Liberty and Pizza...not Liberty OR Pizza!

[PoliticalChic]

You can't have ties when it comes to conflicting rights claims.

You have a person claiming their right to be served by a business, you have a business claiming their right to use religion as a justification to discriminate against that person.

You can't cut that baby in half. Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts.

The closest thing to a compromise on such an issue has already been struck. If your activity is primarily religious, you get leeway to discriminate.

If not, you are bound by the non-discrimination laws that apply to businesses.

I don't know how you can get fairer than that.

"Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts."


The brilliant and scholarly Ann Coulter responds to that:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.

2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced to fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’

3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

The voters established the courts and the voters put the judges on the courts.

I admit that the full elucidation of the following is beyond the context of this particular thread...but it's important enough to include:

We do not have a democracy any longer, as such requires an informed electorate.
That is not possible sans an unbiased media.


I suggest, if you ever get around to reading,
"Origins of Totalitarian Democracy," by J.L. Talmon

So in your opinion the Republican Congress as it now stands was not democratically elected, and thus has no legitimacy.

You have accurately described the condition of the current occupant of the White House.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't have ties when it comes to conflicting rights claims.

You have a person claiming their right to be served by a business, you have a business claiming their right to use religion as a justification to discriminate against that person.

You can't cut that baby in half. Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts.

The closest thing to a compromise on such an issue has already been struck. If your activity is primarily religious, you get leeway to discriminate.

If not, you are bound by the non-discrimination laws that apply to businesses.

I don't know how you can get fairer than that.

"Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts."


The brilliant and scholarly Ann Coulter responds to that:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.

2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced to fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’

3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

The voters established the courts and the voters put the judges on the courts.

I admit that the full elucidation of the following is beyond the context of this particular thread...but it's important enough to include:

We do not have a democracy any longer, as such requires an informed electorate.
That is not possible sans an unbiased media.


I suggest, if you ever get around to reading,
"Origins of Totalitarian Democracy," by J.L. Talmon

There has never been an unbiased media. Ever.

I accept your collapse.

So...you agree never again to plead that we live in the sort of democracy where voters make informed decisions?
Excellent.

When has there ever been an unbiased media?

Do you acknowledge that the current Republican Congress is illegitimate and undemocratic?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You can't have ties when it comes to conflicting rights claims.

You have a person claiming their right to be served by a business, you have a business claiming their right to use religion as a justification to discriminate against that person.

You can't cut that baby in half. Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts.

The closest thing to a compromise on such an issue has already been struck. If your activity is primarily religious, you get leeway to discriminate.

If not, you are bound by the non-discrimination laws that apply to businesses.

I don't know how you can get fairer than that.

"Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts."


The brilliant and scholarly Ann Coulter responds to that:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.

2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced to fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’

3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

The voters established the courts and the voters put the judges on the courts.

I admit that the full elucidation of the following is beyond the context of this particular thread...but it's important enough to include:

We do not have a democracy any longer, as such requires an informed electorate.
That is not possible sans an unbiased media.


I suggest, if you ever get around to reading,
"Origins of Totalitarian Democracy," by J.L. Talmon

Notice here how PC has been forced into such a corner she has to throw our entire system of government under the bus to try to weasel her way out?

You're welcome.

Gee....I was hoping you'd demand I provide more of Talmon's explanation of why this is no longer a real democracy (please don't try to bring up 'republic'...the same applies.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



Hmmm.....so not having your extra-cheese pizza delivered to your basement is akin to human sacrifice?


!

Yes it is in broad category of using religion to deny someone their constitutionally protected rights.

Could a community impose Sharia law, by vote, without constitutional conflicts?

"Hmmm.....so not having your extra-cheese pizza delivered to your basement is akin to human sacrifice?"

"Yes it is..."


What more need be said.

They are both violations of the law that supposedly religious people cannot exempt themselves from.

I see you fled from the other examples. I win.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't have ties when it comes to conflicting rights claims.

You have a person claiming their right to be served by a business, you have a business claiming their right to use religion as a justification to discriminate against that person.

You can't cut that baby in half. Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts.

The closest thing to a compromise on such an issue has already been struck. If your activity is primarily religious, you get leeway to discriminate.

If not, you are bound by the non-discrimination laws that apply to businesses.

