One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
The Indiana Flap
Page 1 of 2 next>
Apr 2, 2015 19:10:43   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
Everyone is missing the legal points in the Indiana case here, even the Indianans, their governor & likely p**********l candidate, Marco Rubio & all the talking heads; any kind of discriminaton is not unconstitutional & in violation of no natural law. It is only illegal. The laws against discrimination in private exchanges free market are unconstitutional

The current flap is based upon the 1964 & 1965 Civil Rights bills. The target was racial discrimination. The progressives justified both through the regulation of interstate commerce clause, a distortion of both the wording & the intent. At the time they were passed, no one in his right mind would have thought they'd be mangled to justify what is happening with the entire L**T situation.

But no matter who the intended target is, what is not under discussion, and should be, is what these bills do to individual & private property rights. They are full frontal assaults on them and no one, not Gov. Pence, not Sen. Marco Rubio is saying that such decisions are no business of the government's. They are not advocating that discrimination is the right of both parties in any volunatary & free market exchange.

That's the lesson, no one,not even from the Republicans, has the b---s to say it & until someone does bring it right out into the open, governmental assault on our privacy rights will continue.

Reply
Apr 2, 2015 19:31:35   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
rodericktbeaman wrote:
Everyone is missing the legal points in the Indiana case here, even the Indianans, their governor & likely p**********l candidate, Marco Rubio & all the talking heads; any kind of discriminaton is not unconstitutional & in violation of no natural law. It is only illegal. The laws against discrimination in private exchanges free market are unconstitutional

The current flap is based upon the 1964 & 1965 Civil Rights bills. The target was racial discrimination. The progressives justified both through the regulation of interstate commerce clause, a distortion of both the wording & the intent. At the time they were passed, no one in his right mind would have thought they'd be mangled to justify what is happening with the entire L**T situation.

But no matter who the intended target is, what is not under discussion, and should be, is what these bills do to individual & private property rights. They are full frontal assaults on them and no one, not Gov. Pence, not Sen. Marco Rubio is saying that such decisions are no business of the government's. They are not advocating that discrimination is the right of both parties in any volunatary & free market exchange.

That's the lesson, no one,not even from the Republicans, has the b---s to say it & until someone does bring it right out into the open, governmental assault on our privacy rights will continue.
Everyone is missing the legal points in the Indian... (show quote)




Your language might lead one to think of your post as logical and well-thought out. But after reading it several times (which I needed to do to be sure on which side of the argument you stand - I've deduced that you are in favor of the "Religious Freedom" ordinances) I can see it is a t***sparent attempt to justify discrimination.

It's clear to anyone with the most basic comprehension that these laws have one intent and one intent only. To allow individuals and businesses to discriminate in the public sphere based on personal beliefs. Period.

Try again.

Reply
Apr 2, 2015 20:09:48   #
alex Loc: michigan now imperial beach californa
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Your language might lead one to think of your post as logical and well-thought out. But after reading it several times (which I needed to do to be sure on which side of the argument you stand - I've deduced that you are in favor of the "Religious Freedom" ordinances) I can see it is a t***sparent attempt to justify discrimination.

It's clear to anyone with the most basic comprehension that these laws have one intent and one intent only. To allow individuals and businesses to discriminate in the public sphere based on personal beliefs. Period.

Try again.
Your language might lead one to think of your post... (show quote)


maybe you should try reading the first amendment to the constitution ,oh I forgot you libs don't believe in the constitution

Reply
 
 
Apr 2, 2015 20:15:19   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
Yes, in business and personal dealings, it is within anyone's rights to discriminate on any basis of his choosing. Yoou have done exactly the same thing when you choose a Snickers bar over a Milky Way.

Reply
Apr 2, 2015 20:28:12   #
jelun
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Your language might lead one to think of your post as logical and well-thought out. But after reading it several times (which I needed to do to be sure on which side of the argument you stand - I've deduced that you are in favor of the "Religious Freedom" ordinances) I can see it is a t***sparent attempt to justify discrimination.

It's clear to anyone with the most basic comprehension that these laws have one intent and one intent only. To allow individuals and businesses to discriminate in the public sphere based on personal beliefs. Period.

