951–960 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt left off the list? That's where most of the 9/11 hijackers and planners hailed from. I think you're hearing echoes in your "sound mind."
the countries chosen were done so by the Obama Administration and already had travel restrictions in place since 2015. Trump's EO merely put a 90 day ban on such travel.
Heads-up: This going to be a long-ish, semi-OT rant: To be honest, I feel kind of dumb these days. How I hate admitting that. I read all the outrageous things Trump said during the Primaries and his election campaign, and I did not really take them seriously, or him. Otto von Bismarck, a German politician once said (or at least I've seen the quote attributed to him, but it seems like something he would say): "People…
I know folks in America who thought the same way, even on the left. I hope they feel pretty fucking stupid right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are literally zero constitutional issues raised by the nature of his relationship with Twitter.
There are no constitutional issues raised by the border wall, and yet the ACLU is opposed to that.
Bush tackled the easiest parts of the wall. Expanding will only present more seizing of property from citizens and subjecting citizens to search and seizure solely due to their proximity to the border, despite them having no desire to cross the border. Whether being searched for wanting to play golf is unreasonable is a constitutional issue.
I'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…
Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to provide their creative services for same-sex weddings. [1] [2] [3] [1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Jus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Alternatively, why doesn't the gay couple just go somewhere else? I would imagine that only a very small minority of bakers/photographers/florists have strong feelings on this issue, so it's not like it would be difficult to find equivalent service elsewhere.
Earlier 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That this is being downvoted is extremely telling of the audience here. Engage in a discussion if you disagree. Downvoting unpopular opinions into oblivion is how you get a SV/liberal echo chamber.
This is being downvoted because of the intentionally passive-aggressive language that was used by the poster. It's fairly clear that the poster isn't interested in engaging in a discussion due to this. Even ignoring the phrasing, it wasn't a post that merits much discussion -- simply responses in the form of references to groups similar to the ACLU that are anti-abortion.
I'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…
Unfortunately, the ACLU is not always consistent on the issue of free speech. For example, they have frequently argued in favour of compelling speech from Christian bakers, florists and photographers who, for reasons of conscience, are unwilling to provide their creative services for same-sex weddings. [1] [2] [3] [1] http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminate... [2] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Jus…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ;)
It makes sense to me that businesses should be regulated and should not have the same rights as a citizen (Citizens United?) One thing I wonder, though, is: what if the owner or sole proprietor "quits" their business? Are they still criminally/civilly liable after they've "given up" their additional role? And, if something like that'd actually fly, would they ever be able to return to their [line of] business, or wou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People won't speak because their afraid their reasoning might step on the toes of someone else's, so everyone just pretends its obvious and gathers immense support without saying anything. This helps make sense of things a bit more for me as well, thanks. I listen to the left, and I very often agree, but at least as often I simply don't understand what they are on about, there is very often simply no logic to their…
there is very often simply no logic to their arguments. You've likely heard those on the left express similar sentiments of those on the right. What comes to mind when you hear them say that?
Personally, I will always challenge idiots on my side, I don't often see the same on the other side, they tend to be much more unified and don't tolerate dissension.