation said "inflation is a sign that an economy is growing. In some situations, little inflation (or even deflation) can be just as bad as high inflation. The lack of inflation may be an indication that the economy is weakening."
Comments
Originally Posted by AtlApple
We have the "Black Lives Matters" that only cares about black lives when it's black criminals being shot by police.
Just how is a 12 year old kid with a toy gun a "criminal"? And even when the person is a criminal, so what? You may believe that police should serve not only as law enforcement, but also as judge, jury, and executioner when dealing with black citizens, but most people do not.
Originally Posted by AtlApple
Funny how they refuse to acknowledge that most black lives are taken by other blacks and the biggest killer of blacks in America is abortion.
I don't care if the majority of black people are killed by sickle cell anemia and meteor strikes -- it does not give the police a license to brutalize and kill black people. When we give someone a gun and a badge and send them out there to defend our citizens, we damned well better hold them to a high standard and not just turn a blind eye to brutality and murder.
Originally Posted by AtlApple
At the democratic debate all the candidates were asked do black lives matter or do all lives matter and not one of them could gather the courage to say all lives matter. That is beyond pathetic and shows these moments do nothing but divide a nation.
What's beyond pathetic is you trying to harm that movement with stupid wordplay. If we say "all lives matter," then it takes the focus off of the systematic mistreatment and killing of black people by police. And that's exactly what you want to do, so that you can go back to pretending the racism does not exist any more.
Originally Posted by AtlApple
As for gay rights, different situation yet in many cases the same. Take the most extreme people, try to apply political pressure and raise as much money as possible by trying to divide people. Courts don't change the hearts and minds of people, the same people that were against gay marriage before the SCOTUS ruling were the same people afterwards.
The job of the SCOTUS is not to change the "hearts and minds" of bigots. A gay couple's right to equal protection under the law is a Constitutional right, not something that should be put on hold until/unless the bigots and religious zealots all change their minds or die off.
When he is noncompliant and threatens the lives of police and citizens. Nice “think of the children” fallacy, by the way.
That tells us everything we need to know about your “beliefs”.
Guess what they don’t do.
What's beyond pathetic is you trying to harm that movement with stupid wordplay.
The movement is mental illness predicated on lies. It deserves nothing but harm.
There is no systematic mistreatment or killing of blacks by police. That’s sort of why we’d like to take the focus off the delusion.
Stop the strawmen, please.
Quote:
When he is noncompliant and threatens the lives of police and citizens. Nice “think of the children” fallacy, by the way.
The name of that "fallacy" was 12 year old Tamir Rice. A report was phoned in by a citizen who said "It's probably fake, but you know what, he's scaring the (expletive) out of (inaudible). ... He's sitting on the swing right now, but he keeps pulling it in and out of his pants and pointing it at people. Probably a juvenile, you know? … I don't know if it's real or not, you know?" Two seconds after police arrived, they shot him dead.
And how was 43 year old Eric Garner, choked to death by police, threatening the lives of police and citizens by allegedly selling loose cigarettes without collecting tax?
That tells us everything we need to know about your “beliefs”.
Yes, I believe that police don't have a right to shoot people just because the people are criminals. Fortunately, the laws and courts agree with me on that.
Stop the strawmen, please.
Your own sentence just proved it was not a straw man argument. You want to pretend that racism doesn't exist -- even to the point of ignoring the Justice Department report on the Ferguson Police Department:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
It's actually quite remarkable how out of touch with reality some people are. You have probably seen this article before, but it's worth reposting...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28616115
In all seriousness and I appreciate the supportive post, but I just don't understand so called atheists banding together. I have zero in common with the next atheist. Not being a member of some club, in this case some a mythology group, doesn't make you have anything in common with someone else who isn't a member. I use tennis as an example in most of my discussions on the subject, so again I ask, if you don't play tennis do you therefore share the beliefs of another person who does't play tennis? Of course not. So I avoid any group calling themselves atheists as to me they are just another bunch of people looking to belong to something. What next, the church of atheists? LOL
I hope this makes sense.
Reminds me of a funny bumper sticker or t-shirt I saw a while back..."Anarchists Unite!" (I just hope they really were being sarcastic).
Then there is the famous Groucho Marx quote: "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member."
When he is noncompliant and threatens the lives of police and citizens. Nice “think of the children” fallacy, by the way.
That tells us everything we need to know about your “beliefs”.
