Loss of rights and other "feel good" BS!
- Thread starter Loaded
- Start date
- Status
JohnBT
Member
"...reclaim our country for what it was built upon..."
Religious intolerance, slavery and indentured servitude?
I'll pass.
John
Religious intolerance, slavery and indentured servitude?
I'll pass.
John
GinSlinger
Member
Regarding Smoking;
In my town we have a crusade against smoking in resteraunts led by the mother of a severly asthmetic (SP?) child. While this woman was able to obtain 2,000 signatures to ban smoking, the local bars/restaurants collected 3,700 (In a town of 26,000 when college is out and twice that when college is in--course most students aren't registered to vote here or anywhere). Did that end this? No, the mother threatened action under the Americans with Disabilities act.
Hmm, okay, so the city council is still debating this. However, the Social Security Admin considers addiction (alchohol, drugs, etc) a disability. If that is the case, shouldn't smokers be considered addicts, and therefore disabled? And if that is the case shouldn't establishments be FORCED to make provisions for smokers? Oh course not, but neither should a restaurant be forced to ban smoking.
On another note, the ban proposed for San Antone--a restauranter there has opened a non-smoking only rest and claims that business would be better for all restaurants if they all went non-smoking. That seems counter to business sense. If he is doing so well by being different, why would he want everyone else to be like him?
Land grabs for finches, anti-smoking laws, etc. Other people telling property owners how to dispose of thier property--burns me up. I feel the juices rising right now.
GinSlinger
In my town we have a crusade against smoking in resteraunts led by the mother of a severly asthmetic (SP?) child. While this woman was able to obtain 2,000 signatures to ban smoking, the local bars/restaurants collected 3,700 (In a town of 26,000 when college is out and twice that when college is in--course most students aren't registered to vote here or anywhere). Did that end this? No, the mother threatened action under the Americans with Disabilities act.
Hmm, okay, so the city council is still debating this. However, the Social Security Admin considers addiction (alchohol, drugs, etc) a disability. If that is the case, shouldn't smokers be considered addicts, and therefore disabled? And if that is the case shouldn't establishments be FORCED to make provisions for smokers? Oh course not, but neither should a restaurant be forced to ban smoking.
On another note, the ban proposed for San Antone--a restauranter there has opened a non-smoking only rest and claims that business would be better for all restaurants if they all went non-smoking. That seems counter to business sense. If he is doing so well by being different, why would he want everyone else to be like him?
Land grabs for finches, anti-smoking laws, etc. Other people telling property owners how to dispose of thier property--burns me up. I feel the juices rising right now.
GinSlinger
6. I fail to see how allowing same-sex unions is depriving anyone of freedoms, unless said unions receive preferential treatment. (This is relevant how?)
5. Like another said, enforce sanctions only if abuse occurs.
4. I would prefer to see no school prayer as opposed to children being forced to sit through mandatory prayer.
3. I think the Pledge should stay. I do not see mention of it in the Constitution, however.
2. That's just stupid.
1. Should be up to the establishment, just as customers can always vote with their feet.
Loaded, I think most people here are in favor of more freedom, not less. Not allowing #6 is disallowing (IMO) a priviledge others have- and I don't see it hurting you. Why not? (Answer can only be phrased in a political vein.) #4 and #3 should be optional, unless you believe in forcing folks to do what you want them to- which would make you different from these "feel-good" elitists how?
John
5. Like another said, enforce sanctions only if abuse occurs.
4. I would prefer to see no school prayer as opposed to children being forced to sit through mandatory prayer.
3. I think the Pledge should stay. I do not see mention of it in the Constitution, however.
2. That's just stupid.
1. Should be up to the establishment, just as customers can always vote with their feet.
Loaded, I think most people here are in favor of more freedom, not less. Not allowing #6 is disallowing (IMO) a priviledge others have- and I don't see it hurting you. Why not? (Answer can only be phrased in a political vein.) #4 and #3 should be optional, unless you believe in forcing folks to do what you want them to- which would make you different from these "feel-good" elitists how?
John
Gordon Fink
Member
Prayer in the Schools
Oh, for the love of God! Please show me the law that prohibits prayer in school.
Hint: it doesn’t exist.
