Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So your right to own a gun ends when it infringes upon the rights of others to be safe from mentally ill people obtaining guns?
I don't believe anyone's ever objected to preventing the mentally ill from obtaining guns. In fact, if anything, it would be the LEFT that prevents that, with all their distracting blather about magazine sizes and "assault weapons" and their persistent ACLU actions on behalf of "the right not to be treated".
The extreme right has been adamantly opposed to all background checks to determine if anyone has a history of mental illness. But hardly surprising that you want to blame the left for the obstruction of the extreme right.
This is an instance where the state government is deliberately enacting discrimination. What is even worse is that it is violating the constitution by endorsing religion. That is specifically proscribed by the 1st amendment.
How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.
You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...
I admit no such thing.
I even provided an illustration of how such rights can be accommodated while not infringing upon the Majority.
Nothing.
Gay Marriage is merely the mechanism by which the floodgates are opened.
The legitimizing of homosexuality in all its aspects is where the potential danger lies.
The creation of a licentious, libertine, dissipated, effeminate, emasculated and degenerate state is the risk.
The strength of The Nation is far too important to risk upon such accommodation.
You've been reduced to bigoted ranting.
Feel free to continue believing that. Doesn't affect me or my arguments in the slightest.
This was VERY well said... I don't agree with all of it, but it was well-considered, rang true in several respects, and was an open, honest expression of mix opinions on the subject, without hatred or fear or fear-mongering. Thank you."...I'm not sure..."
It's endorsing religions specifically by selecting which religious beliefs will be exempt from the law - because certainly not any view that someone claims is religious will qualify. It endorses religious views in general by giving them special status above and beyond secular convictions. Why should a religious person be allowed to discriminate against gays because they believe God told them to, but a secular person can't do likewise if they happen to think homosexuality is an affront to evolution?
It. Does. Not. Do. That.
It allows anyone, of any religion, even the one that only exists inside their head, to claim an exemption. A good example of this would be that during WWII the government actually told a Jehovah's Witness that he had to work on tank turrets, and argued that the fact that other people with the same religion were willing to do it was proof that his beliefs were not sincere. If the world worked the ay you thing, he would have lost.
He didn't.
It always amazes me how leftists think the dictates of an individual's conscience are decided by committee vote.
Maybe it's because leftists have no conscience, so they have no frame of reference.
So you keep trying to assert, anyway...You stopped arguing about 2 hours ago.You've been reduced to bigoted ranting.
Feel free to continue believing that. Doesn't affect me or my arguments in the slightest.
The link between homophobic actions and repressed latent homosexual tendencies has been scientifically proven. And in all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.
"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."
And fear is the very core of conservatism.
The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
How do you figure that? Does the law say people HAVE to discriminate against anyone? I don't think so. Nor is it "endorsing religion", insofar as it is protecting the rights of ALL religions to choose associations, not just one.
You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...
Would you, Cecelie? Let's get a roll call. How many of those opposed to "public accommodations" laws would complain if the tables were turned?
That's what these State-level laws are going to decide...Kiddies, your religious suppositions have no standing before the courts.
You would be outraged if a law was passed enabling gays to discriminate against Christians and you would be squealing about "special rights for gays". This law is exactly the reverse of that where Christians are being allowed "special rights" to discriminate against gays. What is good for the goose...
Would you, Cecelie? Let's get a roll call. How many of those opposed to "public accommodations" laws would complain if the tables were turned?
Speaking for myself, if repeal of anti-discrimination laws resulted in a business discriminating against me, I would complain, perhaps quite loudly, depending on my mood. But I wouldn't call the police to force them to cater to me. It's their right to refuse.
On the grounds that the laws of the United States are supreme within its boundaries.Granting foreign law precedence over native law is dangerous.
Legitimizing sexual behaviors that weaken and emasculate a population and lead that population to a degenerate state is dangerous.
Dangerous minorities and dangerous minority viewpoints are treated differently than benign ones; accommodated insofar as may be practicable, but kept on a short leash, for the good of the broader community or nation.
And, where barriers exist at-law to such short-leashing, the laws eventually end-up being changed, in favor of safety.
A local community with sufficient Muslims to make it politically possible legislates Sharia Law into effect as the local set of statues,
much the same as any local community with comparable governing power at the local level does in this country.
You claim they should be deprived of that set of laws.
On what grounds, exactly?
Dispute that and you've got 330,000,000 fellow citizens telling you you're wrong.
So long as they do not substantively conflict with United States Law, no problemo.On the grounds that the laws of the United States are supreme within its boundaries.A local community with sufficient Muslims to make it politically possible legislates Sharia Law into effect as the local set of statues,
much the same as any local community with comparable governing power at the local level does in this country.
You claim they should be deprived of that set of laws.
On what grounds, exactly?
Dispute that and you've got 330,000,000 fellow citizens telling you you're wrong.
I'm referring to local American laws passed by Muslim-Americans in a community - laws that happen to reflect Sharia law.
