U.S. Politics

Page 810 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 9, 2009
7,026
0
0
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
If they want to marry, just don't ask me (assuming I'm the business dude) to get involved. That's what I'm saying.
You are not involved (as a business dude) in the gay lifestyle just because you bake them a friggen' cake. God damn you guys are a sensitive lot. Do you really have to approve of every lifestyle choice of every individual that you interact with in the business world? You guys are fuc**d if that is the minimum that you have set the bar at. I can not give two f**ks for your religious beliefs, not even one, but I will still treat you like a regular human being in any interaction that we have here in what I like to call "real life".
You're reaction and language seems to show you are quite sensitive. Relax. It's this sensitivity that leads to the gay community wanting christian business owners out of business.
1. Your reaction not you are (you're) reaction.
2. The gay community (of which I am not a part, unlike an awful lot of priests and other so called pious people) does not want to put anyone out of business, they just want the same treatment as anyone else who walks into a shop to buy something.
3. I am sorry about the language, I hope I didn't traumatize you, but I am just close to my last nerve with the lot of you children of Jesus. Bitching and moaning about how you are being discriminated against because the rest of the world doesn't want to live by your (not you're) rules.
 
Re: Re:

Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
If they want to marry, just don't ask me (assuming I'm the business dude) to get involved. That's what I'm saying.
You are not involved (as a business dude) in the gay lifestyle just because you bake them a friggen' cake. God damn you guys are a sensitive lot. Do you really have to approve of every lifestyle choice of every individual that you interact with in the business world? You guys are fuc**d if that is the minimum that you have set the bar at. I can not give two f**ks for your religious beliefs, not even one, but I will still treat you like a regular human being in any interaction that we have here in what I like to call "real life".
You're reaction and language seems to show you are quite sensitive. Relax. It's this sensitivity that leads to the gay community wanting christian business owners out of business.
1. Your reaction not you are (you're) reaction.
2. The gay community (of which I am not a part, unlike an awful lot of priests and other so called pious people) does not want to put anyone out of business, they just want the same treatment as anyone else who walks into a shop to buy something.
3. I am sorry about the language, I hope I didn't traumatize you, but I am just close to my last nerve with the lot of you children of Jesus. Bitching and moaning about how you are being discriminated against because the rest of the world doesn't want to live by your (not you're) rules.
1. Thanks
2. And they will get the "same treatment" in about 98% of the place. When they don't get the same treatment, it won't be because of fear, hate, or anything like that. It will be because of a conviction that the individual has. The christian will be doing this so as to not violate his faith/conscience - not to be mean to someone.
3. Didn't traumatize me. I don't necessarily want the world to live by my rules (I wish they would live by the Bible, but I know realistically that won't ever happen.) I just don't want them to make me live by their rules. We actually both want the same thing.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
If they want to marry, just don't ask me (assuming I'm the business dude) to get involved. That's what I'm saying.
You are not involved (as a business dude) in the gay lifestyle just because you bake them a friggen' cake. God damn you guys are a sensitive lot. Do you really have to approve of every lifestyle choice of every individual that you interact with in the business world? You guys are fuc**d if that is the minimum that you have set the bar at. I can not give two f**ks for your religious beliefs, not even one, but I will still treat you like a regular human being in any interaction that we have here in what I like to call "real life".
You're reaction and language seems to show you are quite sensitive. Relax. It's this sensitivity that leads to the gay community wanting christian business owners out of business.
1. Your reaction not you are (you're) reaction.
2. The gay community (of which I am not a part, unlike an awful lot of priests and other so called pious people) does not want to put anyone out of business, they just want the same treatment as anyone else who walks into a shop to buy something.
3. I am sorry about the language, I hope I didn't traumatize you, but I am just close to my last nerve with the lot of you children of Jesus. Bitching and moaning about how you are being discriminated against because the rest of the world doesn't want to live by your (not you're) rules.
1. Thanks
2. And they will get the "same treatment" in about 98% of the place. When they don't get the same treatment, it won't be because of fear, hate, or anything like that. It will be because of a conviction that the individual has. The christian will be doing this so as to not violate his faith/conscience - not to be mean to someone.
3. Didn't traumatize me. I don't necessarily want the world to live by my rules (I wish they would live by the Bible, but I know realistically that won't ever happen.) I just don't want them to make me live by their rules. We actually both want the same thing.
This is very simple J-Spear and it has to do with rationalizing a civil code on the one hand and legally weighing a concept of "discrimination" against the prerogatives of lifestyle versus religious belief, doctrine, faith, etc. on the other. Consequently not wanting to live by "their rules" is both a pathetic cop-out and a logical innanity. You would only be living by "their rules" if you were forced to engage in homosexual practices, or, heaven forbid, be forced to marry gays in your church (which the law does not require). This is so absurdly obvious, but evidently you needed it spelled out for you. So, let's repeat again shall we, you don't have to engage in or even approve of homosexuality, but you aren't allowed to discriminate in your business against gays. Period.

