The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

Err, you DO realise that she is talking about a JUDGE, right?
A public servant, a highly important public servant being ruled not by law, but by personal religion.
As for personal property, still waiting for you to deal with lease holders and your idea's becoming law.
I won't hold my breath however.

I do realize she's talking about a judge. Who was talking about his religion in the article that was originally quoted. Or is it that you don't think anyone who has strong religious beliefs should be eligible to be a judge?

As far as the lease holders, I've dealt with that as much as I'm going to. They own the LAND, not the business. If the lease (or the law) doesn't restrict a particular activity, he can't stop it under the current lease. If he wants to rewrite the terms when it's up for renewal, he can, but until that time, his hands are tied.

As for the law, regarding that Colorado bakery, we shall see which way SCOTUS rules on that. I expect it to be in favor of the bakery owner.

[aretood2]

What isn't freedom of religion?
He has the freedom to practice the religion he wants without interference.

Is anyone saying he can't be a Baptist? Nope, no one's saying that, not even me.

From your own Constitution:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from encouraging or promoting ("establishing") religion in any way. That's why we don't have an official religion of the United States.

But he takes his believes to his work, and that's where the problem begins. If someone's guided by their religion to judge other people in say a court of law -- he's definitely breaking the above clause, and infusing his religious views with the views of the law which demands a certain level of objectivity.

I'm probably explaining it wrong, but I do not trust someone who says that his church openly discriminates so he's entirely in his right to follow their example to do the same, because his "religion" says it's okay to do so. He puts religion over law.

Is he handing out judgements considering things other than the law? Or are baptists simply not allowed to be judges much like Trump doesn't think Mexican-Americans shouldn't be judges?

Let me think about that one -- a Baptist church which dignifies discrimination because an old book dictates being homosexual is wrong. Cases which literally discuss a license to discriminate because of religious views. Opposing marriage equality (and no, when I mention that I'm not talking getting married before whatever god in a church because that's what most are always on about -- religion does not have a monopoly on marriage, but equal access to the benefits which automatically go into effect when a couple weds before the law), the ridiculous notion that women have to be controlled and have no say over their own bodies (the leaked memo is another brilliant bit of ignorance at work).

The methods may be different, but the result is the same: oppression of one group or another by using religious views to justify the oppression and discrimination.

This however is a ridiculous comparison. Just like a certain set of posters here that only see things in two extremes never considering that there might just be a more complex spectrum that any group or individual might fall into. Nope. You're either ISIS or a rainbow flag waving member of the Gay Straight Alliance. Can't be anything in between.

That said, then France is like ISIS too. So is Germany. Because they restrict religious freedom from outlawing conservative clothing to circumcision. Let's add the entire US into ISIS because abortion is limited. IN fact, ISIS is a whole lot more widespread...most of the world is just like ISIS.

Wait, I'm a hypocrit?

Read below.

I'm not sure which way Tood meant that. It could be republicans defending trump when they were willing to hold endless hearings over Bhenghazi, or it could be Democrats engaging in the same behaviour that they previously found stupid.

More about the Republicans. Democrats haven't gotten anywhere near as annoying about it yet.

Err, you DO realise that she is talking about a JUDGE, right?
A public servant, a highly important public servant being ruled not by law, but by personal religion.
As for personal property, still waiting for you to deal with lease holders and your idea's becoming law.
I won't hold my breath however.

The problem is that the argument seems to be "Because of his religion, he is not allowed to be a judge"...I'll refrain from making a spurious comparison to the most extreme groups on earth, but the question should always be is he judging based on the law? If so, it's a non-issue.

[Gatefan1976]

The problem is that the argument seems to be "Because of his religion, he is not allowed to be a judge"...I'll refrain from making a spurious comparison to the most extreme groups on earth, but the question should always be is he judging based on the law? If so, it's a non-issue.

If judges were not in a position to effect laws, I would not care what they believed in.

[Annoyed]

Another thing freedom of religion means is that you can't disqualify someone from a job based upon his religion, can you?

[Gatefan1976]

Another thing freedom of religion means is that you can't disqualify someone from a job based upon his religion, can you?

The government can't, but according to you, business can.

