Originally posted by mercurialNot so fast. All you have to do apparently is declare that establishing a state religion is really a tax of some sort, then it becomes OK apparently.
"Why should minorities have to right to say what ever they want and get away with it."
You can't make this stuff up.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and t ...[text shortened]... .
The Bill of Rights is not just for Angry Old Straight White Men.
It is for everyone.
Originally posted by LuckCome on Luck, everyone is subjective. I suppose some are better at hiding it than others is all.
In addition, news should be reported objectively and not slanted towards socialism.
You can see in Europe now where this mass decease is leading to in the end.
Everyone wants their entitlements, but nobody wants to pay for it.
Harri / Luck[/b]
Originally posted by LuckLike I said, angry.
I was referring to the liberal s.k. news media.
They would not a story about Chick-A-File if the comments were said my a liberal parasite, but when when outstanding human being and a tax paying citizen says something, then all the trashy liberals jump in!
I am all for free speech and free talk radio, do not try to block anyone!
In addition, news should be ...[text shortened]... in the end.
Everyone wants their entitlements, but nobody wants to pay for it.
Harri / Luck
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Suziannei remember reading a while back about the owner of domino's pizza trying to get homosexuals taken of the non-discrimination act, i think it was in michigan.
At least until the Angry Old Straight White Men (AOSWM) get their way and get a Constitutional Amendment passed banning gay marriage.
Then the Constitution won't be for everyone any more.
there are 29 states that do not protect the rights of people being evicted because of their sexual orientation.
i think it looks like the constitution is getting bypassed.
is there any chance this could end up in a civil war? east and west coast versus middle america.
Originally posted by stellspalfie"is there any chance this could end up in a civil war? east and west coast versus middle america.[/b]"
i remember reading a while back about the owner of domino's pizza trying to get homosexuals taken of the non-discrimination act, i think it was in michigan.
there are 29 states that do not protect the rights of people being evicted because of their sexual orientation.
i think it looks like the constitution is getting bypassed.
is there any chance this could end up in a civil war? east and west coast versus middle america.
The beach bums have the numbers, but the cowboys got the guns.
After having read this thread I want the lifetime back I invested.
Several points:
* Freedom of speech. This is for everyone. That is if the Chik-A-file owner says that he is happy to have married once and stayed so. No problem. If he says taht he doesn't undersatnd gay people. So be it. If he says he hates them...then we have an issue.
I take the liberty to quote a part of the interview which is given in the wikipedai as reason for the debate:
#Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.
"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.#
You can say that is is anti-gay by definition...but it is not convincing to me. To me this sounds like a perfectly legitimate opinion under the free speech.
I am open to be pointed to a more incriminating source.
* Is Chick-A-fil anti-gay?
If how would it show? The issue is that Chick-A-fil is "supporting groups with an anti-gay agenda". Again check the facts. Is AFA anti-gay? It is pro family and in their mission statement that is what they concentrate on.
Maybe we do not agree with their picture of a family, but they are completely free to distribute their picture of family in my opinion.
If C-A-F was antigay, they wouldn't serve openly gay people, or not? But there is no company policy... Then Cathy spoke as a private person not as a PR-strategist for C-A-F.
* So we come to two further statements:
# why can minorities say what they want and come away with it?
and
# why can majorities say what they want and come away with it?
Truth is that nobody can say what they want and come away with it. This is one of the blessings of western civilisation and free speech.
BUT the question remains where are the boundaries of free speech. and righteous excititation? And here we have a private person speaking about his family and maybe implying something and he is openly crtizised. While we have on the other hands people (and official functionaries) asking for a bocott...
This should belong to debates by the way.
Oh and I should not end without this: Please everybody to accept your next person. You are still allowed to disagree.