Guess what they don’t do.
The movement is mental illness predicated on lies. It deserves nothing but harm.
There is no systematic mistreatment or killing of blacks by police. That’s sort of why we’d like to take the focus off the delusion.
Stop the strawmen, please.
Any reasonable response to you would get me banned. Your post is an utter embarrassment.
Fred was a bit over the top, I can only read "I have a dream" so many times. We have reached a point in this country where it's hard to take any "movement" seriously. We have people like Al Sharpton that needs one or two blacks to get shot just to keep the bills paid. We have the "Black Lives Matters" that only cares about black lives when it's black criminals being shot by police. Funny how they refuse to acknowledge that most black lives are taken by other blacks and the biggest killer of blacks in America is abortion.
They care so much about black lives they encourage them to riot, destroying their own communities to the point of burning them to the ground. I always find it interesting to watch them carry their signs about black lives while they are setting their entire community on fire and stealing from innocent store owners.
At the democratic debate all the candidates were asked do black lives matter or do all lives matter and not one of them could gather the courage to say all lives matter. That is beyond pathetic and shows these moments do nothing but divide a nation.
This is just one example there are many more.
As for gay rights, different situation yet in many cases the same. Take the most extreme people, try to apply political pressure and raise as much money as possible by trying to divide people. Courts don't change the hearts and minds of people, the same people that were against gay marriage before the SCOTUS ruling were the same people afterwards. Our court system doesn't resolve conflict they make it worse. That nut job Kim Davis the court clerk is a perfect example. Some woman that has been married 3-4 times casting judgement on people that just want to get married.
She was elected to do a job yet when she doesn't do it she gains national attention. All of these groups feed on keeping people divided, angry and offended, if everyone actually got along and would respect each other even when we are different then they would be out of business. Lets face it spreading hate is a really good money maker.
"Black Lives Matter"
When he is noncompliant and threatens the lives of police and citizens. Nice “think of the children” fallacy, by the way.
That tells us everything we need to know about your “beliefs”.
Guess what they don’t do.
The movement is mental illness predicated on lies. It deserves nothing but harm.
There is no systematic mistreatment or killing of blacks by police. That’s sort of why we’d like to take the focus off the delusion.
Stop the strawmen, please.
I wonder why "Black Lives Matter" focuses solely on issues with police, instead of also addressing the high numbers of black on black murders in cities like Chicago.
Partially quoting to try to make a weak point is pretty lame. However, I'd point out the 'large sector' you refer to is actually smaller than you may think, the Fox News viewership would not win a general election IMHO.
LOL, I must remember that Groucho line.
Not really; it’s the entire point of the argument and it’s hardly weak.
I don’t see the point in joking or lying.
I don’t see the point in joking or lying.
Good. I'm glad that you've had a change of heart.
Fred, please tell me where this of no discrimination concept is stated in the Constitution?
It's not. That's why we enact legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Houston's anti-discrimination 'HERO' ordinance.
Just look at the Oregon and Colorado bakers who are now forced to bake goods which directly flies in the face of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
If baking goods "directly flies in the face of their sincerely held religious beliefs," they probably chose the wrong line of work. But, seriously, Citing the First Amendment is not a trump card, whether your purpose in doing so is to defend your decision to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or to deny business services to people who are homosexual, transgender, black, Jewish, or handicapped. Your deeply held religious beliefs may direct you to stone to death the little old lady running the fortune telling business down the street ("A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27"), but that doesn't mean that you have a Constitutional right to do so protected by the First Amendment.
As for the Houston statutes. I believe the mayor demanded preachers submit their sermons for a political appropriateness review. When they refused, the mayor used the courts to obtain them.
That's not true. A group of Christians sued the city. In response, city attorneys issued subpoenas to five local pastors during the case’s discovery phase seeking all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession. The subpoenas were issued to pastors who had been involved in the political campaign to organize a repeal of Houston’s new equal rights ordinance.
As for Apple, they ar free to act as they see fit - free enterprise, freedom of speech and all. However, I worry as an investor that their advocacy will cloud their fiscal judgement (many examples: the guy in Seattle who decided all workers should get he same salary of $70K a year is now on the verge of bankruptcy after losing all of his good employees) or drive away customers.
Your claim about the CEO in Seattle, Dan Price, is also incorrect.
