- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Are corporations people?
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:28 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:28 pm to buckeye_vol
You were clearly separating "optional" religious beliefs with "required" religious beliefs, all to be defined by government.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:29 pm to boosiebadazz
I'll save you from looking it up, he didn't. Not to the degree that I was going for.
This post was edited on 3/21/17 at 11:36 pm
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:35 pm to texashorn
quote:The other poster was referring to a different example, of a group of 90 students in Colorado singing religious songs and what have you. And for a while the school felt it was fine, until it got that big.
You were clearly separating "optional" religious beliefs with "required" religious beliefs, all to be defined by government.
BUT I also said if the school was going to allow that then they would have to allow it for any other religion.
Since he was trying to use that as evidence of Christian banning, in comparison of the Texas school. So yes, in that case, I thought Texas allowing a required prayer of indivdual students was a more reasonable accommodation than a school in Colorado having concerns about a group of near 100 students singing religious songs and having religious discussions as an organized entity.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:36 pm to Masterag
quote:
Are corporations people?
Yes.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:39 pm to buckeye_vol
No, I recall you deeming the Catholic crucifix as optional and the Muslim prayer as mandatory. As in, favoring a court ruling to that effect.
I sure noticed a lot of optional Muslim prayer rugs in that room. Why not a Catholic crucifix?
I sure noticed a lot of optional Muslim prayer rugs in that room. Why not a Catholic crucifix?
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:41 pm to texashorn
quote:No I said the student had to bring it. In other words, the school couldn't provide it.
No, I recall you deeming the Catholic crucifix as optional
Just like the Muslim students should bring their own rugs.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:48 pm to buckeye_vol
I don't remember it quite like that. You did say "bring the crucifix," but you never answered about hanging it on a wall (such as an already established coat hook) or who would go first with their prayers out loud.
You were very adamant that Muslims prayers out loud were mandatory and that Christian prayers were optional to be said to oneself, therefore the Christians should keep to themselves.
You were very adamant that Muslims prayers out loud were mandatory and that Christian prayers were optional to be said to oneself, therefore the Christians should keep to themselves.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:50 pm to Masterag
Yes, except for when it comes to 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination. Next.
Posted on 3/21/17 at 11:53 pm to boosiebadazz
Let's get back to the peyote ruling as applied to religious individuals and corporations. Personal use was deemed fine with bona fide religious practices.
How are you automatically extending that to corporate drug trafficking, which is not personal use?
Were the religious peyote users allowed to sell drugs to non-believers? Come on, man.
How are you automatically extending that to corporate drug trafficking, which is not personal use?
Were the religious peyote users allowed to sell drugs to non-believers? Come on, man.
Posted on 3/22/17 at 12:03 am to texashorn
quote:No you're just mixing up a whole bunch of different conversations. You said the Catholic would he praying out loud, and they couldn't have seperate rooms, so then I said they should have to figure it out amongst themsleves how to make it work.
You were very adamant that Muslims prayers out loud were mandatory and that Christian prayers were optional to be said to oneself, therefore the Christians should keep to themselves.
But I never said a person should be praying out loud, outside of that room. And I only said that Christians are lucky in that they can say a prayer without a single person knowing. So just because a Christian can do that, and I not feel the need to use the accommodation, then that doesn't make the accommodation wrong.
You're representation is inaccurate so if you're going to make inaccurate claims, maybe you should refer back to the thread.
This post was edited on 3/22/17 at 12:04 am
Posted on 3/22/17 at 12:10 am to buckeye_vol
You're leaving so much out. One room in one 30-minute time frame was deemed an appropriate religious accommodation to any religion on their campus.
You agreed with that, but you start shirking away from deciding rights when my scenario verbally conflicts with the Muslim one. You purport to be a man of the law but decide at that point to "let them decide it among themselves."
I know how that would turn out, and so do you. The Muslims would threaten everyone and demand appeasement and total accommodation.
You agreed with that, but you start shirking away from deciding rights when my scenario verbally conflicts with the Muslim one. You purport to be a man of the law but decide at that point to "let them decide it among themselves."
I know how that would turn out, and so do you. The Muslims would threaten everyone and demand appeasement and total accommodation.
Posted on 3/22/17 at 12:18 am to texashorn
quote:Yeah. It's called being an adult; good leave by experience. .
You purport to be a man of the law but decide at that point to "let them decide it among themselves."
You said they could only have one room for 30 minutes, no exception variation. So they can figure out how to coexist in that time, or tough luck.
quote:Maybe, but I don't know. I know of plenty examples of that occurring, but of course, it's not newsworthy if it doesn't occur. But if they can't handle it, and given the constraints you set forth, then that's their problem.
The Muslims would threaten everyone and demand appeasement and total accommodation.
Posted on 3/22/17 at 12:31 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
You said they could only have one room for 30 minutes, no exception variation.
Umm, no. That was the principal who said that all religions were being accommodated in one room for the same 30 minutes.
You took up for that assertion then started making up variant accommodations that presumably would not be required if you truly did believe he school was accommodating all religions in one room over 30 minutes.
You also started differentiating between required and optional religious practices and scaled rights based on that hierarchy.
Then when faced with reasonable clashes arising from that, you threw up your hands and decided to abandon law on favor of mob rule.
Posted on 3/22/17 at 2:06 am to boosiebadazz
quote:Nope. You have owners... who have rights to their own property, like everyone else... making decisions about how they dispense with their property in line with their religious beliefs.
You've already got a legal fiction practicing religion
This post was edited on 3/22/17 at 2:09 am
Posted on 3/22/17 at 2:10 am to boosiebadazz
quote:You should have thought about this before government was allowed to participate in healthcare.
Do you really want the government deciding what is a legitimate religion and what exceptions should therefore be allowed?
Posted on 3/22/17 at 5:40 am to Masterag
quote:
Are corporations people?
As long as "freedom of speech" is interpreted as freedom of physical actions of expression and not just as oral speech, then yes, corporations are people.
Posted on 3/22/17 at 5:46 am to Tigerlaff
quote:It has limited everything. Commerce is a human construct (unless you count when chimps pimp other chimps); any right a business has is a right we gave to it and, therefore, can erase.
So the corporation has limited liability?
This post was edited on 3/22/17 at 5:46 am
Posted on 3/22/17 at 6:24 am to Masterag
People, no.....a person, yes
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News