The US Supreme Court has come out and said, quite logically, that one's religious beliefs do not give one a free pass, nor absolve them of all responsibility, for discriminating against those for "immoral conduct" (in this case homosexuality), of course as they see it. This after having previously set down within a wider context that sexual orientation cannot be discriminated against in the job market, schools, commercially in any way shape or form. For instance a restaurant owner cannot refuse to serve someone for being gay, just as he/she cannot refuse to serve someone for being Christian (this, yes, would be discrimination), black, old, blue, green, whatever.

Let's say one's god said all Jews, or backs, or Muslims where vile, inferior and loathsome (I have obviously chosen categories for which such discrimination was the order of the day coming from the so called Christian moral majority), hence these shall be put in a ghetto, these enslaved and these organized crusades against. The Supreme Court cannot take this as justification to breach the law of the land, anymore than it has now in not conceding justification to bigots like yourself for discriminating against gays, because "God says it is immoral." Rightfully so the Supreme Court cannot accept as a basis for establishing law, the intransigence of sectarians who place themselves above others in society, but must legislate according to a principle that all citizens, no matter what their religion, race, gender or sexual orientation, are equal before the law.

Not only is your rational offensive, therefore, to any person of reason, but wreaks of the stinking hypocrisy by which you and your self-nominated righteous sect scorn any form of humanity that doesn't conform to the obscurantist viewpoint and appalling sense of morality. Yours, though, has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a vapid moralism of which every form of mendacity, injustice and crime has been committed throughout history. Now I ask myself, who are you to approve or condemn of anyone's behavior? You people are fine at emitting judgments and inflicting sentences, terrible though at solidarity, compassion and kindness, those things which as Christians should take precedent over all else.
 
Re: Re:

[quote="
2. And they will get the "same treatment" in about 98% of the place. When they don't get the same treatment, it won't be because of fear, hate, or anything like that. It will be because of a conviction that the individual has. The christian will be doing this so as to not violate his faith/conscience - not to be mean to someone.
[/quote]

So, will the cake maker ask whether or not these people getting married have ever been divorced? How about if they are Hindu? Idol worshipers and all that. How about Jewish? Ya know, they don't really recognize Jesus as a savior or even most of the New Testament.

Some mouth breather, who hasn't been to church for decades, in the south, of course, who's an issuer of marriage licenses, suddenly has found a conscience, and cannot, in 'good conscience' issue a marriage license to a gay couple. Political theater..along with ted cruz and jindal. I guess according to their reasoning, a state, like Texas or Louisiana, can re institute segregation in schools, cuz ya know, those states were not a party to that decision either. What crappola. What idiots..so 19th century.
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....the "fun" continues in them thar nether regions....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"South Carolina church fire: Mt. Zion AME burns in Greeleyville
Source: CNN.com

(CNN)A fire broke out at the Mt. Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church in Greeleyville, South Carolina, on Tuesday. Up to 50 firefighters fought to extinguish the blaze, a fire official said.

As yet, authorities do not know what caused it, said Williamsburg County Fire Chief Randy Swinton.

The local sheriff, local police and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division have also responded to the fire at the traditionally black church.

The FBI and five agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is also investigating, said ATF Special Agent Tom Mangan."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/us/south-carolina-church-fire-mount-zion-ame/

Cheers
 
Re:

Scott SoCal said:
I posted that article just a few days ago. And I will re-iterate the main point. The church has so many more protections than the business sector.

