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.

 

Congrats, Bigots... Kansas Has Your Back!

page: 18
49
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TheConspiracyPages
 


Fair enough homie. Still don't think 2 cases are proof of over all discrimination of Christians. I think it's more proof that Christianity breeds discrimination. I don't think businesses should be able to do discriminate if they offer a public service. Those of you spouting freedom should still be against singling out a specific group. Being able to refuse anyone is not the same as being able to refuse gays....




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
So many pages....
I hope somebody mentioned that the idiot politicians who voted to adopt this crap are seriously in need of constitutional education ....
By being thrown out promptly next election....
I cant believe such elementary freedoms could be denied to a segment of the population all over again ....
Or did a war get fought over this #?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Since Jim Crow was the law of the land for several generations, you would have been happy with it? After all, it was what the majority, "the people" wanted.


Which people? White people - or Black people? What was the point of segregation? What was the reason for ending it?

This isn't just about minority or majority preferences - this is about what's right - and about what our standing laws already say

One group of people wants to treat another group differently than it treats everybody else. It also claims religious privilege in a country where laws are supposedly made for everybody and religion doesn't enter into it

So, one group wants to defend it's religious rights? Is requiring someone to treat all people equally under the law somehow denying someone their religious freedom? Prove it then. Where in the Bible are people commanded to shun gay people?

If you could actually prove it, and you mean to change the laws to allow people to legally do whatever their particular 'interpretation' of their beliefs calls for, you've also just allowed sharia law, among others, the same right

Separation of church and state, equal protection under the law - it couldn't be any clearer. Or cleaner


edit on 2/18/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



No, you say that the majority of the people get to determine the behavior of the minority through the law. In Jim Crow the majority did exactly that. The will of the majority passed laws that affected the choices of the minority and the majority claimed they had good reason to do so. You espouse the exact same principle.


Religion has nothing to do with my position at all. In a free society, free persons should be able to decide for themselves who they may or may not associate with, do business with, marry, not marry, donate to, look at, or whatever.

You "Sharia law" comment is silly on two fronts. First of all, I'm arguing against more laws and the state determining what people choose to do or not. Establishment of "Sharia law" is exactly the opposite. If fact, your position, that the state should dictate personal behavior, is more akin to "Sharia law" than mine.

"Equal protection under the law" --Except if you are a protected class, minority, union, or any other pet cause of the day.

Yes, it is about doing what's right. The problem is, you and those like you, want to determine for me what is right based on your principles and then force them upon me. We can all agree that the law should protect citizens from harming each other and keep them from infringing each other's rights, but when you extrapolate that to any disagreement or any choice that may offend you (no one has a "right" not to be offended) then you take it beyond that realm and into that over governmental overreach. I'm sorry, but in a free society, the actions of some people will offend your sensibilities.
edit on 18-2-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


Go ahead and open your cafe. It is you right to do so. But, if you are going to depend on non-Christian patrons you had better hope you have a lot of tourist trade.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   

8675309jenny

Lingweenie
I understand businessmen have a right to refuse service to people. I agree with it.

BUT, it shouldn't be based on prejudice or bigotry. You shouldn't have to turn everyone within a certain group away simply because they're in that group. Weather it be racial, religious, et cetera. It should be based on their behavior and their actions.



What is it about freedom that you don't understand???

In one breath you declare people should have freedom, yet in the next you say it should be the freedom to be TOLD HOW TO BE FREE...

I'm not picking on you, but seriously go back and read your post. Modern day Americans seem incapable of swallowing reality, the reality that you can't have things both ways.

It's the same as people who always overprotect their kids. Let the damn kid fall down, and play and get dirty for god's sake!!

Let the business owners shoot themselves in the foot!!!! Why are we always trying to over regulate every damn thing??? The world has been DAMN GOOD at self regulation for a LONG LONG time.

Find the 'How wolves change rivers' video (it's recently on ATS) for a great example how much humans fck everything up when we meddle.


Using freedom to reduce someones else's freedom is hardly a freedom. Or even a right for that matter. It's pretty ironic.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Lingweenie

8675309jenny

Lingweenie
I understand businessmen have a right to refuse service to people. I agree with it.

BUT, it shouldn't be based on prejudice or bigotry. You shouldn't have to turn everyone within a certain group away simply because they're in that group. Weather it be racial, religious, et cetera. It should be based on their behavior and their actions.



What is it about freedom that you don't understand???

In one breath you declare people should have freedom, yet in the next you say it should be the freedom to be TOLD HOW TO BE FREE...

I'm not picking on you, but seriously go back and read your post. Modern day Americans seem incapable of swallowing reality, the reality that you can't have things both ways.

It's the same as people who always overprotect their kids. Let the damn kid fall down, and play and get dirty for god's sake!!

Let the business owners shoot themselves in the foot!!!! Why are we always trying to over regulate every damn thing??? The world has been DAMN GOOD at self regulation for a LONG LONG time.

Find the 'How wolves change rivers' video (it's recently on ATS) for a great example how much humans fck everything up when we meddle.


Using freedom to reduce someones else's freedom is hardly a freedom. Or even a right for that matter. It's pretty ironic.



You right to swing your arm ends at my nose.


How is removing one citizen's freedom of choice helping freedom? Does one citizen have the right to another citizen's labor such that the citizen has no choice in the matter? If I refuse to sell you something, be it a good or service, how is your freedom reduced? If you demand I sell you that thing, be it good or service, and get the state to enforce said demand, how is that supporting my freedom. One does not have the right to another person's goods nor labor so one person refusing to serve another does not infringe upon their freedom.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:02 PM
link   

mOjOm
Anyone seen this???

Kansas Republicans Decide Anti-Gay Bill Is “Discrimination,” Kill It





Instead of passing, as everyone predicted, the Kansas anti-gay bill will now, in all likelihood, quietly die without hearings or a vote.


Things have a way of turning out right.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Lingweenie
 


"Using freedom to reduce someones else's freedom is hardly a freedom. Or even a right for that matter. It's pretty ironic. "

Ironic and it goes both ways.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   

NavyDoc
So you contradict yourself.


Nope, I've contradicted you. Why? You have a habit of rephrasing or wholly fabricating what others say to try to make your points.



You are in favor of laws that sacrifice the rights of individuals, just when you agree with it.


No ... I'm not. I've repeatedly stated that I support the Constitution and the laws of the land. I've stated that I believe that the American way is and always has been to find a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the many. You are proposing a world in which, so long as it happens on "private property" according to your definition, anything goes. That's not true and has never been true in this country.

The idea that each person becomes a law "unto themselves" is mere anarchy in any kind of rational, modern society.



You are being disingenuous when you say in essence that you don't believe in forcing individuals to do things unless you want to force them to do things, which you just stated you do.


Wrong again. You use those telling weaselling words "in essence" because I haven't said that and I don't believe it and you know it.


Let's say that this bill passed and became law. Would you agree with it since it became law? Does law make something moral? Can you think for yourself?


Can you? How many times need you be told the same thing? The American legal system as designed creates a balance between individual rights, group rights as well as the rights of the People. I would not agree with this "law" because it would be a bad law under the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of the State of Kansas. The law, if passed, would not have represented the required Constitutional balance between individuals and the general welfare.



I asked you before. Since Jim Crow was the law of the land for several generations, you would have been happy with it? After all, it was what the majority, "the people" wanted.


Jim Crow wasn't the "law of the land." These laws establishing segregation were common in the Southern states when the Federal government removed its "tyranny" to allow these States to govern themselves again. The argument you may remember was (and is) "States Rights." These were bad laws when passed because they violated the Fourteenth Amendment and they were bad laws until they were overcome a hundred years later because they contravene the Constitution.

By the way, the same arguments you're making for the "sanctity of property" were the sames ones that were used to enforce Jim Crow. You seem to be arguing against your own point.


Even though the majority wanted that way and the law of the land was to do it, I think it was wrong and an infringement upon the rights of the individual. By your stated position, you would have agreed with It because it was the law of the land and the will of the majority.


Wrong again. The law of the land is the US Constitution, et. al. When the sodomy laws were overturned, they were overturned because of the Constitution.