[Falcon Horus]

Who knows is referring to the narrowly defined area's smokers are allowed to engage in their taxed out the arse habit, cause if a NS comes into the smoking area and complains, they would cop a mouthful from me.
We pay all the tax, but we have to follow the rules imposed by those paying nothing, and to a degree, I am not that fussed, second hand smoke and such is a problem, and smokers should be considerate and aware of that.
Where I draw a bright line is when a NS comes into the designated area and has a whinge.

In that case, he should have mentioned that cause I agree... A NS walking into a designated smoking area should know he/she/they will get smoke coming their ways.

But that is "Freedom of Religion"; if they wish to, a person can rigidly adhere to the dictates of their church, or disregard them entirely, or choose not to follow any religion. By definition, that's what freedom of religion is.

Nope, that's called being a mindless drone, hiding behind his church to justify his believe that it's okay to discriminate, in this case, on sexual orientation.

In which case, how do you feel he could obectively look at a case that deals with exactly that. He will be prejudiced, which takes every bit of objectivity away from him. He would be taking his believe-system to work with him, and as a judge he should uphold secular law, not religious law.

The definition of freedom of religion is that you can practice your religion freely, without interference, without persacution, without oppression. Or to be free to not practice.
It doesn't say anything of being a mindless drone to your teachings -- they are more like guidelines, than actual rules, and open to interpretation (leave out one word, and the meaning can change entirely).

I do realize she's talking about a judge. Who was talking about his religion in the article that was originally quoted. Or is it that you don't think anyone who has strong religious beliefs should be eligible to be a judge?

They can be anything, as long as they leave their religion at the door. The law is secular, not religious.

As for the law, regarding that Colorado bakery, we shall see which way SCOTUS rules on that. I expect it to be in favor of the bakery owner.

Of course, you would love that.

Didn't expect anything less.... I hope you enjoy the stone age your country is heading into.
Where the middle class looses everything and the 1% gains everything.

[Annoyed]

Nope, that's called being a mindless drone, hiding behind his church to justify his believe that it's okay to discriminate, in this case, on sexual orientation.

In which case, how do you feel he could obectively look at a case that deals with exactly that. He will be prejudiced, which takes every bit of objectivity away from him. He would be taking his believe-system to work with him, and as a judge he should uphold secular law, not religious law.

The definition of freedom of religion is that you can practice your religion freely, without interference, without persacution, without oppression. Or to be free to not practice.
It doesn't say anything of being a mindless drone to your teachings -- they are more like guidelines, than actual rules, and open to interpretation (leave out one word, and the meaning can change entirely).



They can be anything, as long as they leave their religion at the door. The law is secular, not religious.

Aren't you making an assumption that he will decide cases based on his religious faith? If that's the case, how do you explain myself? For example, you know where I stand on the bakery case; the private business can operate as its owner sees fit, and the govt. can't force him to offer services that conflict his religion. I'm an agnostic, so religion doesn't come into play for me. My position is based on the limitations of the govt.
How do you know that judge won't base his decision on the same facts?

[Gatefan1976]

Aren't you making an assumption that he will decide cases based on his religious faith? If that's the case, how do you explain myself? For example, you know where I stand on the bakery case; the private business can operate as its owner sees fit, and the govt. can't force him to offer services that conflict his religion. I'm an agnostic, so religion doesn't come into play for me. My position is based on the limitations of the govt.
How do you know that judge won't base his decision on the same facts?

How cute, you think you are agnostic.
Buddy, you may not believe in "god", but you have decades of non questioning belief in their interpretation of "moral compass"

You complain about not being allowed into nightclubs, yet want to enforce -your- choices on others.
You hold business as sacrosanct, but ignore the reasons why the constitution forbade government (IE total power) the same power you give business.

In short, you have been duped, and because corporations are not covered by the constitution, you push for them to keep on bending you over.

[Annoyed]

How cute, you think you are agnostic.
Buddy, you may not believe in "god", but you have decades of non questioning belief in their interpretation of "moral compass"

You complain about not being allowed into nightclubs, yet want to enforce -your- choices on others.
You hold business as sacrosanct, but ignore the reasons why the constitution forbade government (IE total power) the same power you give business.

In short, you have been duped, and because corporations are not covered by the constitution, you push for them to keep on bending you over.

Who says it's their interpretation of a moral compass? I can't have definitions of right and wrong on my own?

