Grave Violation of Liberty

You used the term "totalitarian" did you not? So, there is a nexus, wouldn't you agree?

 

WOW!

 

WOW!

 

Remember when the Muslims associate with them selves, Greenie's Extreme Right Wing associates get real upset and burn down their mosque. And Greenie's friends will go to a synagogue in Pittsburg to shoot people, just because they think George Soros pays immigrants from Honduras. Then, Greenie's friends will plant bombs at BLM marches to promote people's constitutional right to associate. Greenie's friends would even protest a Muslim mosque building permit, and prevent Muslims from parking across the street from their mosque in Texas, just to prevent freedom of association.

 

I think she has the hots for me, that's why she called me a jackass, huh?

 

Trump- & Maga- painted with red paint on Jewish tombstones in cemetery. Lots of class , as usual.

 

Yes, I saw that one too. I think it was in the Grand Rapids Michigan area. Western Michigan is mostly Republican. Trump supporters must have walnut size brains if they need to insult the dead and the families of the dead.

 

Srg

Oh so you have run away from our discussion....so you lied when you said you wouldn't?

 

You are an utter, contemptible liar.

"Greenie's friends" do no such things. I would not befriend such people. Such people, like you, are an anathema to me.

 

No, I do not "run away from our discussion", nor do I lie. But I may not be on here as often as you may wish. Tough. In this case, I have no idea what you are referring to.

But you are such a hateful, spiteful little man that I may elect not to respond to you.

 

Trump lost, so you can go back to your Evangelical website.

 

I'm your worst nightmare come true - I'm a communist !!!

 

So stereotypical. Your "grave violation of liberty" is a piece of legislation expanding the liberty of LGBTQs to obtain employment, housing and access to public accommodations without being discriminated against. As is the case with all liberties, the freedom for one category of persons comes at the expense of restricting the freedom of somebody else to interfere with that freedom. In this case, it's restricting the freedom of employers to discriminate--something we do in the case of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender but haven't done with regard to sexual orientation. Specifically, we are dealing here with the special case of religious organizations which believe LGBTQs are sinful. The thinking is that the religious employer's freedom to hold such beliefs should not be infringed upon by making them hire LGBTQs--which would be inconsistent with their messaging. I happen to agree it's a special case, and think it's likely an exception for them will be recognized in the legislation by the courts, or by the legislature if the courts strike down the present law. Evangelical churches have filed a suit challenging the law on its face, without waiting to see whether or not it will be enforced against them. It is possible the courts will conclude that the matter is not ripe for litigation, since it's not clear it would be mechanically applied to churches in the manner feared. The interesting thing is your histrionic presentation of the issue, as an example of what "the left" will do should Democrats come to power. As usual, your presentation and subsequent discussions are shrill and over-the-top in supercilious rhetoric. You give the impression you're perpetually on the verge of an appoplectic seizure. You're a veritable caricature of the red hot rightwing ideoplogue--full of sound and fury and signifying much ado about nothing.

 

Eloquent, poetic, and true.

 

I find your thought processes impressively uncritical and self-serving to the point of being jejune. You show an impressive ignorance of the very concept of liberty and the fundamental notion of rights on which liberty depends.

Rights of people, properly understood, do not conflict. Now there are times when determining what right is being violated is non-trivial, even times when both parties rights may appear in conflict. But this is not one. There is no right to impose yourself on others. The only moral transactions between adults in a civilized society are mutually voluntary ones.

The fact that violating one party's rights is something we do in the case of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender is as wrong as violating the right of associated based on sexual orientation. Pointing to the fact that we wrongly restrict freedom of association when it comes to things like race is absolutely no justification for equally wrongly applying the same ill-conceived remedy elsewhere.

Classic example of the enormous hubris of the left. Your arrogance knows no bounds. Allow me to suggest that Christian organizations have a better handle on their message, and what is inconsistent with it, than you do.

 

Post 55--The fact that violating one party's rights is something we do in the case of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender is as wrong as violating the right of associated based on sexual orientation.[/QUOTE]
And who would be those who have been adjudicated against because of race? Those that carry out the lynching of black people? Yes. Their rights have been infringed upon. Those that deny rentals to black people? Yes. Their rights have been infringed upon. Those that deny equal rights because of ethnicity? Yes . Adjudication has determined that according to the constitution those deniers have been deemed wrong. Religion? No. Religion has the full protection of the constitution. Gender? Attempts are constantly being made to recognize that women should be equal in all ways to men in government, lending institutions and in businesses. Sexual orientation? Mind your own business!!

That you think the issues mentioned have no business to be adjudicated upon, shows exactly who you are and how you view remedial action towards equity/equality. Stuff it.

