The Left Loses Ground...

[PoliticalChic]

But why shouldn't they? Opposition to the mixing of the races is a bonafide religious belief with a long history.

Why shouldn't people be able to assert their religious belief in such as a constitutional right? If they should have that right regarding sexual orientation, why shouldn't they have it regarding race?

Opposing the mixing of religions is a bona fide religious belief with an even longer history...also prohibited by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Why do only the anti gay bigots get a special exemption from laws?

You are soooooo overly sensitive about your....disability.

This part of the OP seems to fit you:
"... overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left..."



4. " Regardless, the sexual revolution marches on and the Left’s definition of “civil rights” has expanded—not only does it prohibit class-based discrimination in places of public accommodation, it now requires conscription into the revolution itself.

...it’s no longer enough for employees to have access to low-cost contraceptives and abortifacients. .... employers must provide them free of charge.


It’s no longer enough for bakers, florists, and photographers to provide service to everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. They must participate in and facilitate any kind of action or ceremony their customers desire—no matter how offensive to their beliefs—so long as those ceremonies further the ideals of the sexual revolutionaries.




Under pressure from activists and the national media, Indiana modified its law to state that it could not authorize a provider to deny services to anyone on the basis of multiple protected criteria, including race, sex, and sexual orientation."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles




No longer is it enough for the Left that every other citizen be non-judgmental, no matter how bizarre their practices.....

...now every citizen must praise same, or actually part-take.....

Pretty much the antithesis of liberty.

No matter how civil posters are to you, you must always be nasty and insulting. Instead of hiding being your condescending name calling, how about you stick to the issue?

The rabid right wants to give government the ultimate control over their most personal and private lives. THAT is the complete "antithesis of liberty".

"....you must always be nasty and insulting. "

How dare you say that, you mouth-breathing, half-witted, scruffy-looking, rotten, lying no good, four-flushing, snake-licking, sleezy, slimy, sticky, stinky, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, hopeless, bug-eyed, foul-mouthed, lying, soiled-soul, sacks of sewage!



OK...ok....I do have a slight problem with lies and ignorance.

... she said, hiding behind insults and lies rather than address content.

"... address content."

It's exactly what this thread does.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Republicans have shied away from social issues as of late and that has been the winning formula.

How Larry Hogan won in Maryland - Kevin Robillard - POLITICO.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

Republicans have shied away from social issues as of late and that has been the winning formula.

lol, they're focusing on the other traditional Republican concerns,

like income inequality. lol

 

[candycorn]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Its a foreign concept to her...biting off more than she can chew. The only threat is to her bedsprings and those in the lower floors of her tenement buildings.

Coming from some idiot who as a avatar of a person who cant seem to be able to buy her own birth control without help from the federal government

C'mon...call her the name...let your inner republican show through.

She's not too bright,neither are you

She's rich, successful and apparently has a happy life. You're arguing with a stranger on the Internet. Advantage Fluke.

say the word...you know you want to call her that....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of them had it forced onto them on the by a judge. Even your California rejected same sex marriage you're a moron

Interracial marriage was "forced on us by a judge"...when everyone was against it too...

That's another canard they fall back on, until the judiciary does something they like.

Canard means 'unfounded.'

But you just admitted it has happened and will again.

Try not to pretend you SAT score has more than two digits.

The canard is,

judicial review is an illegimate exercise by the courts. Rightwingers use that all the time, when they don't like court rulings.

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

lol, so Rehnquist, who spent how many years on the Court, engaging in judicial review, did not believe that judicial review was a legitimate exercise?

Whoa, you just won crazy post of the week.

 

[Jroc]

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Its a foreign concept to her...biting off more than she can chew. The only threat is to her bedsprings and those in the lower floors of her tenement buildings.

Coming from some idiot who as a avatar of a person who cant seem to be able to buy her own birth control without help from the federal government

C'mon...call her the name...let your inner republican show through.

She's not too bright,neither are you

She's rich, successful and apparently has a happy life. You're arguing with a stranger on the Internet. Advantage Fluke.

say the word...you know you want to call her that....

Do you have the hots for her?..she's a leftist tool

 

[NYcarbineer]

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most of them had it forced onto them on the by a judge. Even your California rejected same sex marriage you're a moron

Like judges that overturn unconstitutional gun laws? Those judges?

If you are suggesting that the corrupters in black robes don't obviate the will of the people with metronomic regularity, well...

...let's count that as your first lie of the day, NYLIar.

Judges are representatives of the People. They are either directly or indirectly elected by the People.

Are you trying to tell us that judges should not have the power to overturn gun laws that are found to violate the 2nd amendment?

Are you trying to tell us that judges should not have the power to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby?

Federal Judges are appointed by corrupt politicians..Your smart people"

Them's fightin' words to Clarence Thomas...