On what grounds are you going to deprive them of that set of laws?
That's what these State-level laws are going to decide...Kiddies, your religious suppositions have no standing before the courts.
The jury is still out, and likely to be, for quite some time...
If Angle A doesn't work, they'll try Angle B, and C...
Think the Gay Rights Movement was tenacious?
You ain't seen nuthin' yet, I expect, and from a much larger active contingent.
Think the interpretation-of-law de jour insulates you from future shock?
Ask the Abortion Rights folks how that's playing-out nowadays on the State level, 40+ years after Roe v Wade...
You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship.Sharia law has no place in the USA. Sharia law is satans law followed by satan worshipers.On the grounds that the laws of the United States are supreme within its boundaries.A local community with sufficient Muslims to make it politically possible legislates Sharia Law into effect as the local set of statues,
much the same as any local community with comparable governing power at the local level does in this country.
You claim they should be deprived of that set of laws.
On what grounds, exactly?
Dispute that and you've got 330,000,000 fellow citizens telling you you're wrong.
I'm referring to local American laws passed by Muslim-Americans in a community - laws that happen to reflect Sharia law.
On what grounds are you going to deprive them of that set of laws?
Doesn't cost anything, for you to believe that to be the case, but I'm not sure how Gay Marriage directly impacts the ability of business folk in Arizona to refuse service to homosexuals, utilizing their Religious Beliefs as the basis for that refusal.You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship. The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it.
The photographer who refused to take the wedding pictures was happy to take studio photographs. What she refused to do was attend the wedding itself. So it was more than just taking a few pictures.
Oh I'm sorry I must have misunderstood. I thought that they just wanted the photographer to take pictures of the wedding. I didn't realize that they were actually expecting the photographer to celebrate with them.
Yeah, if they actually wanted the photographer to take part in the ceremony then I agree, that wouldn't be right.
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Don't you know that wedding photographers actually have to GO TO THE WEDDING? I thought everyone that had ever been to a wedding knew that.
You are merely the band playing on the deck of a sinking ship.
The courts will rule in favor of marriage equality, and when the appeal from the state comes to SCOTUS, they will not hear it.
This is like saying if you're just in the audience at the wedding, instead of being one of the bridesmaids, you didn't actually participate, and so it doesn't qualify as an endorsement of the marriage.
Except that people have been declining wedding invitations because they don't approve of the relationship since forever. No idea why this is suddenly news.
Sharia law has no place in the USA. Sharia law is satans law followed by satan worshipers.On the grounds that the laws of the United States are supreme within its boundaries.
Dispute that and you've got 330,000,000 fellow citizens telling you you're wrong.
I'm referring to local American laws passed by Muslim-Americans in a community - laws that happen to reflect Sharia law.
On what grounds are you going to deprive them of that set of laws?
The link between homophobic actions and repressed latent homosexual tendencies has been scientifically proven. And in all of the studies, participants who reported supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, meaning it tended to jibe with their outward sexual orientation. Students who indicated they came from authoritarian homes showed the biggest discrepancy between the two measures of sexual orientation.
"In a predominately heterosexual society, 'know thyself' can be a challenge for many gay individuals," lead author Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex in the United Kingdom,said in a statement. "But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying."
And fear is the very core of conservatism.
The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.
And witness the last-ditch attempt to ditch the conversation lest it gets too uncomfortable..lol..
The old "if you disagree with us, you must be a closet homo". That usually does the trick, right Bfgrn?
Take my own case for example. I became a vocal opponent of the gay agenda [LGBT-defined "closet homo"] when my good family friend died of AIDS and his brother told our family that it was because he was molested as a boy by a man, grew up without treatment for that crime and as a result became compulsively promiscuous sexually with men, while at the same time only able to fall in love with women. This torture led him to seek subconscious revenge when, predictably, his lifestyle led him to contract HIV. He went out and had as much rampant unprotected sex as he could in a murderous/suicidal rampage. He finally died of a horrible lingering death in his early 30s. AIDS claimed another victim.
And that's why I "subconsciously long to be a homo" like LGBT would have you believe.
They usually pull that one from deep inside their bag of tricks when their backs are getting really close to the wall. I'd say this little predicament between their steamroller advancing on common cultural values and the 1st Amendment prescribed in Jude 1 and Romans 1 is a clear indication of the level of fear they have about christians being able to stick to their faith and deny enabling of the homosexual cult/wildfire currently overtaking every nook and cranny.
They would have you believe that each and every single individual who opposes their unwanted advances in any arena is a "closet homo"/ "bigot"/ "hater" etc. Meanwhile their unexamined psyches have two of the same gender parading around as "man" and "woman" [butch/femme] in nearly every coupling they have. And somehow we are to believe there are no closet heteros in their ranks?..lol..
Why is it that a woman would be attracted to another woman who dresses, acts, looks, walks and talks like a man?
There's your closet activity folks. Discuss...