I stand by the Constitution, not some arbitrary random ideology like your statements that shift as needed like a chimera.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 





Fair enough homie. Still don't think 2 cases are proof of over all discrimination of Christians. I think it's more proof that Christianity breeds discrimination. I don't think businesses should be able to do discriminate if they offer a public service. Those of you spouting freedom should still be against singling out a specific group. Being able to refuse anyone is not the same as being able to refuse gays....


You're welcome, I didn't mind taking the time to demonstrate you were wrong one bit. After all, wasn't like there was any heavy lifting involved.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I'm sorry, but in a free society, the actions of some people will offend your sensibilities.


:-)

Really? So...whats your real point then? Passing laws so that you don't have to be around those people seems a bit hypocritical now, doesn't it?

What you really mean is that in quasi-free society - some people's offended sensibilities are more important than others, and some people are more free than others

Some people's kids - I tell ya

Is society important Navy? I'm not letting you off the hook for this one - you use the word society as if it means something - as if it's important. What does it mean to the individual?

Also, not silly. If you think it's OK to use religious freedom as a tool to legislate a life that let's you practice your religion exactly the way you believe you must - those laws will automatically apply to all religions

Or, let's just declare this a Christian nation, dispense with the pretense of having a nation that stands for freedom, equality and a separation of church and state - and get on with it then



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Gryphon66

NavyDoc
So you contradict yourself.


Nope, I've contradicted you. Why? You have a habit of rephrasing or wholly fabricating what others say to try to make your points.



You are in favor of laws that sacrifice the rights of individuals, just when you agree with it.


No ... I'm not. I've repeatedly stated that I support the Constitution and the laws of the land. I've stated that I believe that the American way is and always has been to find a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the many. You are proposing a world in which, so long as it happens on "private property" according to your definition, anything goes. That's not true and has never been true in this country.

The idea that each person becomes a law "unto themselves" is mere anarchy in any kind of rational, modern society.



You are being disingenuous when you say in essence that you don't believe in forcing individuals to do things unless you want to force them to do things, which you just stated you do.


Wrong again. You use those telling weaselling words "in essence" because I haven't said that and I don't believe it and you know it.


Let's say that this bill passed and became law. Would you agree with it since it became law? Does law make something moral? Can you think for yourself?


Can you? How many times need you be told the same thing? The American legal system as designed creates a balance between individual rights, group rights as well as the rights of the People. I would not agree with this "law" because it would be a bad law under the Constitution of the United States as well as the Constitution of the State of Kansas. The law, if passed, would not have represented the required Constitutional balance between individuals and the general welfare.



I asked you before. Since Jim Crow was the law of the land for several generations, you would have been happy with it? After all, it was what the majority, "the people" wanted.


Jim Crow wasn't the "law of the land." These laws establishing segregation were common in the Southern states when the Federal government removed its "tyranny" to allow these States to govern themselves again. The argument you may remember was (and is) "States Rights." These were bad laws when passed because they violated the Fourteenth Amendment and they were bad laws until they were overcome a hundred years later because they contravene the Constitution.

By the way, the same arguments you're making for the "sanctity of property" were the sames ones that were used to enforce Jim Crow. You seem to be arguing against your own point.


Even though the majority wanted that way and the law of the land was to do it, I think it was wrong and an infringement upon the rights of the individual. By your stated position, you would have agreed with It because it was the law of the land and the will of the majority.


Wrong again. The law of the land is the US Constitution, et. al. When the sodomy laws were overturned, they were overturned because of the Constitution.

I stand by the Constitution, not some arbitrary random ideology like your statements that shift as needed like a chimera.


Which shows how ignorant you are of the Constitution you pretend to support. Jim Crow, "separate but equal" was upheld by the Supreme Court and they did say it was Constitutional (before a later court made another decision.) Jim Crow, at one point WAS considered Constitutional and thus was "the law of the land."




Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Decreed a slave was his master's property and African Americans were not citizens; struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional.