 

[Jroc]

Interracial marriage was "forced on us by a judge"...when everyone was against it too...

That's another canard they fall back on, until the judiciary does something they like.

Canard means 'unfounded.'

But you just admitted it has happened and will again.

Try not to pretend you SAT score has more than two digits.

The canard is,

judicial review is an illegimate exercise by the courts. Rightwingers use that all the time, when they don't like court rulings.

Of course it's illegitimate.

"It should not be easy for any one individual or group of individuals to impose
by law their value judgments upon fellow citizens who may disagree with those judgments. Indeed, it should not be easier just because the individual in question is a judge.
Beyond the Constitution and the laws in our society, there simply is no basis other than the individual conscience of the citizen that may serve as a platform for the launching of moral judgments."
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

lol, so Rehnquist, who spent how many years on the Court, engaging in judicial review, did not believe that judicial review was a legitimate exercise?

Whoa, you just won crazy post of the week.

Some people get sick with their own power which is why we need a check on the court

 

[Jroc]

Most of them had it forced onto them on the by a judge. Even your California rejected same sex marriage you're a moron

Like judges that overturn unconstitutional gun laws? Those judges?

If you are suggesting that the corrupters in black robes don't obviate the will of the people with metronomic regularity, well...

...let's count that as your first lie of the day, NYLIar.

Judges are representatives of the People. They are either directly or indirectly elected by the People.

Are you trying to tell us that judges should not have the power to overturn gun laws that are found to violate the 2nd amendment?

Are you trying to tell us that judges should not have the power to rule in favor of Hobby Lobby?

Federal Judges are appointed by corrupt politicians..Your smart people"

Them's fightin' words to Clarence Thomas...

racist

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Republicans have shied away from social issues as of late and that has been the winning formula.

lol, they're focusing on the other traditional Republican concerns,

like income inequality. lol

I voted for Hogan. I was tired of O'Mally and his stooges.

I wish him luck and hope that he keeps his promise to focus on the economy.

Social issues are rarely addressed and are a waste of time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most of them had it forced onto them on the by a judge. Even your California rejected same sex marriage you're a moron

Like judges that overturn unconstitutional gun laws? Those judges?

If you are suggesting that the corrupters in black robes don't obviate the will of the people with metronomic regularity, well...

...let's count that as your first lie of the day, NYLIar.

So you object to anti-miscegenation laws being ruled unconstitutional?

Amazing.

 

[Wildman]

Are you trying to tell us that judges should not have the power to overturn gun laws that are found to violate the 2nd amendment?

every anti-gun law is a violation of the Second Amdt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

History News Network Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation

Why the Ugly Rhetoric Against Gay Marriage Is Familiar to this Historian of Miscegenation -

...Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural...."

I actually think that your post was a pretty good job....

...far beyond what I have come to expect of you.


Sadly, it is for naught, as the OP states " It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."

Wrong:

"...in 1867, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld segregation in railway cars.[74] The court explained that “[t]he natural law which forbids [racial intermarriage] and that social amalgamation which leads to a corruption of races, is as clearly divine as that which imparted to [the races] different natures.”[75]

The Pennsylvania court’s appeal to divine authority was used by state supreme courts in Indiana, Alabama, and Virginia to support the validity of statutes banning interracial marriages and by decisions in Alabama and Kentucky to support segregation of transportation and higher education.[76] The latest use of this language came in a 1955 Virginia decision.[77]

“[T]he theology of separate races constituted a kind of cultural religion that permeated the hearts and minds of attorneys and judges throughout the courts of the South for a hundred years after the Civil War.”[78]..."

Wake Forest Law Review A Unique Religious Exemption From Antidiscrimination Laws in the Case of Gays Putting the Call for Exemptions for Those Who Discriminate Against Married or Marrying Gays in Context

This was where PC lost the argument. Let's not let her ignoring of it let it fade away too fast.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Are you trying to tell us that judges should not have the power to overturn gun laws that are found to violate the 2nd amendment?

every anti-gun law is a violation of the Second Amdt.

But without a Court with the power to rule such laws unconstitutional they would stay on the books.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Its a foreign concept to her...biting off more than she can chew. The only threat is to her bedsprings and those in the lower floors of her tenement buildings.

Coming from some idiot who as a avatar of a person who cant seem to be able to buy her own birth control without help from the federal government

This is how the right works.

They keep telling the same lie until it becomes fact.

And the RWs never know they've been had.

Would this statement hold true for me? I voted Republican last time around. Not all of them watch FOX -- very few of them do.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Are you trying to tell us that judges should not have the power to overturn gun laws that are found to violate the 2nd amendment?

every anti-gun law is a violation of the Second Amdt.

I would not go that far, gun ownership might not be a good idea for everyone. I have really seen some stupid crap with regards to some "responsible" gun owners. Like the dude who shot a 17 yr old, car crash victim in her face for knocking on his door late at night.