"So yes, the logic of gay-marriage rights could lead to a reexamination of conservative churches’ tax exemptions (although, as long as the IRS is afraid of challenging Scientology’s exemption, everyone else is probably safe)."
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Re: Re:

Glenn_Wilson said:
Scott SoCal said:
Your just running sh!t up a flagpole and it sucks to be you,,, You homophobe, bigot and a right wing fundamentalist.

No way that Time magazine would have a story like that! They know constitutional law.
I know... Or so I've been told. <yawn>

Of course going after tax exempt status is a very different thing than forcing churches to perform services. Me thinks some doth protest too much.

And to be clear, I think there's a very good argument to be made for stripping churches and non-profits from tax exempt status. With the recent public comments of the ACLU (hypocrites doesn't even begin to describe the ACLU, but that's a different discussion) voicing their interpretation or "fears" of discrimination I believe those that want to push it have been given the signal to do so. My opinion.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
Oct 6, 2009
5,273
0
0
Re:

blutto said:
....the "fun" continues in them thar nether regions....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"South Carolina church fire: Mt. Zion AME burns in Greeleyville
Source: CNN.com

(CNN)A fire broke out at the Mt. Zion African Methodist Episcopal Church in Greeleyville, South Carolina, on Tuesday. Up to 50 firefighters fought to extinguish the blaze, a fire official said.

As yet, authorities do not know what caused it, said Williamsburg County Fire Chief Randy Swinton.

The local sheriff, local police and the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division have also responded to the fire at the traditionally black church.

The FBI and five agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is also investigating, said ATF Special Agent Tom Mangan."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/30/us/south-carolina-church-fire-mount-zion-ame/

Cheers
There are more church fires than just that one. Several states have had similar events.

That Klan rally at the South Carolina state house is apparently going to include this:
We’re standing up for the Confederacy," James Spears, the chapter's "great titan," said on Tuesday.

He said speakers would address slavery, then the Klan will hold a cross-lighting, or cross-burning, ceremony on private property.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/30/us-usa-south-carolina-klan-idUSKCN0PA11920150630

Alabama had the sensible way to handle all this. Get the flag down quickly with no circus. The SC rules were written to preclude this. After the display we had to have over taking the flag off the capitol dome (SCV honor guard to handle it and reverently raise it over the dead soldiers' monument), god only knows what kind of rigamarole they will have when they finally take it down for good.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
1
0
Re: Re:

Scott SoCal said:
Glenn_Wilson said:
Scott SoCal said:
Your just running sh!t up a flagpole and it sucks to be you,,, You homophobe, bigot and a right wing fundamentalist.

No way that Time magazine would have a story like that! They know constitutional law.
I know... Or so I've been told. <yawn>

Of course going after tax exempt status is a very different thing than forcing churches to perform services. Me thinks some doth protest too much.

And to be clear, I think there's a very good argument to be made for stripping churches and non-profits from tax exempt status. With the recent public comments of the ACLU (hypocrites doesn't even begin to describe the ACLU, but that's a different discussion) voicing their interpretation or "fears" of discrimination I believe those that want to push it have been given the signal to do so. My opinion.
Well that was my initial thought---- was that the next step was someone challenging the churches right to refuse to perform services. I'm not saying I'm emotionally invested in this on either side of the discussion just that I think it is the next step in the fight.

Tax exempt status is something the government should have taken away a long time ago. You have all these tv. evangelist and oasis of love tabernacle of Christ almighty making huge coin off the parishioner's and living large.
 
Re: Re:

rhubroma said:
This is very simple J-Spear and it has to do with rationalizing a civil code on the one hand and legally weighing a concept of "discrimination" against the prerogatives of lifestyle versus religious belief, doctrine, faith, etc. on the other. Consequently not wanting to live by "their rules" is both a pathetic cop-out and a logical innanity. You would only be living by "their rules" if you were forced to engage in homosexual practices, or, heaven forbid, be forced to marry gays in your church (which the law does not require). This is so absurdly obvious, but evidently you needed it spelled out for you. So, let's repeat again shall we, you don't have to engage in or even approve of homosexuality, but you aren't allowed to discriminate in your business against gays. Period.