 

I find your thought processes stereotypically right wing, consisting mostly of empty slogans and half-baked ideology pulled out of a libertarian manual, or quaint social contract theories, or out of thin air or an orifice of some sort. You're entitled to your opinion on what the law or rights should be, but as John Austin (The Province of Jurisprudence Determined) used to say, if you think they're not the law or rights, we will prove you wrong by subjecting you to the prescribed penalties.

Nonsense on stilts! Utterly unworkable in a society this day and age. Where did you get those absurd notions? Sounds like the kind of hot air Ayn Rand used to spout while she was collecting her welfare checks. Such attitude that had some currency in elite Republican circles at the turn of the twentieth century , but went out with Stutz Bearcat and the Turkey Trot. Surely you're not that old! Objectivism and Austrian economics will rot your brain!

You talk of rights as though they were metaphysical entities in Plato's heaven. Such sloppy thinking may get you by in an elementary school classroom, but won't cut it in the adult world. A legal right is simply an entitlement, recognized by government, to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Obviously there are plenty of zero-sum situations in human relationships, and we've decided through our elected representatives that an individual's right to be considered as a job applicant, free of racial, religious or gender preferences, trumps an employer's right not to hire that person because of such prejudices.. There is no right to deny employment on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender, because Congress says there is no such right, and the Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, backs it up. Women, African-Americans, and other groups fought long and hard to see to that, and you, as a Filipino-American are a beneficiary. An employer who tries to deny that will find himself/herself fined and subject to lawsuits for back pay, front pay, court costs, attorney's fees. and/or an injunction. Likewise, there is no right to deny employment on the basis of sexual orientation if a state legislature says so, provided doing so doesn't interfere with constitutionally granted rights, which it doesn't . The one in question here is the First Amendment free exercise clause, but the Supreme Court has made clear that a "neutral law of general applicability generally does not implicate the Free Exercise Clause". In the specific instance in question, concerning a church that considers LGBTQs immoral. Sorting out that conflict will probably require litigation, but it won't be settled by spouting archaic libertarian nonsense. You seem to be living in an alternate universe. You assert "The fact that violating one party's rights is something we do in the case of race, ethnicity, religion, and gender is as wrong as violating the right of associated based on sexual orientation." That's all it is: a baseless extremist assertion by a lunatic fringe of right wingers who, let us hope, will never have power in this country. The rights of employers are established by law, including the Bill of Rights and state constitutions and statutes. They aren't property to have and "to hold from this day forward", but are always subject to reasonable modification in the public interest and necessity, within the bounds of constitutional rational basis and (where appropriate) strict scrutiny requirements.

Rights in a democratic republic like ours are determined by the Constitution, Congress, the courts and the state governments. If I understand you correctly (I hope I'm not) you seem to be saying that laws protecting people from employment discrimination are an infringement of the employer's rights. That's a pretty extreme position, and one that has little hope of winning acceptance in contemporary society. Perhaps you'd be happier on another planet.

Classic projection. Your grandiose claims of rights are a fig leaf covering bigotry and greed. Get up on your high horse and vituperate to your heart's content, but I think the flimsiness of your position is apparent. Behind all the supercilious bravado is a status-insecure person afraid that what she's gained materially will be taken from her. The libertarian crap is just a rationalization of that position.

You can "suggest" anything you want, but some "Christian" organizations are essentially Pharisees in disguise and have been longstanding opponents of civil rights.

 

SRG

LOL – oh and there you go lying again

What has that got to do with it? I mean you even started a thread all about one of my 'snotty' questions then abandoned it after I replied and you have often refused to answer questions in multiple other threads, even in this thread.

All I can see that as is another lie

And this s the much worn and grubby ‘get out of jail free card’ you use whenever you wish to run away from a discussion you find difficult – sorry this faux righteous indignation of yours just doesn’t work anymore.

*

The point I’ve been making is that since there are bigoted sects of Christianity and unbigoted sects of Christianity, I don’t think an unbigoted Christian would be a member of a bigoted sect.

 

Srg

Well this fits in nicely with my point

Which Christians?

What message?

I mean there have been many bloody wars between differing Christian sects over what the message was supposedly meant to be, many Christians have been tortured and murdered [by other Christians] over differing interpretations of the supposed message.

And as I’ve pointed out again there are Christion sects that have no problem with homosexuality and others that do.

There does not seem to be a consistent message – it seems to me that many people have certain views and chose to be part of a Christion sect that fits in with that view, not the other way around – so someone that is bigoted is likely to choose to be in a bigoted Christian sect and someone without bigoted views is likely to be part of a un-bigoted Christian sect.