Supreme Court Extends 2nd Amendment.
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37972148/ns/us...ime_and_courts/
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court held Monday that Americans have the right to own a gun for self-defense anywhere they live, expanding the conservative court's embrace of gun rights since John Roberts became chief justice.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" could survive legal challenges.
On its busy final day before a three-month recess, the court also ruled that a public law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, jumped into the nation's charged immigration debate by agreeing to review an employer sanctions law from Arizona and said farewell to Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring after more than 34 years.
Cool, victories all around. All gun bans do is keep a means of self-defense out of law-abiding citizens. Meanwhile, criminals are going to get them regardless of the law.
And it's great that if Christian groups are going to hold on to an outdated and illogical fear of gays, they shouldn't be entitled to any public funding. Let em believe what they want, but if you're gonna discriminate and refuse membership or office positions on the account of someone being a homo, don't expect any recognition from the school you belong to. Makes sense to me.
-
It's only a matter of time, until cross dressing gay men will be allowed to join any girls cheerleading group.
And unisex bathrooms.
and ladies allowed to go shirtless just like men do.
Well, the latter wouldn't offend me, depending...
"sigh"
And Brittain, Italiy, Greece, Netherlands etc are going broke spending too much,
yet the Obamao regime wants to keep spending more than those countries did...
The whole world is going crazy.
-
Cal, you are in la-la land. Also, way to tie in the gays getting more rights to Obama and the downfall of the western world. Says a bunch about your thought process (or lack thereof).
Look, I found a comic of you.
-
I didn't tie anything in, I simply added another pet peeve of mine, to make the point about
the whole world going bonkers.
Your point is, you want to confine your liberalism to restricted parameters, and I'm
saying, that liberalism, being what it is: an illogical, anti-status quo runaway freight train,
I expect worse is yet to come, but eventually will, unless folks come to their senses, and the
ones WITH common sense get off their duffs and vote.
You don't like it, sorry. But comic strips are not very funny anymore.
-
Cal, from your post up there, you somehow managed to tie in the fall of the European economy with the US supreme court recognizing that gays shouldn't be discriminated against. You'd be okay if homosexuals in this situation were replaced with Blacks. You think that taking away public university funding for groups that discriminate against gays is a bad move and will lead to gay cheerleaders.
You aren't the champion of values that you think yourself to be. You are a bigot.
-
No, I'm not a bigot.
But my principles do not include thinking that gayness, cross dressing, etc, is the norm, and
marriage between a man and a woman is the exception.
I simply do not accept that crap as normal, and it is not acceptable to me.
Here's the concept:
The irony of wanting to make it okay for gays to join a group, and if the group doesn't agree, to deny funding
to that group,
is actually understandable. I half jokingly made the point about unisex bathrooms. Why the segregation? Gals have a tough
time waiting in line at events.
It's okay to segregate based on gender, but not race? Then why would gays of one gender be allowed to use
the same bathrooms as straight males? @@
Just playing devil's advocate here.
The projection is, that liberals never stop. It's always turning the apple cart over, hating the apple cart, demeaning and slandering
and libeling the apple cart, stomping on the apples, blaming the apples for every evil in the world, endlessly.
But now that they have their own apple cart, apples are wonderful, healthy for you. and "the Obamao regime should
pass a law forcing all Americans to buy liberal apples.
The apples are the same, but the ownership is politically/financially NOW beneficial for them, hence, the reverse appraisal
about the apples.
But, when the apples weren't theirs, the liberals would batlle hatefully at any cost against the status quo.
Which, is why I say, it won't stop at saying gays have to be allowed to join a Christian group.
It will escalate to another cause.
Liberals hate what is, and they work hatefully to own whatever "is". They want the power. Without that, they hate
everything, and try to undermine it, defame it, outlaw it, discredit it, tax it out of existence...
IOW's, liberals were "incensed" and "outraged" over the Patriot Act. Now that Obamao's in there, they don't care.
Liberals were "OUTRAGED" at Bush's deficit spending, etc etc etc... but now, Obamao's deficit spending is about three to four times worse and more irresponsible, well, that deficit spending ... liberals don't care.
Liberals trumpeted every death count on this forum as a hateful slap at Bush.
You'll notice, that the liberals/progressives/anti-American wonks couldn't care less about how many of our excellent soldiers have died.
Maybe you weren't here, but the liberals/progressives/Anti-everything American wonks were outraged about the outing
of the Plames. Because they blamed Bush and Cheney.
But let it turn out that they were completely innocent of the outing, which they were, and it's found that Holbrook did it..
all of a sudden, the liberals/progressives/bigfatmindeverybody'sbusiness wonks... could not care less about the outing of Plame,
not one tiny little bit.
Liberals constantly fight what is. So, it's a fair conclusion to me, that the envelope will be pushed far, far past
what is decent, and normal, and acceptable, and Constitutional.
That never ending push to upset the status quo at every turn, on every possible issue, forever, is all I was referring to.
Which, includes the phoney "outrage" over Bush's spending. It was, and they made it a gigantic hate issue.
Which also includes the total LACK of outrage now that Obamao's spending is sending our country directly into a crisis.
Iow's - if the libs can change something, they feel they own it. Once they own it, they are fine with it.
-
Nowhere in your rambling incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
And yes, you are a bigot.
-
As the Devil's Advocate:
Using the same logic (that not all hetero couples are able to bear children so...) how would one make an argument against polygamy and/or eliminating age restrictions in marriage besides arbirtary bigotry?
WSS
-
I don't have an argument against polygamy. I don't have a problem with it if all parties involved are okay with the situation. Kids have been raised under worse circumstances with monogamous, straight couples. The only people harping about it being immoral are the religious.
And as for age restrictions, I'd argue that there needs to be a number on it. Same thing with drinking age, maybe. I mean, there's no set age in which everyone becomes mature enough to be considered a responsible adult, there are just a bunch of life experiences that lead to it. As a society we've labeled it 18 for marriage and 21 for drinking. Are 18 year olds mature enough for marriage? Rarely, but could you logically raise or lower that age to a another arbitrary number? I don't think so. Do you?
-
I don't have an argument against polygamy. I don't have a problem with it if all parties involved are okay with the situation. Kids have been raised under worse circumstances with monogamous, straight couples. The only people harping about it being immoral are the religious.
And as for age restrictions, I'd argue that there needs to be a number on it. Same thing with drinking age, maybe. I mean, there's no set age in which everyone becomes mature enough to be considered a responsible adult, there are just a bunch of life experiences that lead to it. As a society we've labeled it 18 for marriage and 21 for drinking. Are 18 year olds mature enough for marriage? Rarely, but could you logically raise or lower that age to a another arbitrary number? I don't think so. Do you?
I don't have an argument against polygamy. I don't have a problem with it if all parties involved are okay with the situation. Kids have been raised under worse circumstances with monogamous, straight couples. The only people harping about it being immoral are the religious.
And as for age restrictions, I'd argue that there needs to be a number on it. Same thing with drinking age, maybe. I mean, there's no set age in which everyone becomes mature enough to be considered a responsible adult, there are just a bunch of life experiences that lead to it. As a society we've labeled it 18 for marriage and 21 for drinking. Are 18 year olds mature enough for marriage? Rarely, but could you logically raise or lower that age to a another arbitrary number? I don't think so. Do you?
So the reason is that only those with a particular maturity level be allowed to wed?
Anyone you know over 18 that might not be stable?
WSS
-
Well yeah, Steve, that's the idea. I mean, the law is in place to keep people from preying on young people that can't think for themselves and to prevent those pre-arranged marriages that people might end up hating.
Yeah, I know some people over 18 aren't mature, and I even said that, but the problem with raising age of consent, is that some people that ARE 18 are mature enough to marry. So as you raise it, you piss people off because some are mature enough to make life decisions. If you lower it, then you start to accept that pubescent teens are mature enough. Either way you piss someone off, but there probably should be an age threshold somewhere.
