Can we get an amendment

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Look Dan. Merrylander mentioned the AZ zealots from the first. You were the one that didn't understand him. What followed from you was straight up thread crapping, imho.
Sorry if you're feeling picked on here but you've most certainly started just about every battle as far as I can see. It's not uncommon to misunderstand the written word on an online forum, that's why I try to wait and reflect on what someone has said before replying. Your habit seems to be shoot first and ask questions later. Just my .02 cents.

And CarlV was as lost as I was. I was asking what was going on with Merrylander.
Maybe when one starts a thread topic they can be clear about the actual topic. And I'll wait to comment.

[Countryford]

I understood what Merrylander was saying in the first post. It could be that I'm from Arizona (just not a bozo in Arizona).
Either way, can we get back to the original thought of this post?
I agree with Merrylander. How much complaining would those business who deny service to non-christians, gays, or ugly people, if they were denied service?

[merrylander]

Dear God, Churchill was right "The Americans and the British, two friendly peoples separated by a common language." amd no -5 you still don't understand. I did not say that religious people cannot vote. I was suggesting that religious GROUPS have no right to impose their views on others who do not subscribe to their religion. My beliefs are my own damn business and are purely personal. I have no desire to impose them on others and I do not want others to try and impose their beliefs on me. Has it finally sunk in?

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Dear God, Churchill was right "The Americans and the British, two friendly peoples separated by a common language." amd no -5 you still don't understand. I did not say that religious people cannot vote. I was suggesting that religious GROUPS have no right to impose their views on others who do not subscribe to their religion. My beliefs are my own damn business and are purely personal. I have no desire to impose them on others and I do not want others to try and impose their beliefs on me. Has it finally sunk in?

Yes it sunk in and the way you're trying to present it in this comment make no logical sense. It is however your belief and opinion thats fully entitled.

In your two threads yesterday you will see how I am in agreement somewhat with you.

Post 26 down
http://www.politicalchat.org/showthr...?t=6949&page=3

But to say individuals can vote to express their views and desire afforded to them by this country.

Then to make a statement below.

"I was suggesting that religious GROUPS have no right to impose their views on others who do not subscribe to their religion."

"Religious Groups" should not have this right?

They are just a formation of individual with the same views that pass their message on. To utilize the individuals voting right to change laws and the direction of this country.

Absolutely no different than...
DNC
GOP
Libertarian Party
NRA
ACLU
Greenpeace
Unions
ACORN
Tea Party

On and on this list can go.

The end result is the power of the voting block. The messaging to sway votes to get a majority. In this country under a democracy vote the majority rules, states change colors and new laws enacted . Arizona's just expressed their power of the vote.

A monarchy that expresses your views and desires might be better but I doubt it. I live under all sorts of laws expressed and voted in by "Groups" I do not agree with.

My view is for rights of ALL individual and thats a slippery slope. Because one can trample the others.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by Countryford

I understood what Merrylander was saying in the first post. It could be that I'm from Arizona (just not a bozo in Arizona).
Either way, can we get back to the original thought of this post?
I agree with Merrylander. How much complaining would those business who deny service to non-christians, gays, or ugly people, if they were denied service?

Correct

And if this law passes and businesses enact their rights. The business that counts on suppliers to operate might just find themselves looking at a double edged sword.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Yes it sunk in and the way you're trying to present it in this comment make no logical sense. It is however your belief and opinion thats fully entitled.

Maybe to you it does not

In your two threads yesterday you will see how I am in agreement somewhat with you.

Post 26 down
http://www.politicalchat.org/showthr...?t=6949&page=3

But to say individuals can vote to express their views and desire afforded to them by this country.

Then to make a statement below.

"I was suggesting that religious GROUPS have no right to impose their views on others who do not subscribe to their religion."

"Religious Groups" should not have this right?

They are just a formation of individual with the same views that pass their message on. To utilize the individuals voting right to change laws and the direction of this country.

Absolutely no different than...
DNC
GOP
Libertarian Party
NRA
ACLU
Greenpeace
Unions
ACORN
Tea Party

On and on this list can go.

The day when one of the above groups casts a vote I will leave for civilization. Sure thay can try and tell their adherents how to vote but AFAIK we still have the secret ballot. The AZ case was a religious group exerting pressure on the legislature and writing the legislation.

The end result is the power of the voting block. The messaging to sway votes to get a majority. In this country under a democracy vote the majority rules, states change colors and new laws enacted . Arizona's just expressed their power of the vote.

See above and in fact the AZ item was direct intervention, not getting a group of CITIZENS to vote for something

A monarchy that expresses your views and desires might be better but I doubt it. I live under all sorts of laws expressed and voted in by "Groups" I do not agree with.

My view is for rights of ALL individual and thats a slippery slope. Because one can trample the others.

There is the problem you are not distinguishing between groups and individuals. My church (if I was foolish enough to attend one) could attempt to pressure me to vote a certain way and that is why we have the secret ballot (except in Iowa)

[d-ray657]

People abused religion to attempt to justify racism and segregation. The KKK attempted to shroud its hatred in a veil of Christianity. Today, people in Arizona (and Kansas) are attempting to use Christianity to justify their hatred toward another disfavored group.

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Apropos of the sidetrack this thread has taken what happened in AZ is a gross example of lobbying and dsepite what SCOTUS has said in the past the 1st does not support lobbying,

"... and to petition the government fir redress of grievances"

re·dress
1.make up for something: to provide compensation or reparation for a loss or wrong experienced
2.impose fairness on something: to adjust a situation in order to make things fair or equal
3.compensation: compensation or reparation for a loss or wrong a party has experienced

griev·ance
1.reason for complaint: a cause for complaint or resentment that may or may not be well-founded
2.resentment: bitterness or anger at having received unfair treatment
3.formal objection: a formal complaint made on the basis of something that somebody feels is unfair

In other words for a citizen to seek redress the governmant must have already done something, redress is a post facto function. It doe not mean that a bunch of lobbyists get to sit in the Whitehouse and write the energy bill.

As well I believe we all can agree that in the preamble 'We the people..." refers to citizens of the United States oof America. Yet lobbyists on K street represent foreign governments and foreign corporations. Are they protected by the 1st - I frankly hope not.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

People abused religion to attempt to justify racism and segregation. The KKK attempted to shroud its hatred in a veil of Christianity. Today, people in Arizona (and Kansas) are attempting to use Christianity to justify their hatred toward another disfavored group.

Regards,

D-Ray

Agreed D-Ray

KKK indeed based there bigotry through the use of religion. Then when that didn't hold water they base it on heritage and preserving genealogy.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Countryford

I understood what Merrylander was saying in the first post. It could be that I'm from Arizona (just not a bozo in Arizona).
Either way, can we get back to the original thought of this post?
I agree with Merrylander. How much complaining would those business who deny service to non-christians, gays, or ugly people, if they were denied service?

Agreed. There would be howls of persecution from the narrow minded evangelists if their suppliers cut them off.

I hope Gov. Brewer turns this bit of misguided legislation down flat. Apparently the majority of the business community in Arizona has been bringing intense pressure to bear on her to veto it. This is bad for business and bad for Arizonas' image, which they can ill afford in light of the black eye the righties gave the state over immigration not so long ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...9c0_story.html

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nation...#axzz2uBIttBia