The US Supreme Court has come out and said, quite logically, that one's religious beliefs do not give one a free pass, nor absolve them of all responsibility, for discriminating against those for "immoral conduct" (in this case homosexuality), of course as they see it. This after having previously set down within a wider context that sexual orientation cannot be discriminated against in the job market, schools, commercially in any way shape or form. For instance a restaurant owner cannot refuse to serve someone for being gay, just as he/she cannot refuse to serve someone for being Christian (this, yes, would be discrimination), black, old, blue, green, whatever.

Let's say one's god said all Jews, or backs, or Muslims where vile, inferior and loathsome (I have obviously chosen categories for which such discrimination was the order of the day coming from the so called Christian moral majority), hence these shall be put in a ghetto, these enslaved and these organized crusades against. The Supreme Court cannot take this as justification to breach the law of the land, anymore than it has now in not conceding justification to bigots like yourself for discriminating against gays, because "God says it is immoral." Rightfully so the Supreme Court cannot accept as a basis for establishing law, the intransigence of sectarians who place themselves above others in society, but must legislate according to a principle that all citizens, no matter what their religion, race, gender or sexual orientation, are equal before the law.

Not only is your rational offensive, therefore, to any person of reason, but wreaks of the stinking hypocrisy by which you and your self-nominated righteous sect scorn any form of humanity that doesn't conform to the obscurantist viewpoint and appalling sense of morality. Yours, though, has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a vapid moralism of which every form of mendacity, injustice and crime has been committed throughout history. Now I ask myself, who are you to approve or condemn of anyone's behavior? You people are fine at emitting judgments and inflicting sentences, terrible though at solidarity, compassion and kindness, those things which as Christians should take precedent over all else.
I understand the tension that exists and have admitted that there has to be a point where you can't do what you want for the sake of your religion. The issue is, what is deemed as negative discrimination. Everyone has limits as to what they will allow themselves to do - everyone at some point is going to "discriminate" - It might mean politely telling someone you can't help them. I also understand what the law says. You don't have to spell it out for me, I get it. I'm saying it's wrong. I'll spell my view out. A business person should be able to decline to do something that is going against his faith. This too is protected by the constitution. In "protecting" the gays you are now violating the rights of another group. Notice I didn't say he can't sell things to people who live a different lifestyle. I'm not saying discriminate against gays. I personally would have no problem selling something to a gay person. I interact with people of differing views everyday. So, I get what you're saying, but I disagree. If business men and woman don't have this protection we will continue to see abuse (no I'm not talking about physical abuse - simply individuals going out of business.) And to those who are saying I'm acting hurt, I'm not. I'm not even defending myself. I have never been in a situation where I've had to tell a gay person I couldn't help them.

I'm sorry that you've only met "christians" of this sort. You've definitely got a skewed view....not my experience at all.
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
rhubroma said:
This is very simple J-Spear and it has to do with rationalizing a civil code on the one hand and legally weighing a concept of "discrimination" against the prerogatives of lifestyle versus religious belief, doctrine, faith, etc. on the other. Consequently not wanting to live by "their rules" is both a pathetic cop-out and a logical innanity. You would only be living by "their rules" if you were forced to engage in homosexual practices, or, heaven forbid, be forced to marry gays in your church (which the law does not require). This is so absurdly obvious, but evidently you needed it spelled out for you. So, let's repeat again shall we, you don't have to engage in or even approve of homosexuality, but you aren't allowed to discriminate in your business against gays. Period.

The US Supreme Court has come out and said, quite logically, that one's religious beliefs do not give one a free pass, nor absolve them of all responsibility, for discriminating against those for "immoral conduct" (in this case homosexuality), of course as they see it. This after having previously set down within a wider context that sexual orientation cannot be discriminated against in the job market, schools, commercially in any way shape or form. For instance a restaurant owner cannot refuse to serve someone for being gay, just as he/she cannot refuse to serve someone for being Christian (this, yes, would be discrimination), black, old, blue, green, whatever.

Let's say one's god said all Jews, or backs, or Muslims where vile, inferior and loathsome (I have obviously chosen categories for which such discrimination was the order of the day coming from the so called Christian moral majority), hence these shall be put in a ghetto, these enslaved and these organized crusades against. The Supreme Court cannot take this as justification to breach the law of the land, anymore than it has now in not conceding justification to bigots like yourself for discriminating against gays, because "God says it is immoral." Rightfully so the Supreme Court cannot accept as a basis for establishing law, the intransigence of sectarians who place themselves above others in society, but must legislate according to a principle that all citizens, no matter what their religion, race, gender or sexual orientation, are equal before the law.

