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.

 

Amputee Soldier's FB Post on Muslims Goes Viral

page: 11
87
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
But the 1st Amendment is the law

It says so right in the US Constitution, and was so important, they made it first.


Yes...And Kim Davis can go ahead and keep saying whatever she likes...She still has to do her job. Go tell your boss to go eff himself and then sue under the 1st amendment when your are fired.

It's like people are incapable of even basic logic these days.


Is this what Kim Davis did?

Nope ... it is not. You want Kim Davis to condone something her religion prohibits. So please, stop pretending you really care about the 1st Amendment. Save us all the trouble.


You seem to be fond of this hypocritical and cruel woman who is being encouraged by members of her church to take a harsh stance on something that's legal and who in the process ruined other people's lives, when she refused to issue any marriage licences at all as well as telling her employees to do the same. Sorry, but that's not a statement of principal, that's her refusing to do her job and breaking the law. She went to prison, by the way, for contempt of court, not for her 'stand'.
She has subsequently taken her name and title off the marriage licences that are now being issued (she failed - gay couples are (horrors!) getting married in her county, under her very nose) and every time she has appealed against the court case she has lost. She keeps appealing and she keeps losing. So she's either supremely stubborn & stupid, or she is being bankrolled by people who want to use her as a test case, in which case she's too stupid to realise that she's being used.
In any case, she's in a world of legal trouble that she can't seem to get out of, because she doesn't want to.
And by the way, she can object all she wants, that's her right. But when she fails to do her job or orders others to obey her orders in this, then she's failing to do that job - and also breaking the law.


I will ignore all of the ad hominems ... does Kim Davis have a 1st Amendment right to practice her religion freely, or does she not have those rights at all?

A USDA inspector can be waived from handling pork products due to a sincerely held religious belief. That is a 1st Amendment right that a Government employee has ... so - all things being "equal" - doesn't everyone have a 1st Amendment right?

Or, are you picking and choosing who has those rights, and who does not have those rights?

Those are very straight forward questions.


I grow tired of repeating myself. Yes, she has her first amendments rights.


Thank you for answering the question.




posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: Indigo5

A head scratcher...Maybe vocabulary isn't being taught in school like it used to?


Not so sure, remember some data that shows that more lost in intolerance is older generation....

just saying...


I think if we are going to generalize, by my own experience and general sense..the older generation is not more intolerant (on average) they are just less politically incorrect. I have an 78 year old uncle who last year looked me straight in the eye and said.."I don't give a crap is someone is a N(word) or a Fa*&^^^(gay)...I just care about who they are and if they are good people"...and strangely I know he is being sincere. He counsels all kinds of recovering addicts from the ghetto to wall-street and often explains most people are the same when you cut through the BS.

The level of hate and intolerance I see today toward Muslims requires ignorance and usually abates via wisdom when people get into their 70's and 80's IMO.

All generalizations and plenty of exceptions to the rule.

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Chance321

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
dont give a #, Trumps plans are ALL covered in United States law and powers that several presidents have exercised to an extent.

Emotional Edward Bernays bull# marketing wont work on me, and it wont work on a good lot of people either.



Translation: The constitution says its ok to legislate bigotry, so good enough for me.


It doesn't say any such thing, but could you point out the part of OUR constitution that says we HAVE to except everyone even the suspected terrorist mixed in the with refugees?
What exactly is wrong with Mr Trumps plan of temporarily putting the brakes on emigration until we can get a better test to weed out the ones that mean the American people harm?


The 1st Amendment says that we can't single out any religion for any reason. That's why.



Thanks Lefties, for reminding us of how important the 1st Amendment is. It still didn't stop you guys from crucifying Kim Davis.


Kim Davis was held in contempt of court. Which religion is it again where contempt of court is a violation of religious freedom?



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
But the 1st Amendment is the law

It says so right in the US Constitution, and was so important, they made it first.


Yes...And Kim Davis can go ahead and keep saying whatever she likes...She still has to do her job. Go tell your boss to go eff himself and then sue under the 1st amendment when your are fired.

It's like people are incapable of even basic logic these days.


