• 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!

"Supreme Court says we get a free ticket to discriminate "

weaver2 said:
"The Supreme Court found Colorado guilty of violating Mr. Phillips Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by being deliberately hostile and attacking his religious beliefs." Correct

"The issue was religious persecution." Incorrect. The issue was as you stated above: Colorado court was guilty of not maintaining neutrality in making the decision. In fact the court was deliberately hostile and attacked Phillips religious beliefs. The issue was the lack of fairness and neutrality, not religious persecution nor was it whether Phillips had a right to refuse service to gays.
Click to expand...
When government berates and demonizes someone for their religious beliefs it is called religious persecution. You can make all the excuses for Colorado all you like, but religious persecution is a tactic leftists have employed for decades. It is well past time they were held accountable.

Colorado was extremely hostile towards Christians, and in Mr. Phillips case, persecuted him illegally.
 
weaver2 said:
the legal meaning of preamble: the introductory part of a statute or deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification.

When something tells you its why it exists, what it is going to do and why it can do those things you would not be smart to ignore it, what ever "it " is.

The Preamble is the part of the Constitution that tells you what this government is going to do, how its going to do it and why. You'd better pay attention to the Preamble. It is not a summation to be ignored.
Click to expand...

What part of "[a] preamble does not enlarge nor confers powers" were you not able to grasp? You will never hear the Supreme Court, or any court, make reference to the preamble of the US Constitution because legally speaking it has no meaning.
 
Glitch said:
We know that is a deliberate lie.
Click to expand...
That is fact. It is a description of history. Southern Democrats are/were conservatives, not liberals.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Court Jester said:
BINGO!

To me this case would have been no different than someone going to Muslim owned bakery and then demanding the baker make a cake depicting an insulting image of Mohammad, and then being upset when they were told no--- the Muslim baker would not do that.

Easy solution is to go find a baker who will happily make you what you want and get paid to do it.
Click to expand...
It is very different. You cant demand anyone make you something that you would not sell to anyone, regardless of their race, religion, sex, sexuality. The business however cannot refuse to sell you something they would sell to anyone else.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
aociswundumho said:
Yea, "boom" they go somewhere else. BFD
Click to expand...
It is when/if everyone refuses to seve you. There is not always a somewhere else to go. Or doing so may create more economic hardship on someone, hence discrimination and why business owners must abide by anti discrimination laws.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
weaver2 said:
Someone posted this on another forum: ""the Constitution and Supreme Court means we get a free ticket to discriminate against people we don't like (see: Masterpiece Cake shop case).

Do conservative Christians really believe that the phrase "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof " in the First Amendment of the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decision in the Masterpiece Cake case both mean they have the right to discriminate against gays and other "people we don't like"?
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS did not rule based on the the underlying discrimination rather based on the hostility toward the business shown by the state's players in evaluating the claims. It is still a rather open question.
 
Drawdown said:
The SCOTUS did not rule based on the the underlying discrimination rather based on the hostility toward the business shown by the state's players in evaluating the claims. It is still a rather open question.
Click to expand...

You know that. I know that. But a hell of a lot of people think the Masterpiece Cake gave Phillips and other mental midgets the right to discriminate against as they said, "people we don't like".
 
Glitch said:
When government berates and demonizes someone for their religious beliefs it is called religious persecution. You can make all the excuses for Colorado all you like, but religious persecution is a tactic leftists have employed for decades. It is well past time they were held accountable.

Colorado was extremely hostile towards Christians, and in Mr. Phillips case, persecuted him illegally.
Click to expand...

Colorado was extremely hostile toward Phillips. No Christians were persecuted. I'm not making excuses for Colorado. The hostility of the court and commissioners was out of line. They were held accountable by the Supreme Court. Were you hoping for a public flogging? You need to look at the tactics employed by conservative Christians. You have your own problems with persecuting minorities through out history.
 
roguenuke said:
That is fact. It is a description of history. Southern Democrats are/were conservatives, not liberals.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Democrats have always been, and continue to be leftists. Just because they call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" doesn't mean they are. Whenever a Democrat claims to be a "liberal" or "progressive" they are actually the exact opposite. Democrats tried changing the meaning of the words in order to try to disguise their leftist fascist tendencies. The only people they are fooling is themselves. Everyone knows Democrats have always been and will always be anti-American leftists and the greatest threat this nation has ever faced.
 
weaver2 said:
Colorado was extremely hostile toward Phillips. No Christians were persecuted.
Click to expand...
Mr. Phillips was.

weaver2 said:
I'm not making excuses for Colorado. The hostility of the court and commissioners was out of line. They were held accountable by the Supreme Court. Were you hoping for a public flogging?
Click to expand...
I am expecting the offending Colorado government official to have been fired, and Mr. Phillips compensated by the State of Colorado for violating his First Amendment rights.

weaver2 said:
You need to look at the tactics employed by conservative Christians.
Click to expand...
No, I don't. Because this case was not about Christians, it was about Colorado's abuse of power and religious persecution.
 