Try again.
Your language might lead one to think of your post... (show quote)


Supposedly this law was meant to protect minority religions, which religions I did not catch, shall we say the jeluncolorado religion?
So the jeluncolorado religion has a deeply held belief that people with disabilities should not urinate in commercial buildings.
I wonder how the folks who are so in favor of this cover for religions would like it if their parents had to travel around searching for a business not run by jeluncoloradans.
If because six JCs refused them access to the restroom and they fouled the seat of their vehicle and wanted to sue for compensation and yet lost.
I wonder how many comparisons there would be to a******ns.
How many times would a person ask where in the US Constitution it designates that handicaps are mentioned?
How many times would people cite the Holy Bible for references about Jesus' regard for the rights of people with urinary problems?

Reply
Apr 2, 2015 20:30:58   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Your language might lead one to think of your post as logical and well-thought out. But after reading it several times (which I needed to do to be sure on which side of the argument you stand - I've deduced that you are in favor of the "Religious Freedom" ordinances) I can see it is a t***sparent attempt to justify discrimination.

It's clear to anyone with the most basic comprehension that these laws have one intent and one intent only. To allow individuals and businesses to discriminate in the public sphere based on personal beliefs. Period.

Try again.
Your language might lead one to think of your post... (show quote)


You know, Paul....I have heard both sides of this argument, and I honestly feel like one side is being the squeaky wheel in order to persecute people with deep religious beliefs. Could that not be considered a form of discrimination?
Should a privately owned Mom&Pop business be ruined because they decline business because they don't make designs, or stock items in order to fit a particular group of people based on their religious beliefs? I don't think so. The rhetoric, and threats of arson, violence, etc. coming out of this deal is all based on hypotheticals.
I can see if it were a major, publicly held coorperation. But why do gay people want to destroy family businesses because they choose not to accept the business?
I have some gay friends, and they feel like this activism is out of control.
I know I'm rambling here. I think if gays want the same legal rights as others, go for it! I don't care. I also believe that that marriage will not be recognized before God because I believe that marriage is a sacred covenant between 1 man, 1 woman, and God.
I also feel like your community is against all who don't believe in the gay lifestyle.
I consider you, as a gay man, a friend. Would you think me a bigot if I chose not to participate in some event involving a lot of gay stuff because it would make me uncomfortable?
To sum it up: I feel like good people, and christians are under attack by the gay community.

Reply
Apr 2, 2015 20:52:01   #
PaulPisces Loc: San Francisco
 
archie bunker wrote:
You know, Paul....I have heard both sides of this argument, and I honestly feel like one side is being the squeaky wheel in order to persecute people with deep religious beliefs. Could that not be considered a form of discrimination?
Should a privately owned Mom&Pop business be ruined because they decline business because they don't make designs, or stock items in order to fit a particular group of people based on their religious beliefs? I don't think so. The rhetoric, and threats of arson, violence, etc. coming out of this deal is all based on hypotheticals.
I can see if it were a major, publicly held coorperation. But why do gay people want to destroy family businesses because they choose not to accept the business?
I have some gay friends, and they feel like this activism is out of control.
I know I'm rambling here. I think if gays want the same legal rights as others, go for it! I don't care. I also believe that that marriage will not be recognized before God because I believe that marriage is a sacred covenant between 1 man, 1 woman, and God.
I also feel like your community is against all who don't believe in the gay lifestyle.
I consider you, as a gay man, a friend. Would you think me a bigot if I chose not to participate in some event involving a lot of gay stuff because it would make me uncomfortable?
To sum it up: I feel like good people, and christians are under attack by the gay community.
You know, Paul....I have heard both sides of this ... (show quote)


Archie - I do hear you, and I agree that on BOTH sides of this issue the radical factions are being "squeaky wheels". But, as I am fond of saying, I think this is a good thing because it makes us talk about it when we otherwise might not.

My experience over a lifetime tells me that when two groups hold very different viewpoints the only way to find common ground (and hopefully a compromise) is to see each other as individuals, and not as ideas. Even if this makes each side uncomfortable with the other.

The L***Q community needs to see conservative Christians as people struggling to keep their faith. This is not the very human picture that is coming across. Instead the loudest voices remain those that say L***Q folks are evil, undeserving of the same dignity as everyone else, and often say L***Qs are going to hell. How did anyone expect us to react?