Not only is your rational offensive, therefore, to any person of reason, but wreaks of the stinking hypocrisy by which you and your self-nominated righteous sect scorn any form of humanity that doesn't conform to the obscurantist viewpoint and appalling sense of morality. Yours, though, has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a vapid moralism of which every form of mendacity, injustice and crime has been committed throughout history. Now I ask myself, who are you to approve or condemn of anyone's behavior? You people are fine at emitting judgments and inflicting sentences, terrible though at solidarity, compassion and kindness, those things which as Christians should take precedent over all else.
I understand the tension that exists and have admitted that there has to be a point where you can't do what you want for the sake of your religion. The issue is, what is deemed as negative discrimination. Everyone has limits as to what they will allow themselves to do - everyone at some point is going to "discriminate" - It might mean politely telling someone you can't help them. I also understand what the law says. You don't have to spell it out for me, I get it. I'm saying it's wrong. I'll spell my view out. A business person should be able to decline to do something that is going against his faith. This too is protected by the constitution. In "protecting" the gays you are now violating the rights of another group. Notice I didn't say he can't sell things to people who live a different lifestyle. I'm not saying discriminate against gays. I personally would have no problem selling something to a gay person. I interact with people of differing views everyday. So, I get what you're saying, but I disagree. If business men and woman don't have this protection we will continue to see abuse (no I'm not talking about physical abuse - simply individuals going out of business.) And to those who are saying I'm acting hurt, I'm not. I'm not even defending myself. I have never been in a situation where I've had to tell a gay person I couldn't help them.

I'm sorry that you've only met "christians" of this sort. You've definitely got a skewed view....not my experience at all.
There is no such thing as reverse discrimination in situations for which this implies a negation of the original fact of discrimination, as is here the case.

One of course is free to give one's verdict on the right or wrong status of a law based on absolute religious morality. However, being so big on free will et all, I'd have at least thought that you were willing to recognize non-compliance as a very personal form of protest, which though comes with its legal (and possible economic) ramifications, in addition to creating a vile portrait of bigots of which you seem (what a surprise) to be so unconscious. In other words, own up to it man and stop taking access to a false concept of reverse-discrimination to use as a mendacious alibi for ones own bigotry and egregious behavior.

One wonders why its worth it? Perhaps because you think the Almighty will punish you for providing gays with such a service?
 
As a person who sees gay marriage wrong for religious reasons and someone who does not do things for religious reasons I can see why people would not want to be involved in a gay marriage by providing services for that marriage. But how far do you take it? What happens if you are a cleaner at a place that sometimes hosts weddings and you become aware there is going to be a gay marriage? Do you refuse to clean the floors because you are doing it for a gay marriage?
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Re: Re:

Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
If they want to marry, just don't ask me (assuming I'm the business dude) to get involved. That's what I'm saying.
You are not involved (as a business dude) in the gay lifestyle just because you bake them a friggen' cake. God damn you guys are a sensitive lot. Do you really have to approve of every lifestyle choice of every individual that you interact with in the business world? You guys are fuc**d if that is the minimum that you have set the bar at. I can not give two f**ks for your religious beliefs, not even one, but I will still treat you like a regular human being in any interaction that we have here in what I like to call "real life".
I think Ricky Gervais summed it up best:

"Same sex marriage isn't gay privilege. It's equal rights. Privilege would be something like gays not paying taxes. Like churches don't."
 
Jul 4, 2009
9,666
0
0
....good point ?....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No ‘Je Suis Charleston’?

by AJAMU BARAKA


Where are the international marches of solidarity with African Americans? The statements from world leaders condemning the terrorist attack and calling on U.S. Authorities to crack down on the white nationalist terror networks developing in the U.S.? Where are the marches in white communities condemning racism and standing with black people? Why no ‘Je Suis Charleston’?

The fact that these questions are not being raised by most people speaks to the adroit way in which the propagandists of the U.S. state, with the corporate media in lockstep, successfully domesticated and depoliticized the murderous attack in Charleston, South Carolina.