If there's no age of consent, then it'd be okay for someone to marry a four year old. If it's too high, then you piss off everyone. That age of consent needs to be there, and it's obviously arbitrary because no two people are alike, would you agree?
-
"Vapor is an age bigot, Vapor is an age bigot"
-
And you think it's okay to discriminate people based on how they were born.
-
I don't know how they are born, but it is a perverse anamoly, to me.
You just want to upset the apple cart.
Read what I said. I said it was understandable that some folks are NOT allowed to join
a college group, then that group loses funding.
I'm saying it's just a political ploy. I can't wait for some gay women to join
the local college Islamic men's club.
It's a political ploy - to upset the apple cart. the gays who join the Christian college
group?
Are only there, imho, to challenge the group's beliefs, and if the group won't change their beliefs, then the "hate speech" slurs will come about.
Until they can destroy the group.
Goes back to what I said before.
-
I don't know how they are born, but it is a perverse anamoly, to me.
You just want to upset the apple cart.
Yes, we liberals are doing this just to ruffle your feathers.
Read what I said. I said it was understandable that some folks are allowed to join
a college group, then that group loses funding.
They lost funding because they weren't allowed positions of authority in those groups based on who they're attracted to, which is bullshit.
I'm saying it's just a political ploy. I can't wait for some gay women to join
the local college Islamic men's club.
So would you be okay with your tax dollars funding Ohio State's Islamic Clubs? If you're okay with your tax money going to Christian clubs, then you've gotta be okay with the money going to Islamic and Anti-Semite and Black Panthers as well.
It's a political ploy - to upset the apple cart. the gays who join the Christian college group?
lol.
-
You can't parse out my words, then refute them incorrectly, then get my understanding.
That is where Heck always lost his battles.
When I talk about upsetting the apple cart, this is an example:
Google will pay gays more than straights who are married.
Any excuse is a good excuse for reverse discrimination, to upset the apple cart.
**********************
Google to Pay Tax for Gay Employee Benefits
Company making up for fed taxes on domestic partner benefits By JESSICA GREENE Updated 8:50 AM PDT, Thu, Jul 1, 2010
A Silicon Valley company famous, in part, for offering outrageously good benefits is straightening out a disparity among their employees.Starting Thursday, Google will adjust paychecks for its gay and lesbian employees who opt for domestic partner benefits to cover for a tax those employees have to pay, the New York Times reports.
As it is now, Mountain View-based Google offers benefits to the spouses or partners of both straight and gay employees. However, the married straight employees don't get taxed on those extra benefits -- but the gay employees do as part of the federal laws.
The pay raise will be retroactive to the beginning of 2010 and will apply only to employees in the U.S. Heterosexual employees with long-term partners won't see the pay adjustment, because they could marry and therefore get the tax break if they wished.
Google is not the first company to make such a move on behalf of their gay employees, the Times points out, but experts say it could inspire other Silicon Valley firms to follow suit.
-
Whatever dude, there's nothing to parse out about you being okay with discriminating against people for something they can't help. That is where you fall each and every time this comes up.
Also, great example, cal. Seems fair to me. Gays missed out on a tax break because they can't get legally married while straights always had the option. Therefore money gets given retroactively to the gays. If gay marriage were legal, this wouldn't be an issue. It's not going to upset the balance of life, the only thing that will happen is that they will be able to get the same benefits as straights, then there wouldn't even be bickering about this issue. Why don't they deserve the same (strictly legal, not religious) rights as straight people?
-
Because God created Adam and EVE.
Not Adam and Edgar.
Go forth and read yer Bible.
I'm not allowed to enter my Honda 400cc four wheeler in a Nascar race.
Therefore, I can't win a hundred thousand bucks, so I deserve a raise.
Yep, every time I try to think like a liberal I get cross eyed.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login