It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republican Congress Strips Women and Gays of Rights Under Guise of ‘Religious Freedom’

page: 23
37
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

I did not say I agreed with it.

But, "equal treatment". And alcohol is not a protected minority.

No law is broken.




posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yeah, no law is broken, is still an injustice against society.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

Yeah, no law is broken, is still an injustice against society.


Right.

I am atheist and major supporter of church and state.

I am not a supporter of alcohol free cabs.

But, so far no laws are broken as far as I know.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee



But, "equal treatment". And alcohol is not a protected minority.


Yeah but wouldn't it be the taxi driver's responsibility? It's akin to barkeepers and bouncers making sure drunk people do not drive.

Refusing to give them a ride makes them culpable.

That would be a good argument in court to change that.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Annee



But, "equal treatment". And alcohol is not a protected minority.


Yeah but wouldn't it be the taxi driver's responsibility? It's akin to barkeepers and bouncers making sure drunk people do not drive.

Refusing to give them a ride makes them culpable.

That would be a good argument in court to change that.


Maybe. I definitely don't support it.

I just don't think it is illegal - - from a discrimination standpoint.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Maybe not discriminatory but it's more of a responsibility. I guess this is going off topic slightly but somebody started it lol but here's an article

www.wsbtv.com...

I guess my point was that the taxicab driver's reason to refuse (based on religious belief) is not a good idea as it can kill people.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Annee

Maybe not discriminatory but it's more of a responsibility. I guess this is going off topic slightly but somebody started it lol but here's an article

www.wsbtv.com...

I guess my point was that the taxicab driver's reason to refuse (based on religious belief) is not a good idea as it can kill people.


No argument from me. I don't support it at all.

Things happen, people fight for laws to prevent it from happening again.

That's how it works.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Annee

Maybe not discriminatory but it's more of a responsibility. I guess this is going off topic slightly but somebody started it lol but here's an article

www.wsbtv.com...

I guess my point was that the taxicab driver's reason to refuse (based on religious belief) is not a good idea as it can kill people.


No argument from me. I don't support it at all.

Things happen, people fight for laws to prevent it from happening again.

That's how it works.

BTW - - I don't support businesses that serve alcohol should be held responsible once someone leaves the bar. I do support bars having breathalyzers and readily available access to cabs or volunteer services to get people home. Also, cutting someone off if they seem drunk.

The legal drunk limit is like 2 beers now. Few people stop drinking at 2 beers. No bar would survive.




edit on 28-4-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee



BTW - - I don't support businesses that serve alcohol should be held responsible once someone leaves the bar. I do support bars having breathalyzers and readily available access to cabs or volunteer services to get people home. Also, cutting someone off if they seem drunk.


That's just the thing. You see somebody drunk trying to get in their car and drive. Especially if it's your friend and knowing that he/she might hurt/kill your family members in the process.

This would make a good topic.



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Annee



BTW - - I don't support businesses that serve alcohol should be held responsible once someone leaves the bar. I do support bars having breathalyzers and readily available access to cabs or volunteer services to get people home. Also, cutting someone off if they seem drunk.


That's just the thing. You see somebody drunk trying to get in their car and drive. Especially if it's your friend and knowing that he/she might hurt/kill your family members in the process.

This would make a good topic.


True it would.

Where does personal responsibility end and a money making business take over as the responsible party?



posted on Apr, 28 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Muslim taxicab driver refusing to give a drunk person a ride who has alcohol in his hand (because of religious belief) full knowing that he might not find another taxi on a busy night and that he might drive home and kill somebody in the process. That is a crime in itself.

Damn i see a good thread in the making lol.
edit on 4/28/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Since you failed to get the hint, let me spell it out for you: I support the idea that an employer should be able to fire you FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. Wow, what a concept huh?
a reply to: mOjOm



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Parthin
Since you failed to get the hint, let me spell it out for you: I support the idea that an employer should be able to fire you FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER. Wow, what a concept huh?
a reply to: mOjOm



Had that back in the 50s/60s.

Along with job discrimination.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
It's not important to make new laws, which can always be abused or evaded. What is important is to change what people think. I accepted gay people as simply having an alternative lifestyle long before that was the "in" thing to do.
When most people agree with you, the ideological battle is already won.
a reply to: Annee



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Parthin

Can't get a more sociopathic view than that.

Eh, I stubbed my toe today I'm mad... "hey you, yeah you with the goofy hair style, get out of here, you're fired, I don't like your face. Damn negro's."

Guy with three kids and a wife struggling to survive in a struggling economy who has loyally worked for the company for 30 years is now back on the street. Guy did no wrong, he showed up to work everyday, did his job, was well liked by the other employees, had great productivity ratings. His daughter was due to get major facial reconstruction surgery due to an accident she had, but now, the family is forced to use that money just to survive while he struggles to find another job.

Yet you think it's fine said employer completely ruined this man, who's loyally worked for him for years, as well as the man's family, why? Just because the employer stubbed his toe, and the employer was a racist who had a bad day and decided to take it out on the first blacky he saw that he had power over.

We the working class should have no rights or protections, we're dirt. Employers should be allowed to treat us as less than #, and discard us as nothing but refuse, whenever and for whatever reason they damn well please. I love the world you believe in. I can't think of one more utopic than one where we all need to live our daily lives in fear of oppressive overlords who have the right to ruin us for any reason what so ever with no protections or rights on our part.
edit on 4/29/2015 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
It's called Libertarianism. It's not about likes and dislikes, it's about government get out of my life.
a reply to: Puppylove



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Parthin

And if it works like that, it's sick and sociopathic, and I want no part of it. I actually give a # about my fellow man, and think we're stronger when we protect each other and don't let people do whatever wrong they want to whoever they want.

Yes there's a balance, but this is clearly too far towards letting the corrupt mistreat others, and way too far from what freedom should really stand for. It's freedom taken so far it turns around and becomes tyranny.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Parthin
It's called Libertarianism. It's not about likes and dislikes, it's about government get out of my life.
a reply to: Puppylove



I wouldn't vote Libertarian if my life depended on it.

I lived before the: Fair Housing Act, Disability Act, Environmental Act, Job discrimination, Women's Rights, Civil Rights Act, when police could take you out back and beat the crap out of you, when parents and schools could physically abuse kids, etc.

No thanks. Been there, done that.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Parthin
It's not important to make new laws, which can always be abused or evaded. What is important is to change what people think. I accepted gay people as simply having an alternative lifestyle long before that was the "in" thing to do.
When most people agree with you, the ideological battle is already won.
a reply to: Annee



Alternative Lifestyle? What does that even mean?

LIfestyle is how you choose to live: apt or house, sports car or sedan, pizza or gourmet, blue collar or white collar, sports or ballet, etc.

Or - - mainstream society forces minority groups to live on the fringe, to create their own culture, because they have no other choice.

It is laws that have allowed minorities to live in mainstream society.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
You economics-based thinking is likely to cause some anger here. Oops, it already did! Us rational thinkers get labeled "sociopaths" around here. Your logic and reason are less valued than "feelings" and the irrational and disastrous policies they spawn. Mr. Spock was known for his "greatest good for the most people" philosophy but that's not a winning campaign promise any more.
a reply to: MALBOSIA




top topics



 
37
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join