Glitch said:
Democrats have always been, and continue to be leftists. Just because they call themselves "liberal" or "progressive" doesn't mean they are. Whenever a Democrat claims to be a "liberal" or "progressive" they are actually the exact opposite. Democrats tried changing the meaning of the words in order to try to disguise their leftist fascist tendencies. The only people they are fooling is themselves. Everyone knows Democrats have always been and will always be anti-American leftists and the greatest threat this nation has ever faced.
Click to expand...

Balderdash.
I know what liberal means, been one all my life. Learned liberal values all my life. Liberals are left of centre but unfortunately there's a bunch of far- left lunatics on the same side of centre. Just like there's a lunatic fringe on the right who can't be called conservatives.
In my lifetime there were conservative Democrats. Liberal Republicans, too. The world hasn't always been as sharply partisan as it is now and still isn't as cartoonishly two-dimensional as you want it to be.
 
Grand Mal said:
Balderdash.
I know what liberal means, been one all my life. Learned liberal values all my life. Liberals are left of centre but unfortunately there's a bunch of far- left lunatics on the same side of centre. Just like there's a lunatic fringe on the right who can't be called conservatives.
In my lifetime there were conservative Democrats. Liberal Republicans, too. The world hasn't always been as sharply partisan as it is now and still isn't as cartoonishly two-dimensional as you want it to be.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. That is what Democrats want people to believe "liberal" means. A "liberal" is someone who supports and/or advocates for individual liberties. Which is the antithesis of what Democrats are, who utterly despise liberty of any sort. Which is what makes them anti-American leftists.
 
Glitch said:
Incorrect. That is what Democrats want people to believe "liberal" means. A "liberal" is someone who supports and/or advocates for individual liberties. Which is the antithesis of what Democrats are, who utterly despise liberty of any sort. Which is what makes them anti-American leftists.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how you probably don't know any Democrats, progressives or liberals, how do you know so much about them? Who is telling you this and how do you know it's true if you don't know any liberals, progressives or Democrats?
 
Glitch said:
Incorrect. That is what Democrats want people to believe "liberal" means. A "liberal" is someone who supports and/or advocates for individual liberties. Which is the antithesis of what Democrats are, who utterly despise liberty of any sort. Which is what makes them anti-American leftists.
Click to expand...

Da HELL you talking about!??

giphy-2.gif
 
weaver2 said:
Seeing as how you probably don't know any Democrats, progressives or liberals, how do you know so much about them? Who is telling you this and how do you know it's true if you don't know any liberals, progressives or Democrats?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I've had the displeasure of meeting too many anti-American leftist freaks. History is a fine educator when it concerns leftist scum and their atrocities. Like the fascist FDR who illegally imprisoned tens of thousands of Americans without due process, stealing their property, and introducing forced sterilization of "undesirables." We are still paying for the crimes of FDR to this very day.

The Democratic Party was conceived out of sheer spite and hatred of the nation in 1828 by Andrew Jackson after he lost the 1824 election. Then began the very long history of Democrat atrocities, starting with the Trail of Tears. The nearly two centuries of crimes and atrocities committed by Democrats is long and very revealing into the nature of their character.

You are undoubtedly a product of the leftist indoctrination centers once called public schools, so you were never taught American history. You were spoon fed leftist propaganda.
 
Glitch said:
Unfortunately, I've had the displeasure of meeting too many anti-American leftist freaks. History is a fine educator when it concerns leftist scum and their atrocities. Like the fascist FDR who illegally imprisoned tens of thousands of Americans without due process, stealing their property, and introducing forced sterilization of "undesirables." We are still paying for the crimes of FDR to this very day.

The Democratic Party was conceived out of sheer spite and hatred of the nation in 1828 by Andrew Jackson after he lost the 1824 election. Then began the very long history of Democrat atrocities, starting with the Trail of Tears. The nearly two centuries of crimes and atrocities committed by Democrats is long and very revealing into the nature of their character.

You are undoubtedly a product of the leftist indoctrination centers once called public schools, so you were never taught American history. You were spoon fed leftist propaganda.
Click to expand...




FDR? How old are you?
 
TurtleDude said:
there are good faith arguments on both sides as to gays. You are correct, scum like the klan are not protected and anyone who discriminates against them is well within their legal and moral rights to do so
Click to expand...

Possibly. I am assuming you are arguing in good faith so i will be charitable. I think it is good to protect people that have suffered coordinated economic disenfranchisement. Have you thought about what it would be like to be born in a society that actively works to make it nearly impossible for you to make a living within it no matter how qualified you are? I could try to imagine but i would be lying if i said i could vividly imagine what it is like. I can only say that certain laws are necessary to enable people who have suffered under deliberately imposed economic hardships to be able to survive. I am interested in what argument you have to put forth.
 
Glitch said:
Unfortunately, I've had the displeasure of meeting too many anti-American leftist freaks. History is a fine educator when it concerns leftist scum and their atrocities. Like the fascist FDR who illegally imprisoned tens of thousands of Americans without due process, stealing their property, and introducing forced sterilization of "undesirables." We are still paying for the crimes of FDR to this very day.

The Democratic Party was conceived out of sheer spite and hatred of the nation in 1828 by Andrew Jackson after he lost the 1824 election. Then began the very long history of Democrat atrocities, starting with the Trail of Tears. The nearly two centuries of crimes and atrocities committed by Democrats is long and very revealing into the nature of their character.

You are undoubtedly a product of the leftist indoctrination centers once called public schools, so you were never taught American history. You were spoon fed leftist propaganda.
Click to expand...

FDR was trying to negotiate with businesses to come up with concessions to prevent a leftist uprising.
 
bomberfox said:
Possibly. I am assuming you are arguing in good faith so i will be charitable. I think it is good to protect people that have suffered coordinated economic disenfranchisement. Have you thought about what it would be like to be born in a society that actively works to make it nearly impossible for you to make a living within it no matter how qualified you are? I could try to imagine but i would be lying if i said i could vividly imagine what it is like. I can only say that certain laws are necessary to enable people who have suffered under deliberately imposed economic hardships to be able to survive. I am interested in what argument you have to put forth.
Click to expand...

The concept of a limited government that should be restricted to its enumerated powers. Any welfare was supposed to be at a state level. That way, checks and balances would operate. In other words, say if a state like California went bonkers in its social welfare. that would cause those who are dependent on government handouts, to flock to California. California would then either have to cut back its handouts, or tax its productive citizens more. If the latter took place, many productive people would leave for other states. This sort of limitation on state stupidity is what the founders intended. So I oppose federal welfare programs and I oppose federal interference with private business. If states wish to pass non discrimination laws that apply to private business-so be it
 
TurtleDude said:
The concept of a limited government that should be restricted to its enumerated powers. Any welfare was supposed to be at a state level. That way, checks and balances would operate. In other words, say if a state like California went bonkers in its social welfare. that would cause those who are dependent on government handouts, to flock to California. California would then either have to cut back its handouts, or tax its productive citizens more. If the latter took place, many productive people would leave for other states. This sort of limitation on state stupidity is what the founders intended. So I oppose federal welfare programs and I oppose federal interference with private business. If states wish to pass non discrimination laws that apply to private business-so be it
Click to expand...


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...


What part of the words "Preamble", "form a more perfect union". and do ordain and establish" do you limited government guys not understand . And what makes you think the Constitution allows the federal government to only fund the military, wage war and collect taxes. You' quote the founding fathers when you want to discriminate against gays why don't you read up and see what else they thought government should do.
 
weaver2 said:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of ...


What part of the words "Preamble", "form a more perfect union". and do ordain and establish" do you limited government guys not understand . And what makes you think the Constitution allows the federal government to only fund the military, wage war and collect taxes. You' quote the founding fathers when you want to discriminate against gays why don't you read up and see what else they thought government should do.
Click to expand...

I don't support discrimination against gays. Try again, that rant was pretty inaccurate
 
bomberfox said:
FDR was trying to negotiate with businesses to come up with concessions to prevent a leftist uprising.
Click to expand...

FDR was the leftist uprising. Did you know that after the Supreme Court ruled 11 of FDR's New Deal programs unconstitutional in 1936 that he replaced all nine justices between 1937 and 1943? Amazing how all nine justices managed to die off within that 6 year window when they have never done so before or since in all of US history. FDR never compromised with anyone. He ran rough-shod over the nation imposing his brand of leftist socialism everywhere he went.

If you want a real horror story I suggest you read up about the atrocities FDR committed under the Tennessee Valley Authority which he intended to use as a model for rural electrification for the nation. Fortunately for the nation the fascist bastard died before he could implement his monstrosity.
 
Glitch said:
FDR was the leftist uprising. Did you know that after the Supreme Court ruled 11 of FDR's New Deal programs unconstitutional in 1936 that he replaced all nine justices between 1937 and 1943? Amazing how all nine justices managed to die off within that 6 year window when they have never done so before or since in all of US history. FDR never compromised with anyone. He ran rough-shod over the nation imposing his brand of leftist socialism everywhere he went.

If you want a real horror story I suggest you read up about the atrocities FDR committed under the Tennessee Valley Authority which he intended to use as a model for rural electrification for the nation. Fortunately for the nation the fascist bastard died before he could implement his monstrosity.
Click to expand...


Yeah, fascist bastard brought electricity to rural areas where private electric corporations refused to put in lines. Commie!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom