Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Camels? In Israel? Sorry, Bible.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • cutthemdown
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    Huh.

    So you trust the Supreme Court in that regard yet not when it comes to ruling abortion falls under the liberty clause or that security checkpoints aren't unreasonable search.

    How convenient for the argument.
    Nope I hate the ruling on DUI checkpoints. But you have to have an entity that makes the tough decisions. Sometimes you won't like them but I don't worry the decision will ever be mens testimony in court gets higher priority . You can't win with your bait and switch tactics.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arkie
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Actually I just misunderstood what he was proposing. The part you quoted looked like a whole different line of reasoning.

    It's a pointless gesture on his part. The real solution is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. It no longer makes any sense.
    Works for me. Get government out of the churches. Get the churches out of government.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pony Boy
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    Does it infringe on anyone's rights?
    I see your point, New York and Chicago should not be able to pass laws that infringe on individual gun owners rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Actually I just misunderstood what he was proposing. The part you quoted looked like a whole different line of reasoning.

    It's a pointless gesture on his part. The real solution is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. It no longer makes any sense.
    I agree. Civil unions all around. If you want to get married, go to church and pay out the ass for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    And see, this is exactly the problem. You smugly hide behind "states' rights" arguments when the intent and effect are both clear. It's been done before, as I recall.
    Actually I just misunderstood what he was proposing. The part you quoted looked like a whole different line of reasoning.

    It's a pointless gesture on his part. The real solution is to get government out of the marriage business altogether. It no longer makes any sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    Houghtam I trust my Supreme Court to protect me from that. I am 100% confident that a law saying women are in any way less then men would be ruled unconstitutional. I believe in my country and no that due process of our legal system has the checks and balances to make sure none of the scare tactics you are saying would come to be.

    Saying that forensic evidence is not valid, and this womans tetimoney is unworthy because she is a woman, would violate due process and probably a bunch of other things I am not smart enough to know.

    Any law saying you have to cover yourself, sorry unconstitutional. It's the fact our country is so great that things like that could never happen.

    But if that same Muslim community wanted to say no alcohol sales on Sunday, probably could do it. No right to have alcohol to buy.
    Huh.

    So you trust the Supreme Court in that regard yet not when it comes to ruling abortion falls under the liberty clause or that security checkpoints aren't unreasonable search.

    How convenient for the argument.

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    Does it infringe on anyone's rights?
    So you want the standard to be, you can violate fed law if you can show it didn't infringe on anyones rights?

    Stick to being Mr Mom.

    The whole marijuana issue has been completely mishandled by the feds.

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    Further, cut, how far are you willing to go? The city of Hamtramck, MI is largely muslim. Should they be allowed to enact sharia law as long as it doesn't infringe on someone's rights? And I'm not even talking about the "stone a woman who is raped" types of laws, I'm talking about how eyewitness testimony takes precedence over forensic evidence. How male witness testimonies are given more weight than female testimonies.
    Houghtam I trust my Supreme Court to protect me from that. I am 100% confident that a law saying women are in any way less then men would be ruled unconstitutional. I believe in my country and no that due process of our legal system has the checks and balances to make sure none of the scare tactics you are saying would come to be.

    Saying that forensic evidence is not valid, and this womans tetimoney is unworthy because she is a woman, would violate due process and probably a bunch of other things I am not smart enough to know.

    Any law saying you have to cover yourself, sorry unconstitutional. It's the fact our country is so great that things like that could never happen.

    But if that same Muslim community wanted to say no alcohol sales on Sunday, probably could do it. No right to have alcohol to buy.

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by Pony Boy View Post
    Speaking of 'States Rights"

    What's your opinion on Colorado making marijuana legal when it clearly violates Federal law?
    Does it infringe on anyone's rights?

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    Originally posted by Arkie View Post
    Religion based law infringes on my rights under the constitution the same as you. It doesn't matter where in America I live. It's not right for powerful churches in certain underpopulated areas to set religious laws, and force others to love it or leave it.
    Why people in all states and areas have to love it or leave it. We have tons of groups pushing laws, trying to get them voted on etc, you can't single out churches.

    If the people in the area vote it, and Supreme Court doesn't rule in unconstitutional, then I don't see the difference if the law pushed by church, a union, a womans rights group, communists, socialists, tea partiers, the local affiliation of united hookers. It's all the same it's private citizens uniting together to push an agenda the agree with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pony Boy
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    And see, this is exactly the problem. You smugly hide behind "states' rights" arguments when the intent and effect are both clear. It's been done before, as I recall.
    Speaking of 'States Rights"

    What's your opinion on Colorado making marijuana legal when it clearly violates Federal law?

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
    Huffpo headline notwithstanding, that doesn't appear to be what he's proposing.

    If you view legislation shielding controversial religious speech as 'religious', then you might as well view the 1st Amendment as religious as well.
    And see, this is exactly the problem. You smugly hide behind "states' rights" arguments when the intent and effect are both clear. It's been done before, as I recall.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBeavis
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    No.

    Religion-based legislation should, however.
    Huffpo headline notwithstanding, that doesn't appear to be what he's proposing.

    If you view legislation shielding controversial religious speech as 'religious', then you might as well view the 1st Amendment as religious as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arkie
    replied
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    Religion based law should not be deemed illegal if thats what the people living there want. As long as it doesn't infringe on people rights under the constitution.
    Religion based law infringes on my rights under the constitution the same as you. It doesn't matter where in America I live. It's not right for powerful churches in certain underpopulated areas to set religious laws, and force others to love it or leave it.

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Further, cut, how far are you willing to go? The city of Hamtramck, MI is largely muslim. Should they be allowed to enact sharia law as long as it doesn't infringe on someone's rights? And I'm not even talking about the "stone a woman who is raped" types of laws, I'm talking about how eyewitness testimony takes precedence over forensic evidence. How male witness testimonies are given more weight than female testimonies.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X