Let's Put This Baby To Bed!!
Less Than $932 To Go Green!!
Please Help End This Quarter's FReepathon
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 03/03/2014 8:55:22 AM PST by Kaslin
My thoughts exactly. If this is intended to be an appeal to reason, then it’s a waste to time. Those of us you can be sufficiently angry already are. They’ve won. They’re no reason to move one inch off their position. Keyboards should be clicking to the sounds of calls to action or remain silent.
Most of the “we” youre talking about are dead. I was 8 years old myself.
Greatest generation my ass.
To what end? Our enemies are getting everything they want without any appeals to logic. They have no need to respond to logic. If I made this argument to the guy in the cube next to me, he’d assent to it, but it wouldn’t change the way he votes one bit.
There’s a coordinated assault on our freedom and values and we’re supposed to be impressed with logical arguments?
I’m sorry, I just feel like we’re like a basketball team who’s down by 12 with 30 seconds left, we have great three point shooters, but we keep pushing into the paint, and getting our shots blocked. We should be in desperation mode.
In Colorado where I live, the voters approved a constitutional amendment in 1995 that sought to refuse a “special class” status under the law to those who engaged in homosexual behavior. Hollywood and many other pro-homosexual interests launched a massive boycott against the state. Now I’m told that to refuse business because of sexual practice is unconstitutional. Why then was not the boycott unconstitutional and how is that different from a baker refusing to do business. An entire industry refused to do business costing Colorado real documentable financial damages, not just hurt feelings; why is that business discrimination just and the bakers unjust? I think that the principle of equality under the law is dead in such rulings when some groups are more equal than others.
Isn’t it interesting, that Apple’s Tim Cook has said, “If you don’t believe my ideology, you are not welcome here”, and New York state has basically done the same, if not worse? But if you are a private business owner, you are not allowed to do the same.
when the time comes to deny christians the ability to buy food because they do not wear the mark, will this decision come back to haunt them... i think not.
teeman
My point is that if the arguments presented in the posted article were not made to Governor Brewer, they should have been. She’s only one person but a powerful person with a veto pen. She could have been persuaded to take the lead to explain the reason why she DID NOT veto the legislation to the people of Arizona citing the examples in the article, as a right guaranteed in Amendment 1 of The Constitution.
Thank you.
I can still remember a time long ago when my wife and I wandered into Provincetown on Cape Cod as a side trip to Boston. It was lunch time and we decided to have a bite to eat so we found a nice restaurant the overlooked the water and went in. Well we stood there for a while and could plainly see people who worked there but they never approached us so I finally walked over and asked if they were serving lunch. The answer: yes but we do not serve “your kind”, i.e. hetros. So, this has been going on for some time from the homo side.
She wouldn’t have done anything that would cost her the Super Bowl coming to Az. Her reasoned arguments wouldn’t have persuaded the NFL. She’s part of the problem.
I don’t get the connection with the Super Bowl. What’s that got to do with it? Is the NFL against the Bill of Rights?
Noble? I think that’s naive. I think there was a concentrated effort going on at the time to undermine American confidence in its own institutions, and the 1964 CRA was in part an outgrowth of that. There was a lot of talk at the time about “Communist infiltration” and “Communist agitation,” and people may laugh, but it was proven later to be true.
Subversion of the American way of life was a known Communist goal.
And you speak of “unintended consequences” in terms of property rights, which is one problem - but what about the effect on American cities? Can you look at any major Southern city now and say that it is better-run, more prosperous, or in better shape than it was in 1950? And I think that was not an “unintended” consequence at all.
"You have no moral obligation to obey an unconstitutional law. Just be prepared for the consequences when you get caught." - Doctor Walter Williams.
Is the NFL against the Bill of Rights?
...where the NFL chooses to hold its Super Bowl has absolutely zero to do with the Bill of Rights...why should it...?
...and while we’re on the subject, we must acknowledge, as does Ross Douthat at the NYT, that conservative principles are in retreat...just imagine the reverse of this current tiff..let’s say a blue state, like Minnesota, attempted to pass a bill guaranteeing the freedom of openly gay business to refrain from doing business with heteros...what influential organization or entity, with a ton of true clout, would come to the heteros defense, and threaten the state with loss of business...anything come to mind...?
...for that matter, what entity out there right now even remotely approaches the NFL with its crown jewel Super Bowl in terms of influence...and if conservative principle fails to engage the game of football, of all things, on what ground can it choose to fight...?
Is the NFL against the Bill of Rights?
...where the NFL chooses to hold its Super Bowl has absolutely zero to do with the Bill of Rights...why should it...?
...and while we’re on the subject, we must acknowledge, as does Ross Douthat at the NYT, that conservative principles are in retreat...just imagine the reverse of this current tiff..let’s say a blue state, like Minnesota, attempted to pass a bill guaranteeing the freedom of openly gay business to refrain from doing business with heteros...what influential organization or entity, with a ton of true clout, would come to the heteros defense, and threaten the state with loss of business...anything come to mind...?
...for that matter, what entity out there right now even remotely approaches the NFL with its crown jewel Super Bowl in terms of influence...and if conservative principle fails to engage the game of football, of all things, on what ground can it choose to fight...?
...drat those double post demons...
Forced segregation and forced integration both violate the right of free association.
Bush had it right when he said if he could he would just pass a law that made everyone love one another. Too bad it does not work that way.
The left has become a fascist religion that seeks not just to win converts to its faith but rather compel everyone to submit to it. I think this is why the left and Islam get along so well.
It bears repeating.
"An Absolute Right to Refuse Service" is a principle that could, would, and should apply to all businesses and individuals, even allowing exceptions for emergency services and such. Such a simple bill would have provided little room for opposing debate, and little room for judicial tyranny.
Such a bill would have protected the interests of the religious people and organizations, as well as the interests of their opposing forces. Principled legislation provides equal justice for all.
But that's not what AZ SB1062 was about. A few unprincipled, religious fruitcakes scrapped together a scrambled mess of idiotic religious mumbo-jumbo, and ran it through the state senate and house.
Absolute pure stupidity from a bunch of severely mentally retarded religious fruitcake legislators.
And in their stupidity, they further ratcheted back the freedoms of the non-stupid citizens, just like every other effort at legislating religion has done in the past half century or so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.