Cheers
 
Re: Re:

Jspear said:
rhubroma said:
This is very simple J-Spear and it has to do with rationalizing a civil code on the one hand and legally weighing a concept of "discrimination" against the prerogatives of lifestyle versus religious belief, doctrine, faith, etc. on the other. Consequently not wanting to live by "their rules" is both a pathetic cop-out and a logical innanity. You would only be living by "their rules" if you were forced to engage in homosexual practices, or, heaven forbid, be forced to marry gays in your church (which the law does not require). This is so absurdly obvious, but evidently you needed it spelled out for you. So, let's repeat again shall we, you don't have to engage in or even approve of homosexuality, but you aren't allowed to discriminate in your business against gays. Period.

The US Supreme Court has come out and said, quite logically, that one's religious beliefs do not give one a free pass, nor absolve them of all responsibility, for discriminating against those for "immoral conduct" (in this case homosexuality), of course as they see it. This after having previously set down within a wider context that sexual orientation cannot be discriminated against in the job market, schools, commercially in any way shape or form. For instance a restaurant owner cannot refuse to serve someone for being gay, just as he/she cannot refuse to serve someone for being Christian (this, yes, would be discrimination), black, old, blue, green, whatever.

Let's say one's god said all Jews, or backs, or Muslims where vile, inferior and loathsome (I have obviously chosen categories for which such discrimination was the order of the day coming from the so called Christian moral majority), hence these shall be put in a ghetto, these enslaved and these organized crusades against. The Supreme Court cannot take this as justification to breach the law of the land, anymore than it has now in not conceding justification to bigots like yourself for discriminating against gays, because "God says it is immoral." Rightfully so the Supreme Court cannot accept as a basis for establishing law, the intransigence of sectarians who place themselves above others in society, but must legislate according to a principle that all citizens, no matter what their religion, race, gender or sexual orientation, are equal before the law.

Not only is your rational offensive, therefore, to any person of reason, but wreaks of the stinking hypocrisy by which you and your self-nominated righteous sect scorn any form of humanity that doesn't conform to the obscurantist viewpoint and appalling sense of morality. Yours, though, has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with a vapid moralism of which every form of mendacity, injustice and crime has been committed throughout history. Now I ask myself, who are you to approve or condemn of anyone's behavior? You people are fine at emitting judgments and inflicting sentences, terrible though at solidarity, compassion and kindness, those things which as Christians should take precedent over all else.
I understand the tension that exists and have admitted that there has to be a point where you can't do what you want for the sake of your religion. The issue is, what is deemed as negative discrimination.
What is "negative discrimination"? Is there another kind? The word itself has a powerful and undeniable negative connotation. Since "negative discrimination" is clearly redundant, I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to draw.

Everyone has limits as to what they will allow themselves to do - everyone at some point is going to "discriminate" - It might mean politely telling someone you can't help them.
Of course everyone does it, certainly we can all agree on that, but this is why we have laws, so that there is recourse for people who are discriminated against and penalties for the undesirable behavior. As such, I am again left wondering what your point is in this case.

I also understand what the law says. You don't have to spell it out for me, I get it. I'm saying it's wrong. I'll spell my view out. A business person should be able to decline to do something that is going against his faith. This too is protected by the constitution.
It is understandable and natural that you think a law "should" be enacted differently. We all have similar feelings on constitutional questions, and likely all have seen interpretations of the law which we don't like. We might even feel the constitution is in error or outdated in some cases and would like the wording changed or clarified.

But you keep saying things like "this too is protected by the constitution". What is your argument for this? I have previously laid out arguments about why it is specifically not protected. There is no commerce clause. The free exercise of religion is not impacted. Specific case law repeatedly rules in favor of equal protection over discrimination no matter the basis, and specifically about religion. Religion was often cited in interracial marriage cases and has been completely refuted citing equal protection. How is this different? Not how is it different to your religion, but how is it legally different? If you can't make that case, you can't make the argument that it's protected by the constitution. Repeating the assertion does not make the argument.

In "protecting" the gays you are now violating the rights of another group. Notice I didn't say he can't sell things to people who live a different lifestyle. I'm not saying discriminate against gays. I personally would have no problem selling something to a gay person. I interact with people of differing views everyday. So, I get what you're saying, but I disagree. If business men and woman don't have this protection we will continue to see abuse (no I'm not talking about physical abuse - simply individuals going out of business.) And to those who are saying I'm acting hurt, I'm not. I'm not even defending myself. I have never been in a situation where I've had to tell a gay person I couldn't help them.
If you want specific protection for this commerce case, which is discrimination, you need to pass an amendment, as the current constitution simply does not support your argument no matter how much you want it to.

