The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

You don't believe that different freedoms interfere with each other? You have to be told that such a concept is reality?

In short, insisting on your rights, or even preferring a constitution that has federally enforced rights is totalitarian, hyperbolically speaking. On the other hand dictating to folks by government officials, like for example school administrators is just fine. Because... why exactly? Well because you are okay with that.How about we keep the totalitarian government, state or otherwise, out of the bathroom absent some problem that needs a solution. That's exactly what the guidelines to Title IX were meant to accomplish.Apparently there is no real defense for bathroom laws like HB2, because attempts to defend them are easily seen through crap.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The founding fathers were not this stupid, Faith. Do you think that the first amendment would ever have allowed Puritans to torment Quakers or vice versa just because their religious beliefs allowed such?Your argument is moronic.Here are some helpful, if not obvious words from Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

not interested in this anymore...Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

While your statements are correct, I think the state laws are a natural, and easily forseeable outgrowth of the Supreme Court's ruling that there was no rational basis for the state to disallow same sex marriage. I completely understand, although I do not sympathize with, complaints that religious sensibilities were affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.

Isn't it just a little inconsistent to agree that the First Amendment is not a restriction on Congress alone when discussing the Free Expression Clause, but to deny that same principle when you are complaining about state school officials being subject to the first amendment.I doubt that you would want the first amendment application to free speech, freedom of assembly, or religion to be limited to prohibition on what Congress can do. But maybe I am wrong.

Obviously we should stick with the truth, but I suspect that even Oregon would argue that their laws were supported by the 14th amendment. In my opinion, anti-discrimination laws that are not well grounded in constitutional principles can be suspect, because state laws cannot trump the constitution. An Oregon law that prevented discrimination against democrats probably would not survive court review if it interfered with a first amendment right. I suppose so. But that federal/state argument is ridiculous anyway. And beyond that, despite NCE's statement that any discrimination ought not to be challenged beyond the state level, it seems that he would find appealing to the state to be just a little less totalitarian that suing in federal court.

So the Puritans did not practice a Bible based denomination? Your argument does not hold water. Beyond that, your argument is utterly inconsistent with the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Folks who called themselves believers in the Bible have persecuted folks and justified their persecution on the Bible just as you have done here. Your statement is meaning-free.

Excellent job of actually citing the law and real history in the face of unsupportable statements about what the early constitution allowed. Let me continue this line of argument.If you want to cite a directly germane early Supreme Court decision, I think the most relevant would be Reynolds v. United States decided in 1878.

quote:

---

Finally, the Court concluded that people cannot excuse themselves from the law because of their religion. Can a man excuse his [illegal] practicesbecause of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances

---

[1]Like it or not, this was the state of constitutional law in 1878 as well as now. The principle in question is not some new invention by the left or by liberal, activist, judges. Further, the decision is backed by the statement of at least one Founding Father:

quote:

---

Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

---

[2]And of course, the principle that Thomas Jefferson warned about is exactly the principle that Faith espouses here. Namely that her religious beliefs should allow her to take actions with impunity. Well, fortunately, that canard was never enshrined in the constitution. Small wonder it is being given short shrift here. [1]Reynolds v. United States (1879) - Bill of Rights Institute [2]Reynolds v. United States - WikipediaEdited by NoNukes, : Tweak punctuation and correct one word.

In other news Trump makes moves in the opposite direction by issuing an executive order targeting an Obama rule intended to protect LGBT and other minorities.

quote:

---

An executive order President Trump signed Monday rescinded an executive order President Obama implemented that would have required companies that contract with the federal government to provide documentation about their compliance with various federal laws. Some have argued that this will make it harder to enforce the LGBT protections President Obama implemented for employees of federal contractors  as well as many other protections those workers enjoyed.

---

The sole motivation for this supposed repeal is to convince the NCAA to resume holding events in North Carolina. The NCAA is holding scheduling meetings on April 18 at which they will decide event sites for the next several year. I believe that the North Carolina legislature has miscalculated.Even if they pass this supposed repeal, they may not agree that it is a real repeal or that it addresses LGBT concerns. And even if events are initially scheduled in NC, public pressure could easily result in those events being pulled again.

As I have demonstrated using references and a Supreme Court decision dating from 1878, the idea that actions contrary to law must be allowed has never been the correct interpretation of the First Amendment. Your saying so, over and over, does not advance your argument.Beyond that, it is easy to show with historical actions that the actions of Christians based on their beliefs have not always been benign.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The context for your remark was a portion of the Jefferson quote, and in picking that out, you missed the thrust of the quote which was that we don't allow small deviations from the law because that invites the larger.Beyond that, your proposed actions towards gay folks, and I say proposed because you don't actually own a bakery, are not harmless, and they are certainly illegal.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Except that one man's misunderstanding is another man's complete Bible belief it appears. Well except in your case where you claim to be unerring and infallible at determining God's will.Professing your belief as the only real one is not an argument. It's just preaching.

Impeachment requires that the majority of the House agree to articles of impeachment followed by two-thirds of the Senate voting to dismiss the president. Neither conservatives nor liberals can achieve this by themselves.No chance of either happening regardless of how legitimate the concerns are. But the democrats cannot get rid of Trump without substantial help from the right. We don't know that there has no collusion. That's what the investigation is about. What we do know is that some members of the administration have claimed to have had zero contact with Russia only to later have to admit that their statements were untrue, but only after getting caught in a lie.Now you might think that getting caught in such lies is no reason to investigate, but reasonable people might well disagree. Do you seriously not recall the many investigations of president Clinton? Are you unaware that President Clinton is one of two presidents to be impeached but not convicted in the Senate? All of this despite the fact that Clinton was elected twice? Your claims here do not survive even the slightest scrutiny.Conservatives do not have the high road here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.