I do not complain about not being admitted to nightclubs (I haven't even wanted to go in what? almost 30 years? ) I just use that as an example to demonstrate that business do have the legal right to choose whom they serve and whom they don't.

As far as corporations being allowed to place restrictions that the govt. can't, that's how our system is set up. You can't destroy that without destroying what we are as a country.

[aretood2]

Who says it's their interpretation of a moral compass? I can't have definitions of right and wrong on my own?

I do not complain about not being admitted to nightclubs (I haven't even wanted to go in what? almost 30 years? ) I just use that as an example to demonstrate that business do have the legal right to choose whom they serve and whom they don't.

As far as corporations being allowed to place restrictions that the govt. can't, that's how our system is set up. You can't destroy that without destroying what we are as a country.

Seeing as corporations are a relatively new thing...I'm not sure how you figure this at all. Since when is our identity based on the need to have companies assume the role of governance with no limitations in our lives?

[Gatefan1976]

Who says it's their interpretation of a moral compass? I can't have definitions of right and wrong on my own?

Of course you can, IF, and only IF you bother to seek them out, otherwise we merely parrot what we were taught or indoctrinated with as kids.
Have you -ever- sat down and asked yourself WHY you think gays are "bad"?
Or Abortion?
Or Equal rights?
Did you arrive to these conclusions, or were you merely doing what you were told as a kid?
If the answer is no, you are hardly unique.

I do not complain about not being admitted to nightclubs (I haven't even wanted to go in what? almost 30 years? ) I just use that as an example to demonstrate that business do have the legal right to choose whom they serve and whom they don't.

And you have been told over, and over and OVER again that it could be challenged and that the "raving lefties" would stand by your challenge because barring drunken behaviour, you have no real right to refuse service or admittance. It's not my fault you cannot appreciate the difference between law and tolerance of breaking the law.

As far as corporations being allowed to place restrictions that the govt. can't, that's how our system is set up. You can't destroy that without destroying what we are as a country.

Do you -ever- get tired of holding your ankles?

[Annoyed]

Of course you can, IF, and only IF you bother to seek them out, otherwise we merely parrot what we were taught or indoctrinated with as kids.
Have you -ever- sat down and asked yourself WHY you think gays are "bad"?
Or Abortion?
Or Equal rights?
Did you arrive to these conclusions, or were you merely doing what you were told as a kid?
If the answer is no, you are hardly unique.

When have I ever said gays are bad? What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is none of my business unless I am expected to pay for it in some way.

The objections I have to gays is related to their insistence that their rights be elevated above those of others. The Bakery case is a perfect example of that. The bakery owner's right to operate his business as he sees fit is being trampled on, so far.

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

As far as equal rights, I have no objection to EQUAL rights. I have strong objections to preferential treatment, however. Affirmative action, quotas, set asides and whatnot.

[Gatefan1976]

When have I ever said gays are bad? What two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is none of my business unless I am expected to pay for it in some way.

Yet, you support those who have the power to affect them in their own home.
You are guilty via proxy.

The objections I have to gays is related to their insistence that their rights be elevated above those of others. The Bakery case is a perfect example of that. The bakery owner's right to operate his business as he sees fit is being trampled on, so far.

Can I as a straight white guy get a cake -ANYWHERE-?
YES.
Gay bakers would make me a cake, anyone would make me a cake.
I want gay people's rights not to be "better" than mine, but EQUAL to mine, like women, or anyone else.
Where in the USA can you go and get discriminated against JUST for being a white guy who likes women??

Abortion is murder, plain and simple.

WHY?

Annoyed is a moron, plain and simple, don't ask me to justify that statement, you just are a moron.

As far as equal rights, I have no objection to EQUAL rights. I have strong objections to preferential treatment, however. Affirmative action, quotas, set asides and whatnot.

NONE of those things would exist if there were no need for them. If employers or schools treated Adam, Achmal and Adrienne the same, there would be no need for it.
I don't want preferred treatment, but if you refuse to let "the other" in without needing to be coerced then you are giving preferential treatment.

[Womble]

As far as corporations being allowed to place restrictions that the govt. can't, that's how our system is set up. You can't destroy that without destroying what we are as a country.

What ARE you as a country, again?

[Gatefan1976]

What ARE you as a country, again?

Cows with guns?