• 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

BayToBay said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who cares about the implication. If the plates read: "Obey Jesus" you may have a point and the judge would have one too but that is not the case.

The states/federal government can't endorse a particular religion - that doesn't make "choose life" an endorsement of anything - its nothing more than a slogan, and people can interpret it how they want.

Besides, "choose life" isn't even religious... I'm sure there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who believe abortion is wrong too.
 
Grant said:
If, as you claim, Christians are having abortions then "they" can hardly be Christians.
Click to expand...

Isn't that kind of a moot point?? Just because you may not agree with someone's behavior doesn't mean they aren't christians.. All that is to me is a denial of responsibility..

Yes, statistically speaking, Christians by far get most of the abortions.. Much of that is also a reflection of their belief that birth control is bad.. Whatever you want to call them.. Christians are on the wrong end of this arguement.. They should support birth control and planned parenthood.. The best way to prevent abortion is prevent prenancy.. There is nothing in the bible that says birth control is bad.. I fail to see what their issue with it is..
 
Mr.Nick said:
Who cares about the implication. If the plates read: "Obey Jesus" you may have a point and the judge would have one too but that is not the case.

The states/federal government can't endorse a particular religion - that doesn't make "choose life" an endorsement of anything - its nothing more than a slogan, and people can interpret it how they want.

Besides, "choose life" isn't even religious... I'm sure there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who believe abortion is wrong too.
Click to expand...

The argument made wasn't that "choose life" was a religious slogan. The argument against it had to do with the state issuing an anti-abortion license plate, but refusing to offer a comparable one for the pro-choice position.
 
Anagram said:
The argument made wasn't that "choose life" was a religious slogan. The argument against it had to do with the state issuing an anti-abortion license plate, but refusing to offer a comparable one for the pro-choice position.
Click to expand...

Fine. The Judge should order them to make a "Choose Murder" license plate for all that want to promote their views.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Who cares about the implication. If the plates read: "Obey Jesus" you may have a point and the judge would have one too but that is not the case.

The states/federal government can't endorse a particular religion - that doesn't make "choose life" an endorsement of anything - its nothing more than a slogan, and people can interpret it how they want.

Besides, "choose life" isn't even religious... I'm sure there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who believe abortion is wrong too.
Click to expand...

It's propoganda used by opponents of legal abortions. Quit lying. Any decent judge would have your ass for offering up that nonsense as a legitimate argument.

It has nothing to with it being religious. It's a violation of the first amendment's protection of free speech because NC is practicing viewpoint discrimination.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Besides, "choose life" isn't even religious... I'm sure there are plenty of atheists and agnostics who believe abortion is wrong too.
Click to expand...

Maybe they should have said they were just fans of these guys:

wham.jpg

 
BayToBay said:
It's propoganda used by opponents of legal abortions. Quit lying. Any decent judge would have your ass for offering up that nonsense as a legitimate argument.

It has nothing to with it being religious. It's a violation of the first amendment's protection of free speech because NC is practicing viewpoint discrimination.
Click to expand...

Even if it was "propaganda" it shouldn't be banned because it breaks no law, nor does it violate the constitution.

I'm pro-life but I don't understand why anyone would want a plate that reads "choose life" when you can just buy a bumper sticker that says that. However there is no legal reason why someone shouldn't have the right to have a plate that reads that.

In order to make such a ruling a judge would have to conclude that everyone who is pro-life is religious and that is not true. The judge may as well say all atheists must be pro-choice.... The judge made an idiotic and misguided ruling here and it will certainly be overturned.

Besides, "choose life" could mean a lot of things from abortions to individuals who had a drug or alcohol addiction and became sober or to some who are just happy to be alive... The way you interpret the slogan is moot. Everyone doesn't think like you.
 
Fisher said:
Maybe they should have said they were just fans of these guys:

View attachment 67139282

Click to expand...


Precisely my point.

"Choose life" can mean different things to different people. I'm sure we can all agree that George Michael is different.

Also, I don't want to know why you remember George Michael (and Wham) sporting a "choose life" t-shirt hahahaha.
 
Mr.Nick said:
In order to make such a ruling a judge would have to conclude that everyone who is pro-life is religious and that is not true. The judge may as well say all atheists must be pro-choice.... The judge made an idiotic and misguided ruling here and it will certainly be overturned.
Click to expand...

He concluded that the government can't offer only one side of political speech without offering the other as a choice. His ruling had nothing to do with religion.

Besides, "choose life" could mean a lot of things from abortions to individuals who had a drug or alcohol addiction and became sober or to some who are just happy to be alive... The way you interpret the slogan is moot. Everyone doesn't think like you.
Click to expand...

In this case it does mean pro-life. $15 of every $25 goes to a clinic that provides alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.
 
Anagram said:
He concluded that the government can't offer only one side of political speech without offering the other as a choice. His ruling had nothing to do with religion.



In this case it does mean pro-life. $15 of every $25 goes to a clinic that provides alternatives to abortion for pregnant women.
Click to expand...

Offer a "pro-death" or "pro-choice" plate then...

So what if the money goes to an organization that provides alternative solutions...

It's not the "pro life" croweds fault that the pro-choice crowed didn't step up and petition for a "pro-choice" plate...
 
Mr.Nick said:
Offer a "pro-death" or "pro-choice" plate then...
Click to expand...