I don't know how you can get fairer than that.

"Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts."


The brilliant and scholarly Ann Coulter responds to that:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.

2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced to fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’

3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

The voters established the courts and the voters put the judges on the courts.

I admit that the full elucidation of the following is beyond the context of this particular thread...but it's important enough to include:

We do not have a democracy any longer, as such requires an informed electorate.
That is not possible sans an unbiased media.


I suggest, if you ever get around to reading,
"Origins of Totalitarian Democracy," by J.L. Talmon

Notice here how PC has been forced into such a corner she has to throw our entire system of government under the bus to try to weasel her way out?

You're welcome.

Gee....I was hoping you'd demand I provide more of Talmon's explanation of why this is no longer a real democracy (please don't try to bring up 'republic'...the same applies.)

If Talmon wants to debate me he can come and register here.

Tell us when there was ever an unbiased media. Start with the old days, when print was main form of media.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts."


The brilliant and scholarly Ann Coulter responds to that:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.

2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced to fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’

3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

The voters established the courts and the voters put the judges on the courts.

I admit that the full elucidation of the following is beyond the context of this particular thread...but it's important enough to include:

We do not have a democracy any longer, as such requires an informed electorate.
That is not possible sans an unbiased media.


I suggest, if you ever get around to reading,
"Origins of Totalitarian Democracy," by J.L. Talmon

There has never been an unbiased media. Ever.

I accept your collapse.

So...you agree never again to plead that we live in the sort of democracy where voters make informed decisions?
Excellent.

When has there ever been an unbiased media?

Do you acknowledge that the current Republican Congress is illegitimate and undemocratic?

Let's stick to what I said, not your attempt to obfuscate.

We seem to agree that this nation does not have an unbiased media....it is a Leftist-controlled one.

And, you can find no way to claim that it results in an informed electorate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[



Hmmm.....so not having your extra-cheese pizza delivered to your basement is akin to human sacrifice?


!

Yes it is in broad category of using religion to deny someone their constitutionally protected rights.

Could a community impose Sharia law, by vote, without constitutional conflicts?

"Hmmm.....so not having your extra-cheese pizza delivered to your basement is akin to human sacrifice?"

"Yes it is..."


What more need be said.

They are both violations of the law that supposedly religious people cannot exempt themselves from.

I see you fled from the other examples. I win.

You win?
That means you are returning to your blanket fort and crayons?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts."


The brilliant and scholarly Ann Coulter responds to that:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.

2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced to fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’

3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

The voters established the courts and the voters put the judges on the courts.

I admit that the full elucidation of the following is beyond the context of this particular thread...but it's important enough to include:

We do not have a democracy any longer, as such requires an informed electorate.
That is not possible sans an unbiased media.


I suggest, if you ever get around to reading,
"Origins of Totalitarian Democracy," by J.L. Talmon

Notice here how PC has been forced into such a corner she has to throw our entire system of government under the bus to try to weasel her way out?

You're welcome.

Gee....I was hoping you'd demand I provide more of Talmon's explanation of why this is no longer a real democracy (please don't try to bring up 'republic'...the same applies.)

If Talmon wants to debate me he can come and register here.

Tell us when there was ever an unbiased media. Start with the old days, when print was main form of media.

I never 'debate' you.....I simply offer you the education you so sorely require.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't have ties when it comes to conflicting rights claims.

You have a person claiming their right to be served by a business, you have a business claiming their right to use religion as a justification to discriminate against that person.

You can't cut that baby in half. Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts.

The closest thing to a compromise on such an issue has already been struck. If your activity is primarily religious, you get leeway to discriminate.

If not, you are bound by the non-discrimination laws that apply to businesses.

I don't know how you can get fairer than that.

"Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts."


The brilliant and scholarly Ann Coulter responds to that:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.

2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced to fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’

3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

The voters established the courts and the voters put the judges on the courts.

I admit that the full elucidation of the following is beyond the context of this particular thread...but it's important enough to include:

We do not have a democracy any longer, as such requires an informed electorate.
That is not possible sans an unbiased media.


I suggest, if you ever get around to reading,
"Origins of Totalitarian Democracy," by J.L. Talmon

So in your opinion the Republican Congress as it now stands was not democratically elected, and thus has no legitimacy.

You have accurately described the condition of the current occupant of the White House.

Oh so now you're going to go partisan hack on us and claim that the Republicans were democratically elected and the president wasn't.

That is you to a 't'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[



Hmmm.....so not having your extra-cheese pizza delivered to your basement is akin to human sacrifice?


!

Yes it is in broad category of using religion to deny someone their constitutionally protected rights.

Could a community impose Sharia law, by vote, without constitutional conflicts?

"Hmmm.....so not having your extra-cheese pizza delivered to your basement is akin to human sacrifice?"

"Yes it is..."


What more need be said.

They are both violations of the law that supposedly religious people cannot exempt themselves from.

I see you fled from the other examples. I win.

You win?
That means you are returning to your blanket fort and crayons?

Don't forget how you told us that resorting to personal insults was a sign you'd lost the argument.

I've won the debate because I've proven that the Constitution does not protect religious exercise without exception.

 

[Dot Com]

You lost. Get over it.

yeah. This "Victory for the people for this great nation" is old news

 

[Dot Com]

"Someone has to be declared right. Someone has to lose. That's why we have courts."


The brilliant and scholarly Ann Coulter responds to that:

1. If liberals could trust the voters, they wouldn’t need the Court to invent ludicrous ‘constitutional rights’ for them in the first place.

2. The only limit on liberal insanity in this country is how many issues liberals can get before a court…A lot is at stake for liberals with the court. If they lose a liberal vote, they will be forced to fight political battles through a messy little system know as ‘democracy.’

3. When conservative judges strike down laws, it’s because of what’s in the Constitution. When liberal judges strike down laws (or impose new laws, such as tax increases), it’s because of what’s in the New York Times.

The voters established the courts and the voters put the judges on the courts.

I admit that the full elucidation of the following is beyond the context of this particular thread...but it's important enough to include:

We do not have a democracy any longer, as such requires an informed electorate.
That is not possible sans an unbiased media.


I suggest, if you ever get around to reading,
"Origins of Totalitarian Democracy," by J.L. Talmon

So in your opinion the Republican Congress as it now stands was not democratically elected, and thus has no legitimacy.

You have accurately described the condition of the current occupant of the White House.

Oh so now you're going to go partisan hack on us and claim that the Republicans were democratically elected and the president wasn't.

That is you to a 't'.

thats our PoliticalSpice. Hence why no rw'ers ever chime-in on her hack threads.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The voters established the courts and the voters put the judges on the courts.

I admit that the full elucidation of the following is beyond the context of this particular thread...but it's important enough to include:

We do not have a democracy any longer, as such requires an informed electorate.
That is not possible sans an unbiased media.


I suggest, if you ever get around to reading,
"Origins of Totalitarian Democracy," by J.L. Talmon

So in your opinion the Republican Congress as it now stands was not democratically elected, and thus has no legitimacy.

You have accurately described the condition of the current occupant of the White House.

Oh so now you're going to go partisan hack on us and claim that the Republicans were democratically elected and the president wasn't.

That is you to a 't'.

thats our PoliticalSpice. Hence why no rw'ers ever chime-in on her hack threads.

She would have us believe that no one has to pay their taxes if they claim a religious objection.

That's quite a belief to hold for a neocon who wants even more spent on the military

 

[PoliticalChic]

As the fascist's argument is that the pizza shop refused service to some gay individual, showing that that is false should effectively end their claims. Simple to prove that.

Of course, the real argument is whether every knee must be bent to the radical agendas of the Left.

The argument of the traditionalists is 'pick up your pizza, and go enjoy it as you wish....but stop asking me to give you (rhetorically) a big wet kiss to go with it.'

Seems reasonable.




6. " It is an undisputed fact that Memories Pizza served a man regardless of his sexual relationships.

Its owners did not deny him service. They didn’t “turn him away.” They didn’t quiz the man when he came in, asking whether he identified as a homosexual or what he would use the pizza for.



.... no one involved is interested in simply turning away customers based on how they identify sexually.

People are interested in exercising the teachings of their faith regarding marriage, and in continuing to live quiet and peaceful lives in harmony with their communities, as they have been doing for years.

They haven’t sought a fight; it has come to them." How the Indiana Pizza Shop Responded After Being Tricked Into 'Catering' a Gay Wedding




Well...except for Liberals....they insist that everyone march lock-step.....