I'm sorry that you've only met "christians" of this sort. You've definitely got a skewed view....not my experience at all.
It's certainly not my experience either. It is however the dominant political voice of Christianity in this country. In stark contrast is the current Pope, who eschews battles over this kind of thing and focuses completely on compassion and social justice for the poor and unrepresented of the world. This is the voice of Christianity which not only don't we hear in the political arena, but a voice which is actively fought and attacked by the right in this country.

In my experience local churches focus much more on the message of kindness and charity than does the voice of the Christian right. But my church in California would be considered heretical by many Christians in this country. We have a gay pastor who lives in the rectory with his partner.
 
Re:

"Rachel Maddow last night was talking about these states where the Bernie Sanders campaign puts out a notice of a campaign rally, and within 24 hours gets so many RSVPs that they have to move to the local sports arena to house the 9,000 or 10,000 people that turn up on such short notice. "

Several times the idea of a Sanders- Clinton ticket has landed in my head. It seems like a very "electable" ticket, but even more importantly, they could be a good team in WA DC. I know that the chances are slim to none but...
 
There are a lot more than just churches that arguably should have tax-exempt status removed. When you think about it, what really constitutes a true non-profit? When you think "non-profit" what do you think of? I picture things like soup kitchens feeding homeless people, or animal rescues. Places where no matter what happens, they're not likely to ever really make any tangible money, and you can see their actual work making the world a better place.

Then there are other non-profits, like the NFL. The NFL??? Yes, until just recently, the NFL was a non-profit. The teams themselves have been for-profit, but not the league. Things like league offices, travel expenses, even their lobbying, all tax-exempt. Not that this really mattered, the NFL paid $0 in taxes last year anyway. How? Because they earned $294 million and spent $308 million, for a year-end deficit of more than $13 million. They actually "lost" money. So no taxes are needed to be paid. I believe the NHL, and PGA are still non-profit.

The New York Stock Exchange was a non profit for decades. It's CEO earned over $140m in 2006 alone.

Ever hear of the Kids Wish Network? No, not the Make a Wish Foundation. The Kids Wish Network. 97 cents on every dollar goes into pockets of the operators of the business. Did you know they have given nearly $110 million to corporate solicitors? They're basically a money laundering organization, with a heartwarming name.

Most political groups, both sides of the fence, are shrouded in various non-profit groups. This has to be the ugliest there is. It's basically tax-exempt bribery. Just like the political parties themselves! Yep, they're tax-exempt non-profit too. Want to rub shoulders with the plutocrats? Play the bribery game too? It's easier than ever, and you can write it off on your taxes even!

Churches by law cannot however endorse candidates. Keep that in mind. But when it comes to tax-exempt status, they are only one of many, whether they like gays or not.
 
So while we are talking about tax exempt organizations, how about St. hospitals? One of our local "non profit" St. hospitals grossed over a billion dollars last year (in an area with less than a million people, and another major hospital in town). I know it all a matter of moving the money correctly, but come on.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
There is no suitable topic that this fits into, but I really want to bring the following to everyone's attention.

If you don't know who Sir Nicholas Winton was, please look him up. He saved over 600 Jewish children from the Nazis. One of the greatest humanitarians of our age has died today, age 106. RIP, good sir.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_nFuJAF5F0
 
Re: Re:

VeloCity said:
Hugh Januss said:
Jspear said:
If they want to marry, just don't ask me (assuming I'm the business dude) to get involved. That's what I'm saying.
You are not involved (as a business dude) in the gay lifestyle just because you bake them a friggen' cake. God damn you guys are a sensitive lot. Do you really have to approve of every lifestyle choice of every individual that you interact with in the business world? You guys are fuc**d if that is the minimum that you have set the bar at. I can not give two f**ks for your religious beliefs, not even one, but I will still treat you like a regular human being in any interaction that we have here in what I like to call "real life".
I think Ricky Gervais summed it up best:

"Same sex marriage isn't gay privilege. It's equal rights. Privilege would be something like gays not paying taxes. Like churches don't."
Indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY