Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not. That's a very different situation. Neo-nazis make a choice to be neo-nazis.
People don't pick whether God exists.
Sure they do; it's all in their head.
Welcome, ACLU
881–890 of 1001 posts
Re: Welcome, ACLU
#882Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not. That's a very different situation. Neo-nazis make a choice to be neo-nazis.
So, according to your argument, it should be ok to denny someone service based on their religion as well.
Do you think that would be okay? Are you asking a question?
Re: Welcome, ACLU
#883Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think refusal of service is itself protected speech either, but we're not talking about the government restricting protected speech. We're talking about the government compelling an individual to engage in protected speech, like taking a wedding photograph. > The U.S. Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the First Amendment protects an "individual freedom of mind"—e.g., (1943), which affirmed the right not…
Personally, I've always wondered if the people who don't want to make cakes for a gay wedding/provide flowers would be willing to subcontract that out to someone else. When you buy a cake you don't generally expect that specific person will be making that cake. This would allow them to not participate while at the same time protecting people from discrimination.
Those who oppose would still consider this participation.
Re: Welcome, ACLU
#884Earlier quoted context omitted.
What procedural guarantees are permanent residents guaranteed under US law, that these people were not granted when they were denied entry, ie. what is 'due process' in the context of entry for permanent residents?
That question matters if you want to gauge the chances for a successful appeal in court. Whether completely upending the lives of longterm residents without any prior warning is something that should be allowed to happen in a country is at least in part a moral question, and surely the ACLU is well within it's rights to answer that in the negative; nor, I dare say, would that answer seem very foreign to the average d…
Which is exactly my point. The ACLU deals in protection of civil liberties of which in this case it is clear no rights were violated. So the ACLU has just become an advocate for liberal politics, which is precisely my criticism of the organization: it pretends to be a principled organization that protects civil rights when it instead is just an advocate for leftist politics.
Re: Welcome, ACLU
#885Earlier quoted context omitted.
hearing this kind of rhetoric from Democrats and left-leaning media("they give up rights when the went into business") is exactly what caused the center of the country to swing further right in the last election. Do you have any evidence for that?
I grew up in the Midwest and still visit sometimes. Many people I know think Democrats have lost their minds with this issue (and the bathroom debate).
The bathroom debate that, like so many issues of the last several years, was borne from GOP legislative and executive action, but blamed on the Democrats for standing against it?
Who exactly has lost their minds here?
Re: Welcome, ACLU
#886Earlier quoted context omitted.
Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.
You don't give up rights just because you start a business.
In some ways, and in some states, you do. You also take on a greater responsibility to the public, to whom you're offering products and services, that you would not shoulder as an individual.
Re: Welcome, ACLU
#887I've been a long time supporter of the ACLU. While they're being politicized right now as being anti-Trump, the thing I admire most about them is their consistency in fighting for the rights of everyone. They stick to their principles of free speech and human equality no matter how unpopular the issue or unsavory their client. A good example is back in the 1930s when the ACLU simultaneously defended the rights of bla…
The ACLU used to be an entirely admirable organization. It has devolved into mostly political advocacy and attention-seeking, but still does some good work. Not black/white, every institution has its own history. But YC is entirely diluting their brand wading into this mess.
The A.C.L.U. has has about 250,000+ members, a $15-20 million annual budget (hardly a startup mentality), an extensive network of state affiliates and local chapters, backed up by a national office with headquarters in New York, a legislative office in Washington and regional offices in Atlanta and Denver.
There are fifty-one affiliates - every state except North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho, plus 3 in California, and one in D.C. (not sure about state offices anymore, I think that is correct), - have their own staffs and their own boards, plus at least one representative on the national board, which sets policy for the whole organization.
The state affiliates do make independent decisions about which cases to take and which local legislation to lobby for or against. They frequently take cases in areas where the national organization has not yet adopted a policy. But they also get smacked down when they run afoul of national board.
It is the national board sets a "policy" agenda and then seeks out cases to pursue that agenda. That board meets for a weekend four times a year to iron out the policy.
That natl/local split accounts for some of the diversity, but in truth it is mostly partisan organization based on board membership.
Re: Welcome, ACLU
#888Earlier quoted context omitted.
Refusal of service based race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation is not protected speech. It's discrimination. They gave up rights when they went into business.
You don't give up rights just because you start a business.
When you engage in commerce you're subject to regulation, per the Constitution. Which means giving up (unstated) rights that you otherwise would have as a citizen. Discrimination for example.
Social contract theory ;)
Re: Welcome, ACLU
#889Earlier quoted context omitted.
These pages are both grossly biased and intellectually dishonest. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible to impute motive from action, it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations. I've historically supported the ACLU's mission, but right now they are showboating for donations and that plan is working out great for them which means…
"it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations." I haven't heard one single reasonable explanation for why the US taxpayers should put $15 BILLION (before budget overflows and deadline pushbacks) into this wall. Until it is remotely justifiable, a knee-jerk monument to collective racism and xenophobia is ALL it is. Starting a trade war with Mexico…
Considering you can find Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Obama and various other Democrats calling for secure borders and barriers of various sorts throughout the years...
It wasn't racism and xenophobic when it was called for then... Bill got a standing ovation from both sides when he made his speech...
What's changed about wanting those things?
Re: Welcome, ACLU
#890Earlier quoted context omitted.
These pages are both grossly biased and intellectually dishonest. While I wouldn't go so far as to say it's impossible to impute motive from action, it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations. I've historically supported the ACLU's mission, but right now they are showboating for donations and that plan is working out great for them which means…
"it's irresponsible to call defending borders racist when there are other reasonable and less incendiary explanations." I haven't heard one single reasonable explanation for why the US taxpayers should put $15 BILLION (before budget overflows and deadline pushbacks) into this wall. Until it is remotely justifiable, a knee-jerk monument to collective racism and xenophobia is ALL it is. Starting a trade war with Mexico…
Leaving the $15 BILLION aside for now, are you able to see any reason for having a wall at all?