The Gay Thread - Page 13 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-26-2014, 09:39 PM   #181
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I love trick questions.

The answer of course is that if they ever stopped they'd no longer be liberal, activist judges.

Is there any state that's safe?
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-26-2014, 09:51 PM   #182
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Southern Democrats. Who became Republicans after -- not surprisingly -- the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Yes, the more Republican the south became the less racist it became, thanks for validating my point.


By the way, the south turned Red, not because of hand-me-down racism, but because of Republicans fleeing the taxes and unions of the northeast and Rust Belt and because air conditioning made the South more habitable.
You can look that up to.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-26-2014, 09:57 PM   #183
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Yes, the more Republican the south became the less racist it became, thanks for validating my point.


By the way, the south turned Red, not because of hand-me-down racism, but because of Republicans fleeing the taxes and unions of the northeast and Rust Belt and because air conditioning made the South more habitable.
You can look that up to.


Stop for a moment. Put the revisionism aside. Continue to ignore Nixon.

Are you really contending, in 2014, that there is less racism in the GOP than in the Democraric Party?

If you were a racist, which party would you vote for?

(Also, could it be that the judges aren't liberal or activist but simply Constituonally correct? There's been a lot of judges in a lot of different states in a lot of different courts appointed by a lot of different presidents who have arrived at the same understanding that marriage amendments are unconstitutional).
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-26-2014, 10:28 PM   #184
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,344
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Wow, you really think highly of your fellow countrymen don't you? A nation of bigots rather than the most tolerant nation on earth.
What does that even mean? Where did I say any of that? But, for what it's worth, we definitely don't live in the most tolerant nation on earth. Nice try.

Quote:
C'mon, the Arizona bill is kinda soft on the genocide of gays.
Maybe you should read up on Nazism. There's a little more to it than just genocide. It's a social hierarchy where they believe Jews are morally greedy, wrong individuals who are responsible for their problems. Genocide followed that.

Quote:
Do you know how we got to this point? The proponents of SSM did not heed the warning of the Vertigo Tour and "became a monster to kill the monster." That's how we got here.
Again... WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? You don't make any sense at all.

Quote:
Reread the First Amendment and tell me what it says about the free exercise of religion.
Okay, I did just that. This is what is says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Hmm. Seems like making laws favoring establishment of religion is unconstitutional. You know, the whole... separation of church and state thing...
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-26-2014, 10:31 PM   #185
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 03:36 PM
"Those in control of this state need to stop fighting the future. They must stop governing by fear. They must stop pretending there’s some security blanket in laws that treat others unfairly,” – Texas Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman Kirk Watson.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-26-2014, 10:59 PM   #186
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,862
Local Time: 04:36 PM
My mother is a conservative (or independent I guess but tends to lean conservative) but is rather non-plussed by all of this. I told her about the Arizona veto and she just said, "Man, things are really picking up steam with the gay rights stuff, huh?"
__________________
PhilsFan is online now  
Old 02-27-2014, 12:01 AM   #187
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Do you know how we got to this point? The proponents of SSM did not heed the warning of the Vertigo Tour and "became a monster to kill the monster." That's how we got here.
blaming the victim? how conservative.



Quote:
Reread the First Amendment and tell me what it says about the free exercise of religion.

this should be helpful:

Quote:
It seems like this election season "religious liberty" is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.

I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it "How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions." Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

In closing, no matter what soundbites you hear this election year, remember this: Religious liberty is never secured by a campaign of religious superiority. The only way to ensure your own religious liberty remains strong is by advocating for the religious liberty of all, including those with whom you may passionately disagree. Because they deserve the same rights as you. Nothing more. Nothing less.

How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions | Rev. Emily C. Heath
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-27-2014, 12:11 AM   #188
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Wow. That is so awesome.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 12:12 AM   #189
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,332
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Yes, the more Republican the south became the less racist it became, thanks for validating my point.
Wow. He believes this?

(I use the third person because Indy has me on ignore, as far as I can tell.)
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 12:45 AM   #190
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,344
Local Time: 04:36 PM
I was going to shrug most of it off, until I was humorously told to brush up my reading on the first amendment. The actual language in it really makes me wonder how such a law needed to even be vetoed. It's a clear violation of the idea of separation of religious establishment and government by having a law that allows you to invoke your religious belief on others to their disadvantage.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-27-2014, 11:25 AM   #191
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I was going to shrug most of it off, until I was humorously told to brush up my reading on the first amendment. The actual language in it really makes me wonder how such a law needed to even be vetoed.

It's a clear violation of the idea of separation of religious establishment and government by having a law that allows you to invoke your religious belief on others to their disadvantage.
You do understand that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the power of government right? Empowering individuals or private entities to act in accordance with their individual religious conscience is the complete opposite of the iron fist of government compelling an individual or private entity to act against those beliefs.

Hysterical critics would have you believe the bill was an imprimatur for legal discrimination when in fact it only restores or restates the sovereignty of the individual regarding religious conscience. Oh no!!

Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 12:08 PM   #192
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 03:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.
Question: If a state government passes a bill that allows people to discriminate against others based on their religious conscience, how is that any different than a state sanctioned, top-down law of discrimination?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 02-27-2014, 12:19 PM   #193
ONE
love, blood, life
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Leicester, UK
Posts: 12,344
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
You do understand that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the power of government right? Empowering individuals or private entities to act in accordance with their individual religious conscience is the complete opposite of the iron fist of government compelling an individual or private entity to act against those beliefs.

Hysterical critics would have you believe the bill was an imprimatur for legal discrimination when in fact it only restores or restates the sovereignty of the individual regarding religious conscience. Oh no!!

Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.
I'm still waiting for you to give me a logical response on using religion to cease service to other religions.
__________________
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 02-27-2014, 12:23 PM   #194
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
You do understand that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the power of government right? Empowering individuals or private entities to act in accordance with their individual religious conscience is the complete opposite of the iron fist of government compelling an individual or private entity to act against those beliefs.

against government intrusion, yes, but you cannot use your religious beliefs to take away the rights of other citizens.

the government cannot tell you how to practice your religion unless it goes against the law (i.e., a cop cannot refuse to respond to domestic violence even though his religion might tell him that husbands must beat their wives). however, it is against the law to use your religious practices to limit the rights of others.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-27-2014, 12:25 PM   #195
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,472
Local Time: 04:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.

and this would have been state sanctioned, top-down laws enabling business owners to say, "we don't serve your kind here," so long as it was a "religious belief."

__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com