Civil Rights Cases (1883)
A number of cases are addressed under this Supreme court decision. Decided that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (the last federal civil rights legislation until the Civil Rights Act of 1957) was unconstitutional. Allowed private sector segregation.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
The Court stated that segregation was legal and constitutional as long as "facilities were equal"—the famous "separate but equal" segregation policy.

Powell v. Alabama (1932)
The Supreme Court overturned the "Scottsboro Boys'" convictions and guaranteed counsel in state and federal courts.

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)


Read more: Ten Important Supreme Court Decisions in African American History | Infoplease.com www.infoplease.com...


Thus I have demonstrated that slavery WAS Constitutional and the law of the land. Jim Crow was Constitutional and the law of the land. So by your very premise, absent your weaseling attempt to change the paradigm, Jim Crow and Slavery were both the law of the land as per your definition "the law of the land" meaning only the Constitution and were determined so by several supreme court rulings. Thus Again, I ask you the question--was slavery and Jim Crow moral given that they were both determined to be Constitutional and the will of the majority of citizens?

I stand by the Constitution in that, nowhere in that document, can you find that the federal government is authorized to determine who you may or may not do business with. I stand for the Constitution in that 10th amendment, where any specific duty not delegated to the federal government be the preview of the states.

I like freedom, not to harm your fellow man, but to be left alone to make your own choices in life. You don't like freedom of choice it seems.

I stand by the Constitution, not the philosophy of using the state to push my will on my fellow citizens. You don't even know what the Constitution is for, it's history, or the intent behind it. You want to twist it to justify whatever you want.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


I'm sorry, but in a free society, the actions of some people will offend your sensibilities.


:-)

Really? So...whats your real point then? Passing laws so that you don't have to be around those people seems a bit hypocritical now, doesn't it?

What you really mean is that in quasi-free society - some people's offended sensibilities are more important than others, and some people are more free than others

Some people's kids - I tell ya

Is society important Navy? I'm not letting you off the hook for this one - you use the word society as if it means something - as if it's important. What does it mean to the individual?

Also, not silly. If you think it's OK to use religious freedom as a tool to legislate a life that let's you practice your religion exactly the way you believe you must - those laws will automatically apply to all religions

Or, let's just declare this a Christian nation, dispense with the pretense of having a nation that stands for freedom, equality and a separation of church and state - and get on with it then






No, its very simple. Every citizen should be left alone to make their own choices in life, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others. The state should not force you to do business with someone you do not want to do business with. Freedom of association. Likewise, the state should not keep you from doing business with someone you want to.

Religion is not my point. I don't care if an atheist refuses to do business with Christians. I don't care if a Jewish person would rather not do business with a Nazi. Both the atheist and the Jew should have the same freedom of choice with whom they would or would not do business with. If their business fails because they turn away customers, that's their choice--not mine, not yours, not the government's.

I agree. I n our quasi-free society, some people's offended sensibilities are more important than others--which is why we should not legislate based on who takes offense because we always see how those laws are not impartially enforced on various groups depending upon how the pendulum swings. You are perfectly free to discriminate in our society, heck universities and government employers do it all of the time, as long as you discriminate against someone who isn't a protected class.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Where are all those people who say that the gov is trying to force a Gay Agenda ? Now that something goes against their belief, they will have to ignore this or come up with an excuse to justify the belief in "The Gay Agenda".

The Pentagon (an actual gov agency) says homosexuality is a mental illness. Why do these people that believe that there is a gov gay agenda never mentions that fact?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


...which is why we should not legislate based on who takes offense because we always see how those laws are not impartially enforced on various groups depending upon how the pendulum swings.

Natch :-)

I am pleased to report that the Republican-led Kansas Senate decided this would not fly. Senate President Susan Wagle said on Thursday that a majority of the state senators in her party would not vote for the bill. They support “traditional marriage,” Wagle noted, “however, my members also don’t condone discrimination.” Thank you for that line in the sand. It should be obvious, but somehow that was lost on the Kansas House.

And it looks like the Senate in Kansas agrees with you - good call

Tough break for the House, but, they gave it the old college try - embarrassing their state and our country in the process

But - come to think of it - it's a process most beautiful. I had doubts - but my faith has been restored. For now

Any thoughts on society Navy? I'm curious to see how a rugged individualist works all this out in his head

:-)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   

TheConspiracyPages
Are you really saying that this man must either compromise his sincerely held beliefs about God, about right & wrong, or lose his business?


For the privilege of living in a country that has no state religion like the USA business necessarily has to compromise religious belief in order to practice within its borders.

The man doesn't have to lose his business. He can stop baking wedding cakes and bake other products instead. He is also free to move to another country with a state religion that will enforce his beliefs upon others when conducting business.


TheConspiracyPages
I've noticed that throughout this thread, while more than a few Islamic States have some pretty horrific penalties for homosexual behavior, very little if anything is said about that, while much is made of Christianity's stance on homosexuality, which currently, by any standard, is relatively mild. It's the same in the news media. I'm starting to wonder if homosexuals are truly driven by an attraction to people of the same sex or whether they're just really driven by an overwhelming hatred of Christianity.


Homosexuals living in the USA do not live in an Islamic state. They live in a country that has no state religion as noted above. You and others like you will just have to live with that fact.


Whatever the target for your hate is, the idea that the homosexual community believes that a person who runs a business should be put out of business because they won't bake a cake or take photographs for a gay wedding gives lie to any statements that your agenda is driven by anything other than hate.

Congratulations to the LGBT community. You're the new bigots. You're the new tyrants.


This is just silly and reads like trolling for flames.
edit on 18-2-2014 by Frith because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
We have to remember that real nice, forward thinking folks live in these states, too. Don't throw them all out with the small minded, ignorant, hateful, incestuous, moronic, fanatic, sickening, lunatic, tumescent, anti-iconoclastic, fascistic f*&%#rs ...

And really, they will tell people are a couple... how? Daryl and Dufus will be thrown from the diner because their sisters were too busy to escort them?

I hate being stuck on this planet ...



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ArtemisE
 


Well I did leave Mississippi off my list....lol.

I was just making the point that these 'conservative' run places havent run things into the ground, and alot of these progressive 'paradises' are in fact MUCH worse. All areas have problems of varying degrees, I was just throwing sand in the air at the poster who made such an idiotic general statement like that.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


I have held this thought for quite some time. I suggested a few years ago that maybe the homo-sexually inclined folks should start their own organizations and clubs and hospitals and insurance companies that cater to THEIR needs. I understand they want what everyone else has, but some of the logistic issues cant be worked out and I feel like the easiest thing at this point is for them to provide for themselves all the needs or rights that they are lacking. In fact all of the money spent on lobbying and protesting has to be in the Billions for this cause and that money could have went a long way in establishing their own network. And hey, if you dont have a gay marriage license or some sort of established recognition that you are homosexual or homosexual tolerant than you dont get access to their facilities or organizations.

I know my radical idea on this going to get me some flames thrown my way, but hey its better than all of the arguing and is doing something productive instead of wasting politicians time on all of this when we need a healthy economy and our troops home here not wreaking havoc all over the world.

In fact I would start with a bank for homosexuals, run much like a credit union and once you have the bank well established and you know it will because like minded folks will want to support each other, then you can start loaning the money provided by the gay community to start building other social infrastructure for the communities needs. Part of the criteria for receiving a loan from this particular bank would be that it has to go towards bettering the gay community and specific home related needs. For example Joe Q. Smith comes in and wants a loan for a business, he wants start-up to sell insurance. Well he can get it if the business is operated under a model that provides exclusively to the gay community. Or Ron and Larry Johnson need a new home or vehicle for their family, then a loan would be acceptable.

This is actually an idea that could be huge and FAR more productive than trying to be included in a club of people that largely doesnt acknowledge you exist and if they do acknowledge a homosexual person it is usually with disdain. I would go start my own club.

If I was in Kansas this is what I would do. Open a new restaurant and serve ONLY the gay community. Have they outlawed that? No heterosexual folks allowed. I mean obviously a gay only business would thrive well here as there seems to be enough homosexuals to warrant this bill and its passing.

Seriously, if anyone wants to work on that infrastructure for the homosexual community I would be more than happy to discuss some ideas via Private Messaging.
edit on 18-2-2014 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join