 

[PoliticalChic]

...in the culture war!

The overbearing bullying harassment and browbeating by the Left is finally proving the law of diminishing returns. Recent events have revealed gaping holes developing in the imagined monolithic worldview of Liberals!

The specific battle seemed to be the bumper-sticker 'gay rights,' but, is actually a part of the larger secular war against religion.



1. "...the cultural Left is hoping to dominate the culture...it is overreaching, extending beyond the limits of its power. It is exposing itself to embarrassing cultural defeats and succeeding mainly in hardening conservative resolve.

Four truths are emerging:

First, the battle is not between gay rights and religious liberty—although religious liberty is certainly at stake—but between the sexual revolution and Christianity itself....[the Left's demands for] wholesale changes to the historical doctrines of the church.

Second, not a single orthodox denomination is making or even contemplating such changes.

Third, rather than going quietly, cultural conservatism is showing increasing strength ...opposing leftist campaigns at the ground level, bypassing politics to support those most embattled by radical hate campaigns.

And fourth, the conservative grassroots and conservative public intellectuals are united...




2. The battle of Indiana began when Indiana’s legislature passed a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an act that provided, simply enough, that any state action that substantially burdens religious exercise is lawful only if it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. In other words...when you can, you should avoid compelling people to act against their consciences.... it’s the same general legal standard in the federal RFRA and in similar RFRAs in 19 other states.

3. ... RFRA and the compelling interest standard more broadly have long existed in American law. ...Congress... passed RFRA in 1993. ... to restore religious liberty to the same level of protection it received prior to the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Employment Division v. Smith(1990), which rejected decades of precedent to hold essentially that religious liberty claims are inferior to rules of general applicability..... President Clinton proudly signed it into law.

[And, before the bogus arguments begin...] It’s a historical fact that religious liberty claims did not protect or legally enable Jim Crow."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles



In its demands that everyone accept their views.....the Left has bitten off more than it will be able to chew.

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most of them had it forced onto them on the by a judge. Even your California rejected same sex marriage you're a moron

Like judges that overturn unconstitutional gun laws? Those judges?

If you are suggesting that the corrupters in black robes don't obviate the will of the people with metronomic regularity, well...

...let's count that as your first lie of the day, NYLIar.

So you object to anti-miscegenation laws being ruled unconstitutional?

Amazing.

Beginning with the word 'So' implies that what follows is the logical conclusion of what has come before.

It is really a third graders technique.

And you are.


Let's remember that all the iterations of Jim Crow were examples of Democrat big government in action.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you trying to tell us that judges should not have the power to overturn gun laws that are found to violate the 2nd amendment?

every anti-gun law is a violation of the Second Amdt.

But without a Court with the power to rule such laws unconstitutional they would stay on the books.

The fallacy is the suggestion that Liberal judges actually refer to the Constitution.
They don't.
Like you.....they lie.

1. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’
      "Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate," by Steven G. Calabresi and Antonin Scalia

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. "[That] battle (Indiana) may be over, but the war rages on....


First, the conflict is not between gay rights and religious liberty, but between the sexual revolution and Christianity.


The fury of the gay rights movement was so palpable during the Indiana controversy that it’s easy to forget the Hobby Lobby RFRA case, a case that had nothing to do with gay rights.

Abortion battles continue to rage, sometimes with an intensity that matches or exceeds the arguments over gay marriage.

...just over the horizon are new, widespread battles over the very definition of what it means to be male or female.


Simply put, the sexual revolution questions everything about sexual morality and identity—demanding changes in every aspect of traditional sexual morality and, consequently, orthodox Christian theology.


... radical sexual autonomy, freedom from any form of moral judgment, and government support to ameliorate the consequences of sexual libertinism are present in the fights over abortion, gay rights, and now transgender issues. Those who surrender on one issue tend to surrender on others as well. With similar moral principles implicated, similar moral outcomes result."
Imprimis A monthly digest on liberty and the defense of America s founding principles




It is the anti-American demand that every knee bend to the Left's demands that will cost them the culture war.

Said behavior is a prime example of every totalitarian predecessor.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You'll be right when states start repealing their laws that legalized same sex marriage.

Most of them had it forced onto them on the by a judge. Even your California rejected same sex marriage you're a moron

Like judges that overturn unconstitutional gun laws? Those judges?

If you are suggesting that the corrupters in black robes don't obviate the will of the people with metronomic regularity, well...

...let's count that as your first lie of the day, NYLIar.

So you object to anti-miscegenation laws being ruled unconstitutional?

Amazing.

Beginning with the word 'So' implies that what follows is the logical conclusion of what has come before.

It is really a third graders technique.

And you are.


Let's remember that all the iterations of Jim Crow were examples of Democrat big government in action.

SO answer the question.