What's sad, and despicable, is the giddy excitement among conservatives that a CEO trying to pay his employees a living wage (for an expensive locale) is suffering for it. Were they more decent people, they would be asking themselves how they could pressure competing firms to pay their American workers wages that let them buy homes, put their kids through college, and generally have a good standard of living.
Nothing changed.
Refusal of service is freedom of association.
You would be in favor of forcing someone to do business with a front corporation for an Islamic terrorist organization, for example.
What's sad, and despicable, is the giddy excitement among conservatives that a CEO trying to pay his employees a living wage (for an expensive locale) is suffering for it.
What’s sad and despicable is your libelous perversion of the truth.
lol
Yeah, let’s just intimidate people into doing what we want! After all, it works for leftists.
Or, you know, how about we not do that and stop pretending that inflation has to keep happening and actually go fix the root of the problem.
??Judges? ?17:6? ?ESV??
http://bible.com/59/jdg.17.6.esv
Hey, look! Modern moral relativism!
Those who bring up the first amendment should be aware of how constitutional law functions. The first amendment is not a free "get out of jail" card for anything and everything.
Free speech is limited - you may not reveal official secrets designated as such by the state, you may not scream "fire" in a crowded theater, you may not call for the violent overthrow of the government, libel anyone, and a million other limitations.
For that matter, the freedom to exercise your religion is severely limited - if there is a conflict between the law and religious behavior, the law trumps it - which is why you may not for example discriminate against black people and say "but my religion commands me to" (btw. going back to the Civil War, it is instructive to see how many used the purported teachings of the bible to justify slavery).
Freedom of assembly and association - same deal. That's how they can pass laws against gang members hanging together and it passes constitutional law review. Please get educated.
Laws that prohibit discrimination in business pass constitutional tests very easily - as has been shown by many supreme court decisions. The justification is extremely simple, at bottom: any business that is open to the public exists in a web of regulation and infrastructure that is funded by public money (lawful taxes upon the citizenry).
Your business is protected by the law enforcement and public safety agencies, the courts and the judiciary, regulatory agencies, public infrastructure (safe roads, access etc.). Without those, you would not be able to function. You would be robbed, cheated, defrauded - the very profits you derive would be for naught without the monetary system. Now, how do you imagine all of that is paid for? It is paid for by taxes from the public.
In exchange for all that infrastructure - that allows your business to function in the first place - the public through elected officials has the right to demand that you in turn comply with laws and regulations that are lawfully passed. It is illegal to pass a law that demands that businesses, discriminate against f.ex. black people. But it is entirely legal to pass a law that demands your business to not discriminate against gay people. Or that you not pollute the environment. Or any number of regulations.
You don't want to comply with those regulations? Fine. Don't operate a business in that jurisdiction. Don't take advantage of the infrastructure paid for by public taxes to make money for yourself, and then turn around and discriminate against a gay taxpayer that is funding the infrastructure through his/her taxes.
If you take advantage of infrastructure paid for by public money, you are obligated to follow the laws and regulations that come with it. And that's that.
You have a choice. You don't have to be in business. But if you are, and therefore are taking a public good (legal, safety, economic infrastructure), you are obligated to follow the laws passed by that public through their elected officials. Religion, free speech, freedom of assembly has limitations insofar as the expression of that right cannot conflict with existing laws.
Should the law in Houston pass, it will also be deemed constitutional - as I'm sure will be tested.
For that matter, the freedom to exercise your religion is severely limited - if there is a conflict between the law and religious behavior, the law trumps it - which is why you may not for example discriminate against black people and say "but my religion commands me to" (btw. going back to the Civil War, it is instructive to see how many used the purported teachings of the bible to justify slavery).
Just so you know:
Did you know that in the 1920s in America, a major biology textbook used in public schools was A Civic Biology by Hunter, and it stated the following?
No wonder the late Stephen Jay Gould (famed evolutionist at Harvard University) stated in 1977:
There’s no doubt Darwinian evolution has fueled racism! Imagine the damage done by the public schools in the 1920s as students were taught that the “Caucasians” were the highest “race!” Had students been taught the correct account of history based on God’s Word, such racist teaching that causes prejudice would not have happened, for the Bible makes it clear there is only one race of humans, descended from Adam.
Just because people believe Darwinian evolution doesn’t mean they will be racists, but nobody can deny that Darwinian evolution is inherently a racist philosophy!