Which is what the court ruled. If they offer a pro-choice plate, they can keep the pro-life one.

So what if the money goes to an organization that provides alternative solutions...
Click to expand...

It just shows it was meant to be a pro-life plate and not something else.

It's not the "pro life" croweds fault that the pro-choice crowed didn't step up and petition for a "pro-choice" plate...
Click to expand...

They did. It failed six different times in the legislature.
 
Anagram said:
Which is what the court ruled. If they offer a pro-choice plate, they can keep the pro-life one.



It just shows it was meant to be a pro-life plate and not something else.



They did. It failed six different times in the legislature.
Click to expand...

You don't understand my point.

It's not the "pro-life" movements fault that there is not an "alternative" plate.

You would think a judge would have enough common sense to figure that one out, or maybe not.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You don't understand my point.

It's not the "pro-life" movements fault that there is not an "alternative" plate.

You would think a judge would have enough common sense to figure that one out, or maybe not.
Click to expand...

Right, its the government's fault that they are only allowing for one side of a political issue to be represented on a license plate. According to the court, the government can't do that. But even more importantly, in my opinion, the government shouldn't do that, even if they can.
 
Anagram said:
Right, its the government's fault that they are only allowing for one side of a political issue to be represented on a license plate. According to the court, the government can't do that. But even more importantly, in my opinion, the government shouldn't do that, even if they can.
Click to expand...

It's not the pro-life crowed that wants the plates fault there is no alternative plate that says "pro-choice."

It will be overturned.
 
H. Lee White said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that the ACLU doesn't defend Christianity?

ACLU fights for Chrisitianity

That link has other links which has articles of the ACLU fighting for Christians. Was this your whole problem in the OP?
 
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...

Actually the State can allow "Christianity #1" or "Allah #1" so long as they do not deny the same venue to any other religion. The State cannot endorse one religion over another. But they can allow everyone that applies the same venue. Religious or not.
 
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...

Who ever said this? The whole point here is that the pro-life movement was allowed to advertise on a certain State property venue while the pro-choice side was denied 6 times to do the same.
 
Mr.Nick said:
It shows you how deranged and ignorant some judges are.

This is what happens when idiots find themselves in a position of power.

I didn't read the ruling, but I'm assuming (and ironically) it was a First Amendment issue and the judge is a progressive?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should have. The judge denied NC from printing "choose life" plates and issueing them because the state denied pro-choice (its opposite in the abortion topic) 6 times to have thier own slogan on the plates. His ruling was based on the state denying free speech to one group while allowing it for another group in the same state sponsored venue.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Even if it was "propaganda" it shouldn't be banned because it breaks no law, nor does it violate the constitution.

I'm pro-life but I don't understand why anyone would want a plate that reads "choose life" when you can just buy a bumper sticker that says that. However there is no legal reason why someone shouldn't have the right to have a plate that reads that.

In order to make such a ruling a judge would have to conclude that everyone who is pro-life is religious and that is not true. The judge may as well say all atheists must be pro-choice.... The judge made an idiotic and misguided ruling here and it will certainly be overturned.

Besides, "choose life" could mean a lot of things from abortions to individuals who had a drug or alcohol addiction and became sober or to some who are just happy to be alive... The way you interpret the slogan is moot. Everyone doesn't think like you.
Click to expand...

Free speech was violated because the state denied the same state sponsored venue to an oppostion faction. And as has been pointed out the "Choose Life" slogan was regarding abortion. It doesn't matter that it could mean anything else. What matters is context. And in this case the context of "Choose Life" was an anti-abortion slogan. It was not "Choose Life" in opposition to war, the death penalty, suicide or anything else. It was "Choose Life" in opposition to abortion. To claim anything else is straight up lieing.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Offer a "pro-death" or "pro-choice" plate then...

So what if the money goes to an organization that provides alternative solutions...

It's not the "pro life" croweds fault that the pro-choice crowed didn't step up and petition for a "pro-choice" plate...
Click to expand...

Tell this to the State. The judge cannot legislate. Only strike down legislation.
 
Mr.Nick said:
You don't understand my point.

It's not the "pro-life" movements fault that there is not an "alternative" plate.

You would think a judge would have enough common sense to figure that one out, or maybe not.
Click to expand...

No one said that it was the pro-life movements fault. It was the states fault. And the state got spanked for it in the only way that the judge could. Again, the judge cannot make legislation, only strike it down. If the judge had ordered the state to create a pro-choice plate then he would have been making legislation.
 
I find it interesting the sort of illogical dualism found in the idea of "you must present the opposing view". There is not a black and white divide on abortion, there are many shades of grey. Who determines the initial meaning, and who chooses what it considered its opposite? You could even argue the "kids first" logo was "pro-life" if you want to dive into the semantics, could you not? What of the intermediary views? People that support limited abortions? What would their logo be? And, again, we determines all this?

What sort of absurdity is all this? Almost as absurd as the complete ignorance of the constitution by a judge who is nothing more than a leftwing hack and/or someone trying to score political points for some reason or other. Don't bother continuing to yammer about it being anything else.
 
DemonMyst said:
The government must remain nuetral when it comes to political issues..
Click to expand...

Not really, no. The government may not abridge freedom of speech. If they made a law saying pro-abortionists could not talk about their odious, barbaric views, then the state government would be violating the first amendment. Otherwise, nah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom