- 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: The "religious right" is a boogeyman blown out of proportion
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:53 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:53 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
i just answered your question in the post directly above yours
I don't know if you really answered it. Your posts seem to imply that you do (and if you do, I'm not sure if you have an adequate understanding of protected classes).
1
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:54 pm to Hawkeye95
Oh, so you can lie about the Christians and not provide an actual story but I do, after you accused me of basically fabricating a story.
You made a false accusation and are therefore a liar. I stated that they will eventually go to jail.
BTW, why don't gays go to Muslim bakeries and do this? They are specifically targeting Christian owned businesses. That is an injustice to innocent people. It's what you lefties would call a "form of lynching."
You made a false accusation and are therefore a liar. I stated that they will eventually go to jail.
BTW, why don't gays go to Muslim bakeries and do this? They are specifically targeting Christian owned businesses. That is an injustice to innocent people. It's what you lefties would call a "form of lynching."
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 3:57 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:54 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I'm not quite understanding that. You mean that it is harmful to law itself, or that there is no personal harm yet a legally defined harm? Maybe I'm too slow.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:54 pm to HempHead
quote:
Drug laws are probably the biggest ones that come to mind.
You consider those primarily religiously based?
I really never have.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:55 pm to Scruffy
quote:
I'll wait for the day that protected classes are deemed "no longer needed".
yeah it's going to get bigger long before it gets smaller.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:56 pm to HempHead
quote:
I'm not quite understanding that. You mean that it is harmful to law itself, or that there is no personal harm yet a legally defined harm? Maybe I'm too slow.
you're not slow it's just a weird way of using that word to people who didn't go to law school.
"harm" here doesn't mean actual physical harm, it basically just means a person's rights being violated.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 3:58 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:56 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
You consider those primarily religiously based?
I really never have.
Originally? No. It had more to do with racism than anything else.
I'd say that today, however, that most opposition to drug reform comes from social conservatives (with notable exceptions....I think Pat Robertson wants to legalize cannabis
)Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:57 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
(and if you do, I'm not sure if you have an adequate understanding of protected classes).
by all means professor, enlighten me
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:57 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
"harm" here doesn't mean actual physical harm, here it basically just means a person's rights being violated.
What personal right is being violated? The right to someone else's business?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 3:58 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
protected classes have been judicially upheld by the SCOTUS via the 5th and 14th amendments.
are you talking public or private discrimination?
are you talking about statutory or constitutional rights?
the Civil Rights Act is the "biggie" in terms of private discrimination, but it is statutory. the USSC just said it wasn't an unconstitutional law (with some mental gymnastics that further opened the door for an expansive, terrible federal government)
things like the right to marry are constitutional, but they deal with public discrimination (interracial marriage bans, etc)
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Smaller?
yeah it's going to get bigger long before it gets smaller.
Don't delude yourself. The only way it will shrink is if every group becomes a protected class, thus rendering all groups equal.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:01 pm to HempHead
quote:
What personal right is being violated?
the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the Civil Rights Act is the "biggie" in terms of private discrimination, but it is statutory. the USSC just said it wasn't an unconstitutional law (with some mental gymnastics that further opened the door for an expansive, terrible federal government)
which is what i was talking about.
i want to be clear that i understand and respect the dissenting viewpoint on this. I just don't personally agree with it for reasons i've already posted.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:02 pm to goldennugget
Golden Nugget:
Most political operatives, left or right, know exactly what you're saying, but that is not useful to them. It is USEFUL for those on the left to characterize religious people as "wackos," aiding them in persuading non or less religious voters that the conservative candidates can't be a reasonable choice because, well, look how damned crazy/racist/etc. they are. It is a form of ad hom attack, and both sides do it when they can. It is a great way of getting voters who might have mixed positions on issues to focus on "your" issues. For example, younger, educated voters in urban areas will often tell that they just don't have a choice but to vote Dem due to social issues such as gay marriage. I suspect that they could easily identify with the GOP on many other issues but they don't want to be associated with the party of racist homophobes.
What's funny is that the left is doing what they used to accuse the right of doing with lower and lower-middle class white voters/
Most political operatives, left or right, know exactly what you're saying, but that is not useful to them. It is USEFUL for those on the left to characterize religious people as "wackos," aiding them in persuading non or less religious voters that the conservative candidates can't be a reasonable choice because, well, look how damned crazy/racist/etc. they are. It is a form of ad hom attack, and both sides do it when they can. It is a great way of getting voters who might have mixed positions on issues to focus on "your" issues. For example, younger, educated voters in urban areas will often tell that they just don't have a choice but to vote Dem due to social issues such as gay marriage. I suspect that they could easily identify with the GOP on many other issues but they don't want to be associated with the party of racist homophobes.
What's funny is that the left is doing what they used to accuse the right of doing with lower and lower-middle class white voters/
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:02 pm to Y.A. Tittle
It is so good to have a drunken, stoned society. The drug prohibitions that Hemp complains about are more in line with gays whining about "rights to marry." Neither are actual a positive to society. We have many that claim they have all these rights yet they don't want the responsibility for their actions. Encourage kids to have sex and if the girl gets pregnant, abort the child. It's your right to do so. It's no ones business what you do in the privacy of your bedroom but if anyone says they think it is immoral and don't wish to provide services for your segregated-sex (male or female only) because of their religious beliefs must be punished by the government.
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:03 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments
wat
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:03 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I still don't get how there is a harmed party if there is just a lack of association.
So, in my previous scenarios, the skinhead is not being harmed by the lack of business, but the gay couple being refused business by the baker are?
So, in my previous scenarios, the skinhead is not being harmed by the lack of business, but the gay couple being refused business by the baker are?
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:04 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
which is what i was talking about.
but the CRA doesn't deal with "Constitutional" rights
it deals with legislative "rights" (if you want to use that words), not constitutional ones
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:05 pm to los angeles tiger
quote:
It is so good to have a drunken, stoned society. The drug prohibitions that Hemp complains about are more in line with gays whining about "rights to marry." Neither are actual a positive to society.
Are you of the opinion that only positive behavior is to be allowed by society? Who gets to determine this?
quote:
We have many that claim they have all these rights yet they don't want the responsibility for their actions. Encourage kids to have sex and if the girl gets pregnant, abort the child. It's your right to do so. It's no ones business what you do in the privacy of your bedroom but if anyone says they think it is immoral and don't wish to provide services for your segregated-sex (male or female only) because of their religious beliefs must be punished by the government.
Absolutely none of this is relevant to my politics.
This post was edited on 3/12/14 at 4:06 pm
Posted on 3/12/14 at 4:06 pm to HempHead
quote:
Are you of the opinion that only positive behavior is to be allowed by society? Who gets to determine this?
Hell, I live in California and they are outlawing positive behavior.
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News