Is this what Kim Davis did?

Nope ... it is not. You want Kim Davis to condone something her religion prohibits. So please, stop pretending you really care about the 1st Amendment. Save us all the trouble.


You seem to be fond of this hypocritical and cruel woman who is being encouraged by members of her church to take a harsh stance on something that's legal and who in the process ruined other people's lives, when she refused to issue any marriage licences at all as well as telling her employees to do the same. Sorry, but that's not a statement of principal, that's her refusing to do her job and breaking the law. She went to prison, by the way, for contempt of court, not for her 'stand'.
She has subsequently taken her name and title off the marriage licences that are now being issued (she failed - gay couples are (horrors!) getting married in her county, under her very nose) and every time she has appealed against the court case she has lost. She keeps appealing and she keeps losing. So she's either supremely stubborn & stupid, or she is being bankrolled by people who want to use her as a test case, in which case she's too stupid to realise that she's being used.
In any case, she's in a world of legal trouble that she can't seem to get out of, because she doesn't want to.
And by the way, she can object all she wants, that's her right. But when she fails to do her job or orders others to obey her orders in this, then she's failing to do that job - and also breaking the law.


I will ignore all of the ad hominems ... does Kim Davis have a 1st Amendment right to practice her religion freely, or does she not have those rights at all?

A USDA inspector can be waived from handling pork products due to a sincerely held religious belief. That is a 1st Amendment right that a Government employee has ... so - all things being "equal" - doesn't everyone have a 1st Amendment right?

Or, are you picking and choosing who has those rights, and who does not have those rights?

Those are very straight forward questions.


I grow tired of repeating myself. Yes, she has her first amendments rights.


Thank you for answering the question.



Interesting that you ignored everything else, including my pointing out that Davis has lost every single appeal.



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
But the 1st Amendment is the law

It says so right in the US Constitution, and was so important, they made it first.


Yes...And Kim Davis can go ahead and keep saying whatever she likes...She still has to do her job. Go tell your boss to go eff himself and then sue under the 1st amendment when your are fired.

It's like people are incapable of even basic logic these days.


Is this what Kim Davis did?

Nope ... it is not. You want Kim Davis to condone something her religion prohibits. So please, stop pretending you really care about the 1st Amendment. Save us all the trouble.


You seem to be fond of this hypocritical and cruel woman who is being encouraged by members of her church to take a harsh stance on something that's legal and who in the process ruined other people's lives, when she refused to issue any marriage licences at all as well as telling her employees to do the same. Sorry, but that's not a statement of principal, that's her refusing to do her job and breaking the law. She went to prison, by the way, for contempt of court, not for her 'stand'.
She has subsequently taken her name and title off the marriage licences that are now being issued (she failed - gay couples are (horrors!) getting married in her county, under her very nose) and every time she has appealed against the court case she has lost. She keeps appealing and she keeps losing. So she's either supremely stubborn & stupid, or she is being bankrolled by people who want to use her as a test case, in which case she's too stupid to realise that she's being used.
In any case, she's in a world of legal trouble that she can't seem to get out of, because she doesn't want to.
And by the way, she can object all she wants, that's her right. But when she fails to do her job or orders others to obey her orders in this, then she's failing to do that job - and also breaking the law.


I will ignore all of the ad hominems ... does Kim Davis have a 1st Amendment right to practice her religion freely, or does she not have those rights at all?

A USDA inspector can be waived from handling pork products due to a sincerely held religious belief. That is a 1st Amendment right that a Government employee has ... so - all things being "equal" - doesn't everyone have a 1st Amendment right?

Or, are you picking and choosing who has those rights, and who does not have those rights?

Those are very straight forward questions.


I grow tired of repeating myself. Yes, she has her first amendments rights.


Thank you for answering the question.



Interesting that you ignored everything else, including my pointing out that Davis has lost every single appeal.


You answered the question .. thank you. Kim Davis has a 1st Amendment right.

Now, does anyone have the right to take it away?

I feel like I am dealing with over emotional rubes here ...
edit on 15-12-2015 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
87
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in

join