Win or lose in this instance - it really doesn't matter. The long term trend is toward victory for the angels. They (broadly conservatives) are always against the civil rights of the era, whatever the era may be - whether we should keep a king, or allow people to vote, whether we should keep slaves, or free them, whether women should be allowed to vote or not, whether civil rights should be extended to people of color, and so on forever. Today, the fight is whether civil rights ought to extend to gay people.
And they always lose. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes it's faster. I have no doubt that one day, we will look upon those who argued against extending anti-discrimination laws to gay people the same way we look upon those who fought against civil rights for black people. Those twisted faces of hate in those photos from the 60's of people who taunted and insulted the black folks who wanted service in any given business establishment. These are the same kinds of people - they too wanted the unfettered right to discriminate. There are always those who would deny civil rights to others - yesterday black, today gay, tomorrow somebody else.
It is rather strange that some people are opposed to this extension of civil rights - as if by not having someone discriminated against you somehow diminishes your enjoyment of your civil rights. Freedom and civil rights are not a finite good - somebody else also getting them is not going to diminish what you have.
Why would I ever be interested in whom my customer chooses to love, or share a life with? Why is it my business to investigate the sexual orientation of anyone? The instinct to police the sexual behavior of consenting adults is really pretty sick - it's the panty-sniffer contingent of the GOP - so very, very interested in who is doing what to whom! We must inspect all bedrooms for sexual activity between consenting adults!
"Man on dog!", "child molesters!" etc., etc., etc. - failure to understand the phrase "consenting adults". Why do you care what others do with their private parts?
Just so you know:
Well, thank you for illustrating why science is the only way to truth - not belief systems which are inherently unscientific (f.ex. religious). Science is the cure for such unscientific nonsense as you quoted from that textbook or other such beliefs. Quite clearly, those beliefs did not stand the scientific test of evidence. And therefore were rightly discarded. Science has a mechanism for rejecting unsound beliefs and wrong claims - unlike religion, where nothing and no one can prove that it's wrong to murder innocent people in order to get access to 72 virgins in heaven - because religion is not susceptible to objective evidence, it being purposely based on "you must believe". Good post, illustrating the importance of science as opposed to "belief" systems! Thank you!
It is not a civil rights issue. "Civil" rights are about unchangable characteristics that a person is born with. A person can't change their skin color, nationality, gender (irregardless of outward appearances), etc. being gay is a choice, and by definition should not be a civil right. It can be whatever right you want to call it, but it's not a civil right. (Might I suggest post modern or liberal rights?)
A person is going to do what a person is going to do. We can't stop that. However, the institution of marriage was defined and given by God, and He was explicitly clear. To step outside of those bounds man is taking it upon himself to redifine what God has put in place, in essence saying we know better than Him. Gay marriage is not marriage at all, but wishful, lustful desires and ultimately a form of rebellion against God.
Ultimately, it is not my place to judge, because 1: many liberals have not accepted the gospel, 2: I am a sinner myself and have my own tendencies to keep in check, and 3: God is the ultmate, perfect judge who will judge all in the age to come.
I can't change people's minds. Only the Holy Spirit can. It is my job though to spread the gospel, that is to say that while we were still sinners, the Lord Jesus Christ died to save us from the punishment (wrath) from God for those who believe.
Refusal of service is freedom of association.
In the same sense that yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is freedom of expression.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You would be in favor of forcing someone to do business with a front corporation for an Islamic terrorist organization, for example.
Because that's totally analogous to baking a cake for a couple about to get legally married, right? Quit trying to conflate terrorism with gay marriage.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What’s sad and despicable is your libelous perversion of the truth.
What I stated was accurate. There is a giddy excitement among conservatives that a CEO trying to pay his employees a living wage (for an expensive locale) is suffering for it. I can cite multiple right-wing websites and comment sections where conservatives are gloating about it.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, let’s just intimidate people into doing what we want! After all, it works for leftists.
It's not "leftists" who put up "wanted posters" with the names, addresses, phone numbers, pictures of doctors who provide abortion services -- doctors who, in several cases, were later murdered by some of your fellow conservatives. I'm talking about people choosing to do business with companies that pay living wages to their employees -- you know, freedom of association.
Or, you know, how about we not do that and stop pretending that inflation has to keep happening and actually go fix the root of the problem.
Learn something about economics. Investopedia's article on inflation said "inflation is a sign that an economy is growing. In some situations, little inflation (or even deflation) can be just as bad as high inflation. The lack of inflation may be an indication that the economy is weakening."