George Santayana was right.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by Zeke

1. Bullshit.
2. It has to do with fools trying to define morality.

That you do not care for something does NOT make it immoral.

Come on kids shooting kids, a total lack of respect of life and how others feel.

Were not talking porn peeping here lol

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Come on kids shooting kids, a total lack of respect of life and how others feel.

If that's the only manner in which to survive in their environment, it's not immoral.

It's something, but not that.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I disagree with the bolded. No one can discriminate based on race, religion etc. in California. It's in our constitution.

I'm wrong I was going by the signs posted in businesses.

Have You Reserved Your Right to Refuse Service?
By Stephanie Rabiner, Esq. on November 3, 2011 5:45 AM
We reserve the right to refuse service.

The sign's message is clear and simple, but the truth is that a business can't reserve a wholesale right to refuse service.

As places of public accommodation, private businesses are subject to federal and state anti-discrimination laws. These statutes prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, disability, gender and sex. Some also include sexual orientation.

More
http://blogs.findlaw.com/free_enterp...e-service.html

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by Zeke

If that's the only manner in which to survive in their environment, it's not immoral.

It's something, but not that.

Tell that to the little 85 year old granny that gets her door kicked in by teenagers and they shoot her for no reason. Yep just happened.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

The people do.
They don't need anything to participate in a religion.

And they're entitled to vote. They can change laws with this vote that they're entitled to.

It gets down to 'what is an establishment of religion?' That's what the 1st prohibits, an establishment of religion.

The historical example is an 'established' church, like the Church of England. We formerly had them in some of the colonies too. This is a religious institution incorporated into the state to some degree, with religious leaders entitled to certain public office and authority, and the institution supported by taxes on the general populace, be they religious or not. We've had whiffs of that as late as the 1960's, until we did away with censorship boards partially staffed by clergy.

But generalizing from this sort of thing, an 'established' church is one that wields the authority of the state, that enforces its dogma by the machinery of law, or that grants itself privileges and immunities from the law.

Do you begin to see why the Arizona balderdash violates the 1st Amendment?

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It gets down to 'what is an establishment of religion?' That's what the 1st prohibits, an establishment of religion.

The historical example is an 'established' church, like the Church of England. We formerly had them in some of the colonies too. This is a religious institution incorporated into the state to some degree, with religious leaders entitled to certain public office and authority, and the institution supported by taxes on the general populace, be they religious or not. We've had whiffs of that as late as the 1960's, until we did away with censorship boards partially staffed by clergy.

But generalizing from this sort of thing, an 'established' church is one that wields the authority of the state, that enforces its dogma by the machinery of law, or that grants itself privileges and immunizes from the law.

Do you begin to see why the Arizona balderdash violates the 1st Amendment?

Yes I do but you can't violate others rights at the same time. I see it all as a slippery slope in this great new experiment.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Yes I do but you can't violate others rights at the same time. I see it all as a slippery slope in this great new experiment.

Of course you can. There are many laws laws that restrict the rights of one group or individual in favor of the rights of others. Democracy is a balancing act between these rights.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...reedom/283331/

Pew's research suggests that the "moderate" restrictions on religion in the U.S. aren't primarily abridgments of freedom; they're part of the complex puzzle of governing a pluralistic political community. The right to free exercise of religion may seem simple in principle, but in practice, it involves figuring out how one group's rights intersect with another's. On balance, that may mean more freedom, not less, is afforded to all.

For example, Fundamentalist Mormons do not have a right to multiple wives, even if their religion says they do. Also, if religious groups receive federal funding or tax-exempt status, both proselytizing and political activity are limited.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.

When I look about today I am convinced that we must have stopped teaching history in our schools;

The 1%ers want to take us back to the 1920s - didn't work then won't work now,

Who else wants to add a lesson?

As a person with a completely useless Master's Degree in History I have always thought George was way off base. It does not matter if you know history or not it is human nature to do idiotic things and be harmful to your fellow human beings. The Supreme court gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the lessons of that were in their own lifetimes.


Ted Cruz is an Ivy League snob who has bamboozled low information voters in Texas to vote for him. Someone who attended Harvard he still was idiotic enough to shut down the government last year.

[icenine]

I know this is contrary to all that Political Chat and AK stand for but I think we need to vote someone off the island

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Of course you can. There are many laws laws that restrict the rights of one group or individual in favor of the rights of others. Democracy is a balancing act between these rights.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...reedom/283331/

Pew's research suggests that the "moderate" restrictions on religion in the U.S. aren't primarily abridgments of freedom; they're part of the complex puzzle of governing a pluralistic political community. The right to free exercise of religion may seem simple in principle, but in practice, it involves figuring out how one group's rights intersect with another's. On balance, that may mean more freedom, not less, is afforded to all.

For example, Fundamentalist Mormons do not have a right to multiple wives, even if their religion says they do. Also, if religious groups receive federal funding or tax-exempt status, both proselytizing and political activity are limited.

Correct. People with religious values tend to think they should trump everything. But that way, as seen in countless historical examples, lies freedom-killing rule by absolute believers, and war to the knife when they collide with competing groups of absolute believers. Ancient and modern examples are endless. Separation of church and state is one of the best things our founders bequeathed to us, and you'd think more conservatives would value it.

In the immediate case, we have the supposed right of persons to refuse service to anyone, vs. the emerging human right not to suffer the insulting harm of discriminatory rejection by others. If the would-be discriminators do not get their way, they lose what? The right to be mean to other people they don't like? On the other hand, if the gays are not accorded protection here, they lose the right to feel they are accorded the full rights of human beings in their own society. They must instead feel dehumanized and insecure, fearful for their other rights, and for their very lives.

The last is no exaggeration at all--groups that suffer discrimination are always subject to murderous violence--sometimes covert, sometimes open and extreme, depending on the winds of culture and the endless war between liberalism and hate.

So I am foursquare committed to settling things like this the liberal way. I feel sorry for the anguish of the frustrated would-be discriminators, and I am sorry they have to feel like victims. But like those that want to sacrifice babies to Baal, they're just going to have to compromise a little.