Page 35 of 68 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 679

Thread: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

  1. #341
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    I'm pretty sure I do.
    I'm pretty sure you didn't. See post #335 for an education.

  2. #342
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    G'head...tell us about it.
    I went into it a week or so ago, so I will just quote myself here..

    Did you ever hear about the Pennsylvania Abolition Society? It was started by Anthony Benezet in 1775 and such men as Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin were members and leaders of the group at certain points in it's history. It was the first anti-slavery society in the US.

    Then of course, there is all the actions against slavery that took place. Slavery was abolished in the Providence Plantation in 1652. Then in 1777, the Constitution of the Vermont Republic partially bans slavery. In 1780, Pennsylvania passes a law that will gradually ban slavery. In 1783, it was ruled in Massachusetts that slavery was unconstitutional. Also, in 1783, New Hampshire passes a law that started to gradually lead to the end of slavery. In 1784, Connecticut and Rhode Island pass laws to gradually abolish slavery. In 1787, the Northwest Ordinance outlawed any new slavery in the Northwest Territories.
    Now, do you know the two major actions that were taken on slavery from the ratification of the Constitution to about lets say 1809?

    Hint: Think trade.

  3. #343
    Sage
    mak2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    07-08-16 @ 01:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,050

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Yes, customers should be able to go somewhere else to eat if they don't like a business for any reason. Which, by the way, is nothing like not serving someone because of race or sexual preference. And I love ChikfilA and thought it was a wonderful publicity Faux and Cathy pulled off.
    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Should you be able to boycott Chick-fil-A?
    God Bless the Marine Corps.

  4. #344
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,444

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    OMG no wonder we have such ridiculous flaming comments about this whole bill being anti-gay to people with religious convictions are hateful bigots. Geesh.

    For your information- the “three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3. Contrary to what you and some revisionist historians claim, the “three-fifths clause” is a clear indication that a number of our constitutional founders wanted to end slavery; it is not a statement about personhood. The Northern states did not want to count slaves. The Southern states hoped to include slaves in the population statistics in order to acquire additional representation in Congress to advance their political position. If you knew your history this would be obvious. The issue of slavery was a major concern at the Constitutional Convention and was discussed at length in the debates. A significant minority of the delegates to the Federal Convention were staunch opponents of slavery, primarily those who adhered to the Federalist philosophy. Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton opposed slavery. John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States, was president of the New York anti-slavery society. Northern Federalist leaders Rufus King and governor Morris were outspoken opponents of slavery and the slave trade.
    The seeds which started with a Southern aristocracy that refused to join the Union initially unless their precious peculiar institution was allowed to thrive.

    If anyone is revising history, it's you.

    It was a dirty, but necessary compromise. The South would not have joined the Union without this messy compromise. Fact.


    It actually strengthened the voice and power of the southern slaveholders.

    It gave representation in congress to people who were not citizens and could not vote.

    Which had the effect of giving the southern states more congressmen for what was considered property.

    Leading some Northerner's to ask, why not give representation to sheep or cows? After all, they shared the same thing as human slaves: Chattel. Farm tools. Property.

    That's what it was. It gave representation to property.

  5. #345
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,444

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    I went into it a week or so ago, so I will just quote myself here..



    Now, do you know the two major actions that were taken on slavery from the ratification of the Constitution to about lets say 1809?

    Hint: Think trade.
    I'm quite familiar with the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. In fact, in my archives, I own some original papers from some of their members. For decades I have worked in the field of history, and deal with Museums, historical societies and even the Smithsonian.

    What was started then, and other abolitionist societies helped the North abolish slavery. the South wasn't ready to do that, and in fact fought a bloody war to promote and preserve it's continuation some seventy plus years after the Constitution was written.

  6. #346
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    That's not the same as withholding service from someone based on an innate trait they cannot control.
    The right to ones property, labor, service and association pays no mind to such things. Can you prove that you were harmed by someone denying service? Of course not, so therefore, you have nothing to defend the law. Oh well.

  7. #347
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by mak2 View Post
    Yes, customers should be able to go somewhere else to eat if they don't like a business for any reason.
    Tell me, what would be wrong with forcing such customers, those who oppose Chick-fil-A's position, to have to eat at Chick-fil-A under penalty of law? We've already established that liberals don't believe in the Freedom of Association and that they see no problem with forced associations, so barring these two objections, how do you explain the harm (if any) which befalls on boycotters being forced to do business with the business.

  8. #348
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by mak2 View Post
    Yes, customers should be able to go somewhere else to eat if they don't like a business for any reason.
    Lol, so the customers have their rights protected, but the business does not. Good old liberal gibberish.

  9. #349
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:07 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,444

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by clownboy View Post
    I'm pretty sure you didn't. See post #335 for an education.
    There's no education there. It's David Barton-style clap-trap.

    It did not reduce the slave power, nor give "clear indication the Founders wanted to end slavery."

    It provided the South with representation in Congress with a huge swath of people who were literally property.

    To many Northerners, it was like giving the cattle on their farms, or their horses a portion of representation.

    It gave the south a huge advantage in the HoR which lasted for generations.

  10. #350
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

    Re: Arizona anti-gay bill vetoed by governor

    Quote Originally Posted by Paperview View Post
    There's no education there. It's David Barton-style clap-trap.

    It did not reduce the slave power, nor give "clear indication the Founders wanted to end slavery."

    It provided the South with representation in Congress with a huge swath of people who were literally property.

    To many Northerners, it was like giving the cattle on their farms, or their horses a portion of representation.

    It gave the south a huge advantage in the HoR which lasted for generations.
    You're decision to cling to ignorance duly noted.

Page 35 of 68 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •