• 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!

Judge finds NC "Choose Life" plate unconstitutioonal

Kal'Stang said:
there would not have been an issue to begin with.
Click to expand...

There was no constitutional issue to begin with and there still isn't.

That doesn't stop some judges.
 
JayDubya said:
Which is fine and perfectly valid.

Example:

SOT.JPG


When will the "North Carolina - @#$% Our Troops in the @$# with a Rusty Pole!" license plates be coming out, lest we not abridge freedom of speech?

Afterall, if some people want "Support Our Troops" on their car, that is a political message, and the opposing message may be a minority view in North Carolina but it's just as valid from a free speech perspective, so we can't have the state endorsing one political message and not the other...

Right?

Or hey, maybe it's not a matter of running afoul of the actual text of the First Amendment. At all. And this is retarded, which means by extension, so is this judge.
Click to expand...

First, "support our troops" is not a political issue.

This is directed at both you JayDubya and you H. Lee White. Lets put this issue to another, similar, subject.

If a state put the words "Allah #1" on a park bench but did not allow "Christianity #1" what would you say?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not openly you haven't. But when you make posts like you did in the OP it clearly shows that your position is that you think that NC legislature did the right thing in allowing the "Choose Life" plate while denying the chance for the pro-choice group to have thier own.
Click to expand...
This is your failed inference. I suggest you read the OP again.
 
JayDubya said:
There was no constitutional issue to begin with and there still isn't.

That doesn't stop some judges.
Click to expand...

Yes actually there is. The state may not deny freedom of speech. They allowed anti-abortionists thier free speech but denied pro-choice thier free speech in the same venue.
 
Kal'Stang said:
First, "support our troops" is not a political issue.

This is directed at both you JayDubya and you H. Lee White. Lets put this issue to another, similar, subject.

If a state put the words "Allah #1" on a park bench but did not allow "Christianity #1" what would you say?
Click to expand...
That the ACLU would likely not care.

Now, if the state allowed "Christianity Rocks!", regardless of it allowed for other religions or not - that would be a different story.
 
Also Congress - and by extension of the 14th and incorporation, state legislatures may not abridge speech. They cannot establish a religion, nor prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religion. There is a difference. The text is again, plain, and people like to gussy it up and pretend things that aren't there are somehow there...

"Allah is #1" is a perfectly valid thing for an individual to say or believe - free speech - but the state cannot put it on a bench, because that runs afoul of establishment.

In short, you've taken this into a relatively unrelated tangent.
 
Grant said:
It seems this is one of those 'coded messages', 'dog whistle' complaints where the two words "Choose Life" are carrying a controversial message that some overly sensitive souls find offensive. They should choose to get a life themselves.
Click to expand...

It is an overt motto of the socalled right to life movement....
 
JayDubya said:
I would say that the state is not abridging the freedom of speech in any way by permitting or not permitting an optional license plate with whatever slogans people might want on them, because it isn't. At all.

Others who are literate will say the same thing.
Click to expand...

The government must remain nuetral when it comes to political issues.. There can be no government agenda.. They either create a pro-choice plate or get rid of the pro-life one..

The ruling is correct.. They can't have one without the other..

A non governmnet entity can create a bumper sticker saying what ever they want.. The government can not.. Get it??
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Yes actually there is. The state may not deny freedom of speech. They allowed anti-abortionists thier free speech but denied pro-choice thier free speech in the same venue.
Click to expand...

So the pro choice people don't support life? That would seem to be the case anyway. Any idea why that is? Can their own lives be that desperate and gloomy that they wouldn't wish it on other human beings?
 
JayDubya said:
Also Congress - and by extension of the 14th and incorporation, state legislatures may not abridge speech. They cannot establish a religion, nor prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religion. There is a difference. The text is again, plain, and people like to gussy it up and pretend things that aren't there are somehow there...

"Allah is #1" is a perfectly valid thing for an individual to say or believe - free speech - but the state cannot put it on a bench, because that runs afoul of establishment.

In short, you've taken this into a relatively unrelated tangent.
Click to expand...

If the state can't put Allah is #1 then the state can't create a pro-life plate.. Why is this so hard?? The point is entirely valid.. The state can't take a stand on a political issue.. Period.. Reguadless of the issue.. Supporting the troops in not on a ballot.. Abortion is..

The state/government must remain nuetral about all political issues.. The goverement can't promote any agenda or political view.. Doing so is not protected by free speech.. Unless they remain nuetral by promoting both views.. A pro-life plate and a pro-choice plate.. Until the pro-choice plate is created, the other one is unconstitutional..
 
Grant said:
So the pro choice people don't support life? That would seem to be the case anyway. Any idea why that is? Can their own lives be that desperate and gloomy that they wouldn't wish it on other human beings?
Click to expand...

Pro-life is actually pro-death.. Don't let the word life fool you.. They would rather allow both the mother and the baby to die than simply allow abortion.. They don't support birth control which prevents countless abortions.. Not to mention, that after the baby is born, they could care less what happens to it.. They don't want to pay for healthcare, education, or anything.. It will just starve to death on the streets if it were up to them.. That is the view of the so called pro-life crowed.. So make no mistake.. The only pro-life choice is pro-choice..
 
Redress said:
It is an overt motto of the socalled right to life movement....
Click to expand...

I guess we have to be very concerned about those overt mottoes and coded language and that "socalled" right to life movement. It could get out of hand.

Illegal immigration is either enhancing multiculturalism or racism. Gay marriage is either celebrating diversity or homophobia. There are those who believe in climate change and those who are "deniers". Those who accept a persons word for their political qualifications and "birthers". There are those who feel that Christianity has no place in politics who call others questioning another religion "Islamophobes". Then there are those who argue for free speech but shut down Ann Coulter from expressing her opinions.

And now "Choose Life" is offensive to those who feel that it says something negative.

Where have all the adults gone?
 
DemonMyst said:
Pro-life is actually pro-death..
Click to expand...

Pro life means pro death? That leaves the pro death people in a rather awkward position, doesn't it?
Don't let the word life fool you.. They would rather allow both the mother and the baby to die than simply allow abortion.
Click to expand...
.

Who is they? Do they have much of a following? A name perhaps?
They don't support birth control which prevents countless abortions.
Click to expand...

Actually birth control is readily available to everyone so "they" apparently have very little influence..

Not to mention, that after the baby is born, they could care less what happens to it
Click to expand...

Really? You have evidence of this?

They don't want to pay for healthcare, education, or anything.. It will just starve to death on the streets if it were up to them.. That is the view of the so called pro-life crowed.. So make no mistake.. The only pro-life choice is pro-choice..
Click to expand...

It's still not clear who "they" is but if they are anything like you say they appear to be a pretty nasty bunch.
 
Grant said:
I guess we have to be very concerned about those overt mottoes and coded language and that "socalled" right to life movement. It could get out of hand.

Illegal immigration is either enhancing multiculturalism or racism. Gay marriage is either celebrating diversity or homophobia. There are those who believe in climate change and those who are "deniers". Those who accept a persons word for their political qualifications and "birthers". There are those who feel that Christianity has no place in politics who call others questioning another religion "Islamophobes". Then there are those who argue for free speech but shut down Ann Coulter from expressing her opinions.

And now "Choose Life" is offensive to those who feel that it says something negative.

Where have all the adults gone?
Click to expand...

There is no coded language here. No one said "choose life" was offensive, only that it is a motto representing a political view. Your post is nothing but straw men and nonsense.
 
Redress said:
There is no coded language here. No one said "choose life" was offensive, only that it is a motto representing a political view. Your post is nothing but straw men and nonsense.
Click to expand...

If it is a political view it is quite a benign one, wouldn't you say?
 
Grant said:
If it is a political view it is quite a benign one, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

I do not consider a restriction of rights to be benign. Do you?
 
Grant said:
I did not claim that restrictions of rights are benign, so that's a rather silly question.
Click to expand...

And yet that is the goal of the right to life movement, for which "choose life" is one of their mottos.
 
Grant said:
Pro life means pro death? That leaves the pro death people in a rather awkward position, doesn't it?
.

Who is they? Do they have much of a following? A name perhaps?


Actually birth control is readily available to everyone so "they" apparently have very little influence..



Really? You have evidence of this?



It's still not clear who "they" is but if they are anything like you say they appear to be a pretty nasty bunch.
Click to expand...

Since over 70% of all abortions are done on women that identify themselves as Chrstians, 'they' is pretty obvious.. Because 'they' also are against birth control and they also tried to shut down planned parenthood.. So 'they' is pretty obvious..

Just saying..


Christians have abortions

In either case.. This is somewhat off topic.. Sort of at least.. Whatever your view on abortion.. The state or any government entity can't be seen as taking a stand or backing a specific point of view.. Free speech does not protect the speech of the state.. We the people have the right to free speech.. The state end federal government do not.. The ruling the court made is entirely correct..
 
Last edited:
Muddy Creek said:
You miss the point..you can't offer one side of the equation and not the other.
Click to expand...

A "I love America" plate would have to be accompanied by a "I hate America" plate?

Something tells me this Constitution is not what the Founders wrote.
 
DemonMyst said:
Since over 70% of all abortions are done on women that identify themselves as Chrstians, 'they' is pretty obvious.. Because 'they' also are against birth control and they also tried to shut down planned parenthood.. So 'they' is pretty obvious..

Just saying..


Christians have abortions

In either case.. This is somewhat off topic.. Sort of at least.. Whatever your view on abortion.. The state or any government entity can't be seen as taking a stand or backing a specific point of view.. Free speech does not protect the speech of the state.. We the people have the right to free speech.. The state end federal government do not.. The ruling the court made is entirely correct..
Click to expand...

If, as you claim, Christians are having abortions then "they" can hardly be Christians.
 
Grant said:
Shouldn't it be everyone's motto? Where do you find the harm?
Click to expand...

It's not. The harm is in that you think only your motto should be an option.

Your argument is dishonest. It is clear what "choose life" implies to any informed person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom