And In Other News Part 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
CA Students lose case regarding being made to remove t-shirts with American Flag on Cinco De Mayo.

A Northern California high school did not violate the constitutional rights of students when it ordered them to remove shirts emblazoned with the American flag during a celebration of Cinco De Mayo, a federal appeals court decided unanimously Thursday.

The Anglo students in the flag apparel argued they suffered discrimination because students wearing the colors of the Mexican flag were not required to change their clothing.

[/quote]

“Our school is so horrendous, so hopeless, we have to protect you from the dangers of wearing an American Flag shirt on Cinco De Mayo.”
Have any adults thought that maybe it’s time to remove the students who would be offended enough by an American flag (on any day of the year) to resort to violence? How about reserving the school for the student who can get a kick out of Cinco de Mayo, and still wear (or see someone else wear) an American flag T-shirt? How did this culture become one that is excruciatingly deferential to others (when, hey, who really has a spotless history), while full of self-hating, we-don’t-deserve-to-be-here-anyways, martyrdom.

And, hey, I get that wearing the American flag T-shirt might have (and likely did have) the intention to provoke. But who the hell sat by and waited for it to get so damn bad that said T-shirt even had an audience to provoke?! Rofl.

/Throws his hands up. Goes outside. Takes a couple of deep breaths. Watches the Sandhill Crane pair walk through a nearby field. Feels calmness and serenity settling back in. Comes back in and sits back down.

I mean, seriously? How?

422

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I really don’t want to turn this into another gay marriage thread but I have a question: should a pastor/bishop/priest who believes gay marriage to be a sin be required under penalty of law to professionally officiate at a gay wedding?

If your answer is no then tell me why the baker is different from the pastor.

Andy, let’s start with you.[/quote]

Do churches follow the same laws as other public businesses? I’m not sure the comparison is valid. Businesses are generally open to the public which are what the discrimination laws are for, are mormon temples like that? It’s more of an invite only thing vs all free to come in, unless we say no.[/quote]

Doesn’t have to be in a church building.

Let’s say the gay couple wanted a wedding down by the riverside 100 miles away from the nearest church. So they call Pastor John F Humpenstickenstein from the Calvary Baptist Church or Father Joe W PeterThouArtMyRock from the Catholic diocese and request he perform the vows. If the men refuse to do so on the grounds of immorality should District Attorney Richard S ConstitutionBeDamned step in and file charges against them?
[/quote]

Nope[/quote]

Why not?

OK, now explain why the wedding cake baker is different from the pastor.
[/quote]

A pastor performs religious services specific to their religion. If the wedding goes against it then its not a service they offer. Would it make sense for the attorney general to file charges against a pastor for refusing service when someone insists they change their car oil and rotate their tires.[/quote]

You’ve got to know how weak an argument that is.

So if a baker calls his shop the “Christ is Lord Bakery,” thereby announcing to all that his business is specifically a religious one, you would place his status with the pastor, meaning he’s off the hook of having to legally comply?

But if the guy across the street calls his business, “9th St. Bakery,” you’d agree that under penalty of law he must make the gay wedding cake? You would want him to be fined after due process and if he failed to pay the fine you’d have him incarcerated?
[/quote]

I’m not sure the bakery name matters but certainly if you own a business where you make custom designs for people you could easily specify in fine print you won’t make designs you find offensive or something. Basically the reason you are refusing service is a choice the customer is making and not something they don’t have control of like sex/race.

425

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s amazing the mental gymnastics some will put themselves through to try and make a case for extending the power of the state against personal freedom.[/quote]

Politics is the pursuit of power. A balance must be struck between security and liberty. As threats to national and international security continue to proliferate and become more complex as humanity moves into the 21st century, it stands to reason that expansion of state power is a necessary course of action to maintain order. Ergo, the dilemma is to what degree state power should be expanded.

428

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I really don’t want to turn this into another gay marriage thread but I have a question: should a pastor/bishop/priest who believes gay marriage to be a sin be required under penalty of law to professionally officiate at a gay wedding?

If your answer is no then tell me why the baker is different from the pastor.

Andy, let’s start with you.[/quote]

Do churches follow the same laws as other public businesses? I’m not sure the comparison is valid. Businesses are generally open to the public which are what the discrimination laws are for, are mormon temples like that? It’s more of an invite only thing vs all free to come in, unless we say no.[/quote]

Doesn’t have to be in a church building.

Let’s say the gay couple wanted a wedding down by the riverside 100 miles away from the nearest church. So they call Pastor John F Humpenstickenstein from the Calvary Baptist Church or Father Joe W PeterThouArtMyRock from the Catholic diocese and request he perform the vows. If the men refuse to do so on the grounds of immorality should District Attorney Richard S ConstitutionBeDamned step in and file charges against them?
[/quote]

Nope[/quote]

Why not?

OK, now explain why the wedding cake baker is different from the pastor.
[/quote]

A pastor performs religious services specific to their religion. If the wedding goes against it then its not a service they offer. Would it make sense for the attorney general to file charges against a pastor for refusing service when someone insists they change their car oil and rotate their tires.[/quote]

You’ve got to know how weak an argument that is.

So if a baker calls his shop the “Christ is Lord Bakery,” thereby announcing to all that his business is specifically a religious one, you would place his status with the pastor, meaning he’s off the hook of having to legally comply?

But if the guy across the street calls his business, “9th St. Bakery,” you’d agree that under penalty of law he must make the gay wedding cake? You would want him to be fined after due process and if he failed to pay the fine you’d have him incarcerated?
[/quote]

I’m not sure the bakery name matters but certainly if you own a business where you make custom designs for people you could easily specify in fine print you won’t make designs you find offensive or something. Basically the reason you are refusing service is a choice the customer is making and not something they don’t have control of like sex/race.[/quote]

You didn’t answer either question.
[/quote]

Yes a baker can refuse service to a gay wedding, I don’t see why the name of the business matters.

