• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

Texmaster: NAMBLA advocates criminal activity. Thus, they would be ineligible to receive public funds. Hope that helps.

So you're now admitting you didn't answer my question as you claimed. I accept your apology.

There is no law banning people from believing in that therefore you cannot descriminate against someone who believes it and ban them from your group if you want federal funding.

Enjoy your fail. Again.
 
NAMBLA seems to be the Godwin's Law equivalent to Hitler when discussing gay rights. And you all know what Godwin's Law states when someone brings up Hitler in debate. Just apply NAMBLA in the same way.
 
I see, so to obscure your inability to explain how it is that the Planets most prolific advocacy group for the Normalization of the Adult/Child Sex, was founded by and is wholly and solely comprised of HOMOSEXUALS, you felt more comfortable trotting out this fallacious trainwreck? Why in failing to sustain your feelings, you've combined ad verecundiam, ad hom and ad populum in ONE flaccid little rant...


And that you clearly feel so superior in doing so... ROFLMNAO! Absolutely PRECIOUS!

Ah.. a new poster who knows nothing about homosexuality, pedophilia or anything in regards to sexual orienation. I feel like a shark who smells blood in the water.
 
Ah.. a new poster who knows nothing about homosexuality, pedophilia or anything in regards to sexual orienation. I feel like a shark who smells blood in the water.

When I read him I actually thought "Oh god, wait till CC gets ahold of him"
 
NAMBLA seems to be the Godwin's Law equivalent to Hitler when discussing gay rights. And you all know what Godwin's Law states when someone brings up Hitler in debate. Just apply NAMBLA in the same way.

Or kinda like how Skins and Nazis always end up in Tea Party thread, just sayin....

But, I agree. any group accepting federal funds has to accept federal rules. Like welfare recipients.
 
Last edited:
Or kinda like how Skins and Nazis always end up in Tea Party thread, just sayin....


Good point.


Its always easier to avoid the question because you don't like the example used that's destroyed your argument.

NAMBLA can be replaced with any group that is unpopular. Traditional Mormons, incest, liberals..... any will do.

NAMBLA however is a great way to hit your point across that general arguments using discrimination as the only criteria for banning funding are just plain stupid since an extreme viewpoint can always be found that no one wants to tolerate.
 
Last edited:
Or kinda like how Skins and Nazis always end up in Tea Party thread, just sayin....

But, I agree. any group accepting federal funds has to accept federal rules. Like welfare recipients.

PSSSSST

He referenced that

"Godwin's Law" is ABOUT Nazi's
 
So you're now admitting you didn't answer my question as you claimed. I accept your apology.

There is no law banning people from believing in that therefore you cannot descriminate against someone who believes it and ban them from your group if you want federal funding.

Enjoy your fail. Again.

This is the same response I provided to you several times above. A group promoting the goals of NAMBLA would not be able to receive funding, because NAMBLA promotes criminal activity (adult sexual contact with children). An individual believing in the mission of NAMBLA, unless he or she publicly voiced these opinions, probably wouldn't even be recognized within a group as such.

Are you promoting the idea that people should be discriminated against on the basis of unpopular beliefs, whatever those beliefs might be?
 
NAMBLA however is a great way to hit your point across that general arguments using discrimination as the only criteria for banning funding are just plain stupid since an extreme viewpoint can always be found that no one wants to tolerate.

The fact that you think this is particularly telling.
 
This is the same response I provided to you several times above. A group promoting the goals of NAMBLA would not be able to receive funding, because NAMBLA promotes criminal activity (adult sexual contact with children). An individual believing in the mission of NAMBLA, unless he or she publicly voiced these opinions, probably wouldn't even be recognized within a group as such.

How many times do I have to point out the only criteria the law recognized was discrimination? What part of that don't you understand? It did not say you can discriminate against those who believe in an illegal activity.

Does that mean if a person believes in partial birth abortion and its illegal in the state they are in its ok to discriminate against them? Answer the question.

If you still claim this produce your evidence from the ruling.

Are you promoting the idea that people should be discriminated against on the basis of unpopular beliefs, whatever those beliefs might be?

What I'm saying is that groups should have the right to exclude people who do not share their values on personal choice. Thats the whole idea of a group, to form a partnership of like minded people. You on the other hand claim to want no discrimination but when it comes to people who believe in certain practices you don't like, then its ok to discriminate. Its the height of hypocrisy.
 
If Christians are OK with Christian groups denying membership to Homosexuals, why are they bothered by the University denying membership to Christians?
 
How many times do I have to point out the only criteria the law recognized was discrimination? What part of that don't you understand? It did not say you can discriminate against those who believe in an illegal activity.

The law takes as a given that all other criminal activity is accepted as such within any given law unless otherwise expressly spoken to by a clause within the law. It is not "discrimination" to bar advocacy of criminal activity, especially an activity that is particularly injurious to the mission and goals of the group, especially when it comes to nonprofit organizations.
 
How many times do I have to point out the only criteria the law recognized was discrimination? What part of that don't you understand? It did not say you can discriminate against those who believe in an illegal activity.

Does that mean if a person believes in partial birth abortion and its illegal in the state they are in its ok to discriminate against them? Answer the question.

If you still claim this produce your evidence from the ruling.



What I'm saying is that groups should have the right to exclude people who do not share their values on personal choice. Thats the whole idea of a group, to form a partnership of like minded people. You on the other hand claim to want no discrimination but when it comes to people who believe in certain practices you don't like, then its ok to discriminate. Its the height of hypocrisy.

Well, at least you've learned to spell discrimination. This thread has been worthwhile after all.
 
If Christians are OK with Christian groups denying membership to Homosexuals, why are they bothered by the University denying membership to Christians?

Because the argument is far too general for their justification to deny membership.
 
The law takes as a given that all other criminal activity is accepted as such within any given law unless otherwise expressly spoken to by a clause within the law. It is not "discrimination" to bar advocacy of criminal activity, especially an activity that is particularly injurious to the mission and goals of the group, especially when it comes to nonprofit organizations.

Don't cut up my response just to answer the part you like.

Answer the question:

Does that mean if a person believes in partial birth abortion and its illegal in the state they are in its ok to discriminate against them?


And you ignored the fact that the belief and the group itself is not illegal without action.
 
It's usually difficult to debate a logical fallacy. That doesn't mean that your argument is a good one.

The only fallacy is your inability to understand the defintion of descrimination even after it was provided for you.
 
Well, at least you've learned to spell discrimination. This thread has been worthwhile after all.

Typical Catz. Running away from the argument because you can't debate it.


Thanks for staying predictable.
 
Don't cut up my response just to answer the part you like.

I didn't "cut" anything. And I will answer to or ignore any part of your ranting that I damned well please and there isn't a thing on this earth you can do about it. Capiche?

Answer the question:

Does that mean if a person believes in partial birth abortion and its illegal in the state they are in its ok to discriminate against them?

Believing in and advocating action are completely separate issues.

And you ignored the fact that the belief and the group itself is not illegal without action.

I ignored nothing. NAMBLA can believe anything it wants. However, NAMBLA has also been shown to be a clear advocate of actually breaking the law as evidenced by the "rape and escape" manual that led to a child's death.

But if you want to be a NAMBLA supporter and advocate their right to exist and even rail against discrimination against NAMBLA, I'm not going to stop you, texmaster. By all means, you knock yourself out with this line of argument. I have no interest in stopping your advocacy of NAMBLA here at DP.
 
When I read him I actually thought "Oh god, wait till CC gets ahold of him"

It's funny. When I read him I thought, "everyone is probably thinking 'wait 'till CC gets a hold of him'". :mrgreen:
 
This is Hastings policy.

[Hastings] is committed to a policy against legally impermissible, arbitrary or unreasonable discriminatory practices. All groups, including administration, faculty, student governments, [Hastings]-owned student residence facilities and programs sponsored by [Hastings], are governed by this policy of nondiscrimination. [Hasting's] policy on nondiscriminationis to comply fully with applicable law. "[Hastings] shall not discriminate unlawfully on thebasis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry,disability, age, sex or sexual orientation."

It is based on the LAW that already exists. Child abuse is not a valid orientation.
 
This is Hastings policy.

[Hastings] is committed to a policy against legally impermissible, arbitrary or unreasonable discriminatory practices. All groups, including administration, faculty, student governments, [Hastings]-owned student residence facilities and programs sponsored by [Hastings], are governed by this policy of nondiscrimination. [Hasting's] policy on nondiscriminationis to comply fully with applicable law. "[Hastings] shall not discriminate unlawfully on thebasis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry,disability, age, sex or sexual orientation."


It is based on the LAW that already exists. Child abuse is not a valid orientation.

How many times do I have to pose the same question?

Does that mean if a person believes in partial birth abortion and its illegal in the state they are in its ok to discriminate against them?

And only the act is abuse. The IDEA is not. If you say you support nambla you are not committing a crime so your child abuse argument is null and void.
 
I didn't "cut" anything. And I will answer to or ignore any part of your ranting that I damned well please and there isn't a thing on this earth you can do about it. Capiche?

Then expect to be called on it when you do it.

Believing in and advocating action are completely separate issues.

Not in the eyes of this law. Wrong again.

I ignored nothing. NAMBLA can believe anything it wants. However, NAMBLA has also been shown to be a clear advocate of actually breaking the law as evidenced by the "rape and escape" manual that led to a child's death.

But if you want to be a NAMBLA supporter and advocate their right to exist and even rail against discrimination against NAMBLA, I'm not going to stop you, texmaster. By all means, you knock yourself out with this line of argument. I have no interest in stopping your advocacy of NAMBLA here at DP.

So what? There are plenty of groups that break the law in sit in protests where they refuse to move and are arrested by the police. So by your own defintion they should not be included either because they advocate breaking the law

Try again.

Its not a matter of advocacy as you well know. Its about you coming to grips with what the law actually is allowing in by this general argument of "discrimination"

If you actually took time to think about it you might learn something.
 
Back
Top Bottom