When religious zealots say “prayer in school is outlawed,†what they really mean is that “my style of prayer is not mandated by law.†If you want teachers to force your kids to pray, then send them to a religious school!
~G. Fink, feeling better now
Oh, for the love of God! Please show me the law that prohibits prayer in school.
Hint: it doesn’t exist.
When religious zealots say “prayer in school is outlawed,†what they really mean is that “my style of prayer is not mandated by law.†If you want teachers to force your kids to pray, then send them to a religious school!
~G. Fink, feeling better now
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Grampster. I feel you pain...
Quartus, I don't know about your state but in the Deep South 90+% of the plaintiff's lawyers are solid Democrats. I know one group of them who own a "hunting camp" where they smooze the politicians. Lodge comes complete with an air field, a bar, swimming pool, hot tubs, call girls, call boys, the works.
Fink. You know this SOS gets old after a while.
Quartus, I don't know about your state but in the Deep South 90+% of the plaintiff's lawyers are solid Democrats. I know one group of them who own a "hunting camp" where they smooze the politicians. Lodge comes complete with an air field, a bar, swimming pool, hot tubs, call girls, call boys, the works.
Fink. You know this SOS gets old after a while.
brookstexas
member
Well most of your points are correct
But these two, well....
4. Prayer removed from school (unles you're a muslim, then it's ok).
There is NOT ONE public school in America where a student cannot say a prayer.
6. Recognizing same sex (homos) marriage.
Yeah I also think it's really unfair for all Americans to enjoy the same legal rights and opportunities. Look what letting women and blacks vote started for instance.
BT
But these two, well....
4. Prayer removed from school (unles you're a muslim, then it's ok).
There is NOT ONE public school in America where a student cannot say a prayer.
6. Recognizing same sex (homos) marriage.
Yeah I also think it's really unfair for all Americans to enjoy the same legal rights and opportunities. Look what letting women and blacks vote started for instance.
BT
brookstexas
member
Quartus
Call any public school in your area tomorrow. Say "Is it ok for my child to say a prayer between classes, at lunch, before or after school or at a religious club meeting (if they have one).
The answer is that will be fine, why? Because there is NO LAW prohibiting it!
Call any public school in your area tomorrow. Say "Is it ok for my child to say a prayer between classes, at lunch, before or after school or at a religious club meeting (if they have one).
The answer is that will be fine, why? Because there is NO LAW prohibiting it!
GinSlinger
Member
Frankie:
How's that for indentured sevritude and slavery? As far as religous intolerence...I'll leave that to others.
GinSlinger
Article 4 Sect 2
Aticle 1 Section 9
Article 1 Section 2
How's that for indentured sevritude and slavery? As far as religous intolerence...I'll leave that to others.
GinSlinger
1. If people want to poison themselves with cigarettes, they should be free to do so, as long as it isn't directly harming the health of anybody else. Just another example of the left wingers trying to engineer society into what a few perceive as a proper utopia.
2. That's BS. If a kid can't get away from getting tagged, he should feel like a loser. He is a loser. He lost. He should be taught to keep trying, and make himself better so he won't lose again.
3. The pledge should stay. If you don't believe in the "under God" part, don't say it. Simple enough. That's what I did when I was in school.
4. If kids, as a group or alone, want to pray for whatever reason, they should be able to. But nobody should be forced to join in a school wide prayer. Nor should there BE a school wide prayer. Organized prayer ran by the school = unconstitutional. Plain and simple.
5. Plenty of people can drive just fine with a cell phone. Those who are irresponsible enough to not pay attention to the road regardless of any in-car activities will not become responsible when the inanimate object is removed.
6. OMG! Allowing consenting adults to marry one another even if religion A or B doesn't approve! FREEDOM IS DYING! OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TRAMPLED! AHHHHH! Just another example of the right wingers trying to engineer society into what a few perceive as a proper utopia.
Obviously you personally don't approve of homo or bisexuality. Fine and dandy, certainly your right to voice your displeasure. But forcing somebody with a different sexual orientation to live as sub-standard citizens by removing the same rights and abilities a heterosexual person has is the very core, the very essence of tyranny. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because you hold the opposite end of the political opinion than the left on same sex marriage that you're the good guy, or pro-liberty. You're not. You're just a different flavor tyrant than them.
2. That's BS. If a kid can't get away from getting tagged, he should feel like a loser. He is a loser. He lost. He should be taught to keep trying, and make himself better so he won't lose again.
3. The pledge should stay. If you don't believe in the "under God" part, don't say it. Simple enough. That's what I did when I was in school.
4. If kids, as a group or alone, want to pray for whatever reason, they should be able to. But nobody should be forced to join in a school wide prayer. Nor should there BE a school wide prayer. Organized prayer ran by the school = unconstitutional. Plain and simple.
5. Plenty of people can drive just fine with a cell phone. Those who are irresponsible enough to not pay attention to the road regardless of any in-car activities will not become responsible when the inanimate object is removed.
6. OMG! Allowing consenting adults to marry one another even if religion A or B doesn't approve! FREEDOM IS DYING! OUR RIGHTS ARE BEING TRAMPLED! AHHHHH!
Just another example of the right wingers trying to engineer society into what a few perceive as a proper utopia.Obviously you personally don't approve of homo or bisexuality. Fine and dandy, certainly your right to voice your displeasure. But forcing somebody with a different sexual orientation to live as sub-standard citizens by removing the same rights and abilities a heterosexual person has is the very core, the very essence of tyranny. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just because you hold the opposite end of the political opinion than the left on same sex marriage that you're the good guy, or pro-liberty. You're not. You're just a different flavor tyrant than them.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Pardon, but I think that redefining marriage to include various nontraditional genders et cetera is sort of like redefining shooting to include golf and bowling. Calling an apple an orange doesn't make it an apple.
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
If you want to know someone's political persuasion, ask them whether gay couples should be allowed to get marriage licenses.
If he says "Yes", he's a Liberal.
If he says "No", he's a Conservative.
If he says "Marriage License?!?", he's a Libertarian.
Personally, I think the whole "gay marriage" debate misses the point. The state should have no business in deciding who can or cannot get married. The only necessary ingredients are a consenting couple, and a priest or other official of whatever religion the couple chose. Strictly speaking, the priest ought to be optional...two people are married when they say they are married.
Why should this be a federal matter? If the Baptists don't want to marry gays, it's their business alone. If the Methodists or Wiccans do marry gays, that's their business.
Funny how the same folks who invoke the superiority of "local law" when it comes to religious and gun issues are fully supportive of a federal law prohibiting gay marriage.
If he says "Yes", he's a Liberal.
If he says "No", he's a Conservative.
If he says "Marriage License?!?", he's a Libertarian.
Personally, I think the whole "gay marriage" debate misses the point. The state should have no business in deciding who can or cannot get married. The only necessary ingredients are a consenting couple, and a priest or other official of whatever religion the couple chose. Strictly speaking, the priest ought to be optional...two people are married when they say they are married.
Why should this be a federal matter? If the Baptists don't want to marry gays, it's their business alone. If the Methodists or Wiccans do marry gays, that's their business.
Funny how the same folks who invoke the superiority of "local law" when it comes to religious and gun issues are fully supportive of a federal law prohibiting gay marriage.
Loaded, you contradict yourself:
3. Pledge of Allegience removed from schools.
6. Recognizing same sex (homos) marriage.
You want no nanny state? Then don't make kids recite a pledge they don't "get" every day thinking soem will "get" it some day. Pointless!
And what business is it of yours what homos do? Let em marry. They'll stop spreading AIDS.
3. Pledge of Allegience removed from schools.
6. Recognizing same sex (homos) marriage.
You want no nanny state? Then don't make kids recite a pledge they don't "get" every day thinking soem will "get" it some day. Pointless!
And what business is it of yours what homos do? Let em marry. They'll stop spreading AIDS.
seeker_two
Member
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way...
BTW, why do homosexuals want gay marriage legalized? They can partner up & have ceremonies like everyone else. So why the fuss about the law?...
(I know the answer, but I want to see what everyone else says...)
Marko Kloos
Moderator Emeritus
FUnny "opinion" I read in The Onion a while back:
"First the military, now marriage. Why do gays want into our worst institutions?"
"First the military, now marriage. Why do gays want into our worst institutions?"
You're right. No law. But plenty of court cases. Plenty of court ORDERS to that effect, backed up by men with guns who will take offenders to jail. Plenty of cases of children being told they cannot pray in front of a school or in class before hours or after hours or during hours. Plenty of kids told they can't wear a religious T-shirt or emblem. Plenty of kids SUSPENDED for doing so.
You're right. There are no laws against those things.
It's still happening.
braindead0
Member
I just can't help, I must comment on the Cell phone issue. Driving while using a cell-phone is probably rather stupid for most people, now when they conduct studies that show 'cell phones are as bad as being drunk' they fail to account for the fact that the person using the cell phone while driving is probably a *bad driver* anyway.
I'm sure a lot of folks here remember the 70's, darned near everybody had a CB and was yacking away non-stop (as much as possible). Nobody tried to ban CB's...thankfully.
I'm sure a lot of folks here remember the 70's, darned near everybody had a CB and was yacking away non-stop (as much as possible). Nobody tried to ban CB's...thankfully.
Good analogy, braindead, except for one thing: We never had even CLOSE to 140 million CB users. That's the latest number on cellphone users in the U.S. And to think that, back in the late 70's, Ma Bell expected 50,000 users nationwide by the year 2000! Uh, missed it by THAT much!
Dunno the exact breakdown nationally - I suspect it's not quite THAT biased, but the Trial Lawyers Association is of of the Dems heaviest contributors.
That's not A Good Thing!
Dunno the exact breakdown nationally - I suspect it's not quite THAT biased, but the Trial Lawyers Association is of of the Dems heaviest contributors.
That's not A Good Thing!
How? A marriage between a same sex couple as opposed to opposite sex accomplishes the same thing, does it not? It creates a union of consenting adults. Is your issue with this not being able to start a family? Biologically speaking, they can't start a family with one another, but they can utilize any number of options to otherwise raise a child together. Plus plenty of marriages never result in children anyway. I wasn't aware that ‘will work to impregnate' was a marriage requirement. If a marriage revolves around children, why are barren couples allowed to marry?
Now as to there being a need for a license at all... well, that's another thread.
Gordon Fink
Member
Quartus, I asked for a citation to statutes prohibiting prayer in the schools, but the best you could do was refer me to an urban legend and make some vague statements about court cases?
Yes, in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Abbington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett) ruled that organized prayer (i.e., prayer mandated by the state) in public schools is unconstitutional. This is as it should be, respecting the First Amendment.
So I’ll ask again. Which law prohibits students, staff, or faculty from praying at a public school during their own time?
~G. Fink
Yes, in 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Abbington School District v. Schempp and Murray v. Curlett) ruled that organized prayer (i.e., prayer mandated by the state) in public schools is unconstitutional. This is as it should be, respecting the First Amendment.
So I’ll ask again. Which law prohibits students, staff, or faculty from praying at a public school during their own time?
~G. Fink
Freedspeak
Member
Why gay marrige?
As I understand it , the reason is so their partner can have the benefits (job or other related) as the partner in a heterosexual relationship. There was an incident in Tampa where an officer was killed in the line of duty, and the "SO" was ineligable for any benifits that a traditional SO would have gotten.
As I understand it , the reason is so their partner can have the benefits (job or other related) as the partner in a heterosexual relationship. There was an incident in Tampa where an officer was killed in the line of duty, and the "SO" was ineligable for any benifits that a traditional SO would have gotten.
Gordon Fink
Member
Which “facts†would those be? Quartus, if you can show me a law (or even a sufficiently broad court order) banning school prayer, I will retract my statement that such legal prohibitions don’t exist.
I researched the few “facts†you did give me, but all I came up with were references to the Supreme Court cases regarding the unconstitutionality of state-mandated prayer and to urban legends surrounding a petition to restrict religious broadcasting. The FCC hasn’t prohibited religious programming, and Congress hasn’t outlawed Christmas, so I fail to see the restriction of religious freedom—beyond the various remaining pro-Christian biases, of course.
~G. Fink
I researched the few “facts†you did give me, but all I came up with were references to the Supreme Court cases regarding the unconstitutionality of state-mandated prayer and to urban legends surrounding a petition to restrict religious broadcasting. The FCC hasn’t prohibited religious programming, and Congress hasn’t outlawed Christmas, so I fail to see the restriction of religious freedom—beyond the various remaining pro-Christian biases, of course.
~G. Fink
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