If the guy across the street calls his business “Joes plumbing” do you think under penalty of law he must make a gay wedding cake?

429

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s amazing the mental gymnastics some will put themselves through to try and make a case for extending the power of the state against personal freedom.[/quote]

Politics is the pursuit of power. A balance must be struck between security and liberty. As threats to national and international security continue to proliferate and become more complex as humanity moves into the 21st century, it stands to reason that expansion of state power is a necessary course of action to maintain order. Ergo, the dilemma is to what degree state power should be expanded.

430

[quote]pushharder wrote:
FWIW, if I as a heterosexual went into a bakery owned by gays asking for a wedding cake for the future Mrs. and I and the gay baker told me, “We only make wedding cakes for gays because our church doctrine teaches heterosexual marriage is a sin,” (especially if that church had been teaching that for thousands of years) I’d say “OK, no problem,” and head straight out the door to cheerfully take my business elsewhere.[/quote]

Exactly…if there is a need, the market will service it.

431

Push honestly your points are hilariously bad. It would be like saying an African American could vote in 1780 if they could write something on a piece of paper.

Yeah, I guess they CAN vote it just doesn’t count. Same thing with marriage. And it IS the government telling churches they won’t recognize them. That peculiarity was the same for blacks and whites at one point as well getting married. No big deal though right? You’re not for rights for gay people anyways.

It’s absolutely insane for you to attempt to talk about personal freedom and mental gymnastics with your hilarious double standards.

Like usual, you’re a pretty big fan of government imposing its will on stuff you disagree with. Most old “conservatives” are. We need government to mandate morality and religion as long as it is the morality and religion I agree with.

432

[quote]H factor wrote:

Like usual, you’re a pretty big fan of government imposing its will on stuff you disagree with. Most old “conservatives” are. We need government to mandate morality and religion as long as it is the morality and religion I agree with.

[/quote]

Ugh, this tired ass talking point.

Not only does the left regulate morality… ABortion anyone? But almost all laws do.

FFS, you’re smarter than this.

433

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Like usual, you’re a pretty big fan of government imposing its will on stuff you disagree with. Most old “conservatives” are. We need government to mandate morality and religion as long as it is the morality and religion I agree with.

[/quote]

Ugh, this tired ass talking point.

Not only does the left regulate morality… ABortion anyone? But almost all laws do.

FFS, you’re smarter than this.
[/quote]

Of course they do. Did I say they didn’t?

434

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

Like usual, you’re a pretty big fan of government imposing its will on stuff you disagree with. Most old “conservatives” are. We need government to mandate morality and religion as long as it is the morality and religion I agree with.

[/quote]

Ugh, this tired ass talking point.

Not only does the left regulate morality… ABortion anyone? But almost all laws do.

FFS, you’re smarter than this.
[/quote]

Of course they do. Did I say they didn’t? [/quote]

No, but the “legislate morality” talking point is tired.

How long is the list of laws not based on morality? Even then, of those by letter aren’t, most are sold as moral stands to the public. ACA for example.

438

[quote]H factor wrote:
Like usual, you’re a pretty big fan of government imposing its will on stuff you disagree with. Most old “conservatives” are. We need government to mandate morality and religion as long as it is the morality and religion I agree with.

[/quote]

Then why are you pro-STATE recognized gay marriage?

439

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Well shucks, this thread is no longer “And in Other News.”

If we don’t knock it off I’m going to post an R-rated photo of two naked lesbians getting married in a Kansas hot tub by a black woman whose great-great-great-great grandfather couldn’t vote in Mississippi. I’ll follow that up with a report that states local authorities did not arrest the couple for illegally marrying.[/quote]

So, as I was saying about income inequality…

440

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Harold, my points are impeccable.

Your comparison of lack of black suffrage in the past in some places doesn’t work for gay marriage in the present where in all places for the past few millenia it has gone unrecognized.

If blacks had been unable to legally marry in the past your analogy MIGHT have worked to a small extent.

A man’s desire – whether you want to argue causation by genetic predisposition or environment – to have another man insert his penis in his rectum and thereby demand matrimonial recognition by the state does not equate with a black man’s right to vote. It makes for an adorable little melody but nonetheless it’s always sung off key.[/quote]

What are you blabbering about?

Slaves could not marry legally in many places. This changed.
Blacks could not marry whites in many places. This changed.
Blacks could not vote in many places. This changed.

Are you against these changes? Or should laws and expectations change with the times? YOU being against gay marriage (and pro government deciding this based on YOUR religion–nothing else) puts you in the current minority. In 2014. Why not change laws to reflect opinions of the times?

The reason for you using language like insert his penis into a rectum (which is always odd that the homophobes talk about the act far more than me, but I digress) is because you want to try and use an image to make your point.

The state has long kept people from doing certain things. We are arguing that it is time for the state to change that. You are not coming from a freedom stance, yet are talking about the mental gymnastics needed to discuss freedom in other places.

I just pointed out your laughable hypocrisy as you trumpet freedom for business owners while proclaiming the need to decrease liberty in other areas.

Now I won’t make up a name for you like you do me, but is Pushharder about what you want a gay man to do to you? See it seems as if you talk about gay sex a lot. In fact you may be in second behind kneedragger for the amount of gay sex talk you have. Strike that…you’re third with conservativedog.

Yeah, the three people who talk the most about the act of gay sex are all old conservatives? Whatever floats your boat, I guess you guys have the freedom to think about it as much as you’d like. And type about it and find pictures like c-dog and all that other stuff.