On the other side, conservative Christians seem to see us only as an idea as defined in a very few texts from the Bible. We are individuals with the same need and desire to love, build communities and families, and live safe and fruitful lives. Same as you. And lets face it, there's the "ick" factor of gay male sex that most heterosexuals find repugnant (though oddly enough, a lot of straight men seem to love the idea of lesbian sex.). Trust me, if it were awful gay men wouldn't do it. It may be kept out of most conversation, but it's always lurking in many minds.

Add to all this that the media need to sell content and politicians are always grasping at ways to divide and conquer. So we have this mess.

Maybe Conservative Christians and Radical L***Q folks should set an example for our lame-ass Congress and find a compromise that works for both. That can only happen if we listen, and talk to each other.

Wh**ever our differences, no matter how awful our language gets, I'll still consider you and most of the folk on OPP as my friends. I believe enough in what I say to practice what I preach (at least most of the time!)

Reply
 
 
Apr 2, 2015 21:28:14   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Archie - I do hear you, and I agree that on BOTH sides of this issue the radical factions are being "squeaky wheels". But, as I am fond of saying, I think this is a good thing because it makes us talk about it when we otherwise might not.

My experience over a lifetime tells me that when two groups hold very different viewpoints the only way to find common ground (and hopefully a compromise) is to see each other as individuals, and not as ideas. Even if this makes each side uncomfortable with the other.

The L***Q community needs to see conservative Christians as people struggling to keep their faith. This is not the very human picture that is coming across. Instead the loudest voices remain those that say L***Q folks are evil, undeserving of the same dignity as everyone else, and often say L***Qs are going to hell. How did anyone expect us to react?

On the other side, conservative Christians seem to see us only as an idea as defined in a very few texts from the Bible. We are individuals with the same need and desire to love, build communities and families, and live safe and fruitful lives. Same as you. And lets face it, there's the "ick" factor of gay male sex that most heterosexuals find repugnant (though oddly enough, a lot of straight men seem to love the idea of lesbian sex.). Trust me, if it were awful gay men wouldn't do it. It may be kept out of most conversation, but it's always lurking in many minds.

Add to all this that the media need to sell content and politicians are always grasping at ways to divide and conquer. So we have this mess.

Maybe Conservative Christians and Radical L***Q folks should set an example of our lame-ass Congress and find a compromise that works for both. That can only happen if we listen, and talk to each other.

Wh**ever our differences, no matter how awful our language gets, I'll still consider you and most of the folk on OPP as my friends. I believe enough in what I say to practice what I preach (at least most of the time!)
Archie - I do hear you, and I agree that on BOTH s... (show quote)

I think there is a LOT of stereotyping, and division going on here. By activist groups, the media, and the government.
That, I believe, is a small minority of us.
This is just stupid in my opinion.
Doesn't America have bigger problems that should dominate headlines?
I don't know anymore Paul. I DO know that I can't compromise what I believe in, or feel h**e for another man. (That is the tough one)
I believe in live and let live. Strongly!!

I will forgive the ick factor part of your reply.......I just squeezed a boob to get rid of the mental image!!
Now I am being arrested. Mrs. B. Was in the bathroom, and I had to find one fast!!
That gal didn't understand I guess!!
:shock: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Reply
Apr 2, 2015 21:52:42   #
Dr WhodouthinkUR Loc: Pinetop Wa
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Your language might lead one to think of your post as logical and well-thought out. But after reading it several times (which I needed to do to be sure on which side of the argument you stand - I've deduced that you are in favor of the "Religious Freedom" ordinances) I can see it is a t***sparent attempt to justify discrimination.

It's clear to anyone with the most basic comprehension that these laws have one intent and one intent only. To allow individuals and businesses to discriminate in the public sphere based on personal beliefs. Period.

Try again.
Your language might lead one to think of your post... (show quote)
. And I already have the Right to Refuse Service to Perves end of Story!!

Reply
Apr 2, 2015 21:52:42   #
Dr WhodouthinkUR Loc: Pinetop Wa
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Your language might lead one to think of your post as logical and well-thought out. But after reading it several times (which I needed to do to be sure on which side of the argument you stand - I've deduced that you are in favor of the "Religious Freedom" ordinances) I can see it is a t***sparent attempt to justify discrimination.

It's clear to anyone with the most basic comprehension that these laws have one intent and one intent only. To allow individuals and businesses to discriminate in the public sphere based on personal beliefs. Period.

Try again.
Your language might lead one to think of your post... (show quote)
. And I already have the Right to Refuse Service to Perves end of Story!!

Reply
Apr 3, 2015 06:40:50   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
I am not sure if I understand your point here.

My point is simply that no one, and I mean no one, should be compelled to associate in any way with anyone, businesswise or personalwise. Any cure of the bigotry it supposedly represents is worse than the disease and there will always be people who will try to exploit the law for their own purposes. (And BTW, how do you separate business from personal? We live our lives moving from one to the other, likely four or five times each hour.)

To illustrate, when I was a medical student at our clinic, a black woman was trying to exploit the civil rights situation and tried to accuse me of r****m. She filed a letter of compliant at the school and due to the sensitivity of the time, my career was suspended in the balance for weeks.

And try this one on for size. In 1964, a World's Fair was held in New York City. The state license plate had 'World's Fair' across the bottom. There was a law suit about it because the Fair was run by a corporation and the plaintiff(s?) maintained that it represented free advertising for a private corporation. It was upheld and those who wanted could block the words out with tape.

Any L**T complainants are just looking for publicity.

Reply
 
 
Apr 3, 2015 06:55:33   #
Antisocialist Loc: Florida
 
PaulPisces wrote:
Your language might lead one to think of your post as logical and well-thought out. But after reading it several times (which I needed to do to be sure on which side of the argument you stand - I've deduced that you are in favor of the "Religious Freedom" ordinances) I can see it is a t***sparent attempt to justify discrimination.

It's clear to anyone with the most basic comprehension that these laws have one intent and one intent only. To allow individuals and businesses to discriminate in the public sphere based on personal beliefs. Period.

Try again.
Your language might lead one to think of your post... (show quote)


You need to grow a brain. America is fed up with the demands that 2% or 3% of the population is placing on the majority.

When you q***rs are too damn stupid to know which restroom to use, don’t approach the rest of America as if you have the intelligence to dictate how anything else should work in our society.

You are pushing this ‘tolerance’ thing way too far. Most Americans have tolerated the fact you genetically inferior humans exist in our society and deserve some protection. But all Americans have rights and when you do push the country past the tipping point, you may find some calling for the eradication of q***rs from society.

Oh wait ……………. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/02/lawyer-k*****g-gays-sodomite-suppression_n_6786776.html

Reply
Apr 3, 2015 13:28:25   #
Dr WhodouthinkUR Loc: Pinetop Wa
 
Antisocialist wrote:
You need to grow a brain. America is fed up with the demands that 2% or 3% of the population is placing on the majority.

When you q***rs are too damn stupid to know which restroom to use, don’t approach the rest of America as if you have the intelligence to dictate how anything else should work in our society.

You are pushing this ‘tolerance’ thing way too far. Most Americans have tolerated the fact you genetically inferior humans exist in our society and deserve some protection. But all Americans have rights and when you do push the country past the tipping point, you may find some calling for the eradication of q***rs from society.

Oh wait ……………. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/02/lawyer-k*****g-gays-sodomite-suppression_n_6786776.html
You need to grow a brain. America is fed up with t... (show quote)


Yes Indeed the Great Cleansing is Almost Upon US !!!

Reply
Apr 3, 2015 17:54:31   #
jelun
 
[quote=rodericktbeaman]I am not sure if I understand your point here.

My point is simply that no one, and I mean no one, should be compelled to associate in any way with anyone, businesswise or personalwise. Any cure of the bigotry it supposedly represents is worse than the disease and there will always be people who will try to exploit the law for their own purposes. (And BTW, how do you separate business from personal? We live our lives moving from one to the other, likely four or five times each hour.)

To illustrate, when I was a medical student at our clinic, a black w

Reply
Apr 3, 2015 19:36:14   #
Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!
 
I will do business with anyone I want to. If I don't like the service that I receive, I will just find another business to deal with. No one has to take my money. It's no big deal really. Why get the government involved?
I wish this much interest would be focused on what really matters , like food prices, & energy cost.
These ignorant topics just take our minds off of the real story out there.
Wake Up People.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.