And everyone will hate me now but I like this governor now. 
mornelithe said:
The next Presidency is going to be very important, in that reguard. There's pontentially what, 3 or 4 seats up for grabs in the near future? |
Ginsburg's definitely going down in the next 8 years (surprised she doesn't do so now. It'll be quite stupid of her if the White House goes R next. She had her chance to be safely replaced). Breyer probably will. Both Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are 79 years old, highly doubt they'd make it through another 4-8 years either. It's only the 4 Bush and Obama appointees, and Clarence Thomas, who are likely to stay on through the next president (assuming 2 terms).
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
sc94597 said:
I don't really care about the constitution to be honest. Sure the government mandating how people use their property and associate with others is probably "unconstitutional" by the tenth amendment, but it's not like it mattered with any of their other intrusions on property rights and rights to liberty (in this case to freely associate.) The constitution itself was a generally illiberal document that was designed to create a centralized state. Anything liberal (when I say liberal I mean in the classical sense) in it, is only there as a compromise with the opposition at the time (anti-federalists.) The Declaration of Independence on the other hand is a fantastic document, and it would be nice if more Americans put an emphasis on the principles pre-faced in that. My opposition to the civil rights act is based on something more fundamental than the U.S constitution, a principle that we all should have control over our own lives and our own property, a principle based on self-ownership. With that, we should also accept full responsibility for our actions, as our actions are entirely ours to be made. As for this law, I see it as another reaction to a prior action. It is a legal precedent that gay couples can sue, say a bakery, for not producing a cake for their wedding and consequently the reaction is that people who don't agree with this push call on their representative in their state house to allow discrimination against homosexuals, out of mostly - fear and anger. If people just associated with those who were accepting of them then there wouldn't be a problem. There are more than 315 million Americans, and the year is 2015. There are dozens of millions of people with whom we can interact with voluntarily without forcing people who don't want to like us for whichever pre-determined trait we might have. |
I understanding what you are saying and agree, you can't legislate for people to be courteous and nice to those that they don't, for whatever reason, want to interact with.
I think the problem with this is assuming that those on the receiving end will always have a choice in this matter. This may be manageable to an extent in our social lives but we have much less control of this both in the workplace and in places of commerce. This is particularly true of people living in small towns, where for example, there might only be one bakery.
Simply speaking I think there is always risk in providing legislative support for predjudice. Even though I believe we should stop short of forcing commerce, I think there has to be some protection for minorities in these instances. One would hope that in most situations common sense and market forces would prevail, with people avoiding service in establishments where they are likely to be unwelcome, and subsequent adverse commercial/financial impact for those businesses that openly support bigotry.
The_Yoda said:
If this was true the Babtist minister Martin Luther King Jr should have led a very different life wouldn't you say? |
Ministers have the empathy of a nation of believers. As a Christian it was easier to speak to Christians about political change. He was assassinated because he was making more social and political progress than religion. He went about peaceful progress because he's a pacifist like Christ was in the scripture. Malcolm X is the exact opposite. You know...the same guys who Professor X amd Magneto were created after? The duality of peace vs militant by any means necessary tactics for social change. Most of these guys were socialist were socialist as well.
o_O.Q said:
all people should be granted rights and they are although ironically the "progressive" people are now trying to strip away the rights of every body |
Elaborate your point of view.
Why are not every human created equal?
How are progressives stripping everyone's rights?
| daredevil.shark said: And everyone will hate me now but I like this governor now. |
So....you're for a governor giving all businesses in the state a chance to discriminate against homosexuals?
S.T.A.G.E. said:
|
Yes.
BMaker11 said:
No, you can't. You have to have an actual reason (they're disturbing customers, destroying property, etc). And that reason can't be because of race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. That pesky Civil Rights act gets in the way of that. I'm from Indiana. Fuck this law |
I think he meant that people should (not are) able to choose who they do buisness with not matter the reason they have. I think descriminating against people for being gay, women, different race/religion is wrong but I also believe forcing people to associate with people they don't want to is also wrong.
This is the Game of Thrones
Where you either win
or you DIE
FunFan said:
But it has a $85,000 initiation fee. Hows that not a business? |
It doesn't need to be a business. The fee is used to keep people out who cannot afford to be there. Legal classicism, and sexist behavior. Its a frat house. I believe the religion of Scientology has a fee as well.
daredevil.shark said:
|
Wow....how many years have we gone back in an instant? I don't even want to count.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