Sad, huh?

 

[Jantje_Smit]

She would have us believe that no one has to pay their taxes if they claim a religious objection.

That's quite a belief to hold for a neocon who wants even more spent on the military

Not really, wars can be financed by tax cuts

Besides, Saint Ronnie proved that deficits don't matter

 

[NYcarbineer]

She would have us believe that no one has to pay their taxes if they claim a religious objection.

That's quite a belief to hold for a neocon who wants even more spent on the military

Not really, wars can be financed by tax cuts

Besides, Saint Ronnie proved that deficits don't matter

Ah yes the Republican Rumpelstiltskin fund.

 

[NYcarbineer]

As the fascist's argument is that the pizza shop refused service to some gay individual, showing that that is false should effectively end their claims. Simple to prove that.

Of course, the real argument is whether every knee must be bent to the radical agendas of the Left.

The argument of the traditionalists is 'pick up your pizza, and go enjoy it as you wish....but stop asking me to give you (rhetorically) a big wet kiss to go with it.'

Seems reasonable.




6. " It is an undisputed fact that Memories Pizza served a man regardless of his sexual relationships.

Its owners did not deny him service. They didn’t “turn him away.” They didn’t quiz the man when he came in, asking whether he identified as a homosexual or what he would use the pizza for.



.... no one involved is interested in simply turning away customers based on how they identify sexually.

People are interested in exercising the teachings of their faith regarding marriage, and in continuing to live quiet and peaceful lives in harmony with their communities, as they have been doing for years.

They haven’t sought a fight; it has come to them." How the Indiana Pizza Shop Responded After Being Tricked Into 'Catering' a Gay Wedding




Well...except for Liberals....they insist that everyone march lock-step.....

Sad, huh?

You're getting repetitious now. You've lost the argument.

Jim Crow is dead. He's not coming back. If you love him that much, go join him on the other side.

 

[PoliticalChic]

She would have us believe that no one has to pay their taxes if they claim a religious objection.

That's quite a belief to hold for a neocon who wants even more spent on the military

Not really, wars can be financed by tax cuts

Besides, Saint Ronnie proved that deficits don't matter

Ronaldus Maximus use a debt to reward Americans ten fold.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And you object to that?

You must be a Liberal, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

As the fascist's argument is that the pizza shop refused service to some gay individual, showing that that is false should effectively end their claims. Simple to prove that.

Of course, the real argument is whether every knee must be bent to the radical agendas of the Left.

The argument of the traditionalists is 'pick up your pizza, and go enjoy it as you wish....but stop asking me to give you (rhetorically) a big wet kiss to go with it.'

Seems reasonable.




6. " It is an undisputed fact that Memories Pizza served a man regardless of his sexual relationships.

Its owners did not deny him service. They didn’t “turn him away.” They didn’t quiz the man when he came in, asking whether he identified as a homosexual or what he would use the pizza for.



.... no one involved is interested in simply turning away customers based on how they identify sexually.

People are interested in exercising the teachings of their faith regarding marriage, and in continuing to live quiet and peaceful lives in harmony with their communities, as they have been doing for years.

They haven’t sought a fight; it has come to them." How the Indiana Pizza Shop Responded After Being Tricked Into 'Catering' a Gay Wedding




Well...except for Liberals....they insist that everyone march lock-step.....

Sad, huh?

You're getting repetitious now. You've lost the argument.

Jim Crow is dead. He's not coming back. If you love him that much, go join him on the other side.

Why would you bring up Jim Crow...

Don't realize that Jim Crow was Democrat Liberal big government in action?

In point of fact, Democrats stopped every anti-lynching bill the Republicans brought to the Senate.



Put your foot in your mouth again, huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

She would have us believe that no one has to pay their taxes if they claim a religious objection.

That's quite a belief to hold for a neocon who wants even more spent on the military

Not really, wars can be financed by tax cuts

Besides, Saint Ronnie proved that deficits don't matter

Ronaldus Maximus use a debt to reward Americans ten fold.

1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.

George Gilder: The Real Reagan Lesson for Romney-Ryan

Reaganomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And you object to that?

You must be a Liberal, huh?

National wealth went up more during Clinton's presidency without the debt explosion.