Separation of church and state makes him want to throw up

[Syphon]

referencing unknown soldier, oh easily. (as that is who this was directed at)

Thanks for finally admitting that you are nothing but a giant douche bag who not only hates religion, but is too ******* stupid to realize that the first amendment applies to the government ONLY , not private individuals or companies.


IDIOT.

 

[hortysir]

referencing unknown soldier, oh easily. (as that is who this was directed at)

Thanks for finally admitting that you are nothing but a giant douche bag who not only hates religion, but is too ******* stupid to realize that the first amendment applies to the government ONLY , not private individuals or companies.


IDIOT.

I was the most recent quote you linked, so I thought you were referring to me.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

referencing unknown soldier, oh easily. (as that is who this was directed at)

Thanks for finally admitting that you are nothing but a giant douche bag who not only hates religion, but is too ******* stupid to realize that the first amendment applies to the government ONLY , not private individuals or companies.


IDIOT.

I was the most recent quote you linked, so I thought you were referring to me.

no worries, it was quite obvious who you were referring to.

 

[Immanuel]

You obviously haven't been reading his posts in the Pharmacy thread today.

All the ones he posted today were on that level.

Until he started posting this afternoon he was pretty reasonable.

Perhaps his 13 year old daughter got online for him this afternoon when he didn't log off?

Immie

yeah, cause wing nuts like unknown soldier think the first amendment doesn't apply to individuals or businesses....

It seems to me that you have been the one that has been arguing for days on end that the first amendment doesn't apply to the owner of pharmacies. U_S, QW and I have been arguing that the owner of a pharmacy or his employee have the right to decide not to carry a product under the first amendment. Two of us have argued that religion is immaterial to this discussion. You seem to have a problem with that statement and believe that a women has the right to force said business owner or his representative to sell a product they don't want to sell. I have yet to figure out on what grounds you base that?

Was it the right to choose? Did you know that right really doesn't exist in the Constitution? It was contrived under the right to privacy... which by the way is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution either.

The right to an abortion:

The right to an abortion

Introduction
No decision of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century has been as controversial as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy. Attorneys for Roe had suggested several constitutional provisions might be violated by the Texas law prohibiting abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The law was said to have been an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, unconstitionally vague (the ground used in Blackmun's first draft of his opinion), a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the Ninth Amendment (which states that certain rights not specified in the first eight amendments are reserved to the people). The Court in Roe chose, however, to base its decision on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as Griswold v Connecticut (striking down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives). Deciding HOW to protect the right to an abortion proved as difficult. Justice Blackmun's approach, one clerk at the time said, "As a practical matter, was not a bad decision--but as a constitutional matter it was absurd." Roe's trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable.

Note: no "right to choose" is present in the constitution.

The decision was based upon a contrived right, "the right to privacy" which despite the fact the right to privacy is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment we are told that it exists.

The right to privacy:

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

All the ones he posted today were on that level.

Until he started posting this afternoon he was pretty reasonable.

Perhaps his 13 year old daughter got online for him this afternoon when he didn't log off?

Immie

yeah, cause wing nuts like unknown soldier think the first amendment doesn't apply to individuals or businesses....

It seems to me that you have been the one that has been arguing for days on end that the first amendment doesn't apply to the owner of pharmacies. U_S, QW and I have been arguing that the owner of a pharmacy or his employee have the right to decide not to carry a product under the first amendment. Two of us have argued that religion is immaterial to this discussion. You seem to have a problem with that statement and believe that a women has the right to force said business owner or his representative to sell a product they don't want to sell. I have yet to figure out on what grounds you base that?

Was it the right to choose? Did you know that right really doesn't exist in the Constitution? It was contrived under the right to privacy... which by the way is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution either.

The right to an abortion:

The right to an abortion

Introduction
No decision of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century has been as controversial as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy. Attorneys for Roe had suggested several constitutional provisions might be violated by the Texas law prohibiting abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The law was said to have been an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, unconstitionally vague (the ground used in Blackmun's first draft of his opinion), a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the Ninth Amendment (which states that certain rights not specified in the first eight amendments are reserved to the people). The Court in Roe chose, however, to base its decision on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as Griswold v Connecticut (striking down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives). Deciding HOW to protect the right to an abortion proved as difficult. Justice Blackmun's approach, one clerk at the time said, "As a practical matter, was not a bad decision--but as a constitutional matter it was absurd." Roe's trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable.

Note: no "right to choose" is present in the constitution.

The decision was based upon a contrived right, "the right to privacy" which despite the fact the right to privacy is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment we are told that it exists.

The right to privacy:

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

Immie

NO NO NO, you misunderstood. Syphon is of the belief that the first amendment prevents businesses and individuals from curtailing the rights of others.

IOW he believes the first amendment means that a message board can limit someone's speech, for example.

 

[Immanuel]

yeah, cause wing nuts like unknown soldier think the first amendment doesn't apply to individuals or businesses....

It seems to me that you have been the one that has been arguing for days on end that the first amendment doesn't apply to the owner of pharmacies. U_S, QW and I have been arguing that the owner of a pharmacy or his employee have the right to decide not to carry a product under the first amendment. Two of us have argued that religion is immaterial to this discussion. You seem to have a problem with that statement and believe that a women has the right to force said business owner or his representative to sell a product they don't want to sell. I have yet to figure out on what grounds you base that?

Was it the right to choose? Did you know that right really doesn't exist in the Constitution? It was contrived under the right to privacy... which by the way is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution either.

The right to an abortion:

The right to an abortion



Note: no "right to choose" is present in the constitution.

The decision was based upon a contrived right, "the right to privacy" which despite the fact the right to privacy is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment we are told that it exists.

The right to privacy:

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

Immie

NO NO NO, you misunderstood. Syphon is of the belief that the first amendment prevents businesses and individuals from curtailing the rights of others.

IOW he believes the first amendment means that a message board can limit someone's speech, for example.

Lol

Does he realize that the First Amendment only applies to the government?

Does he realize that he can't sue me personally if I own a karaoke club and he goes on stage and sounds like... well, sounds like me, that he can't sue me if I turn the mike off so no one can hear him because he is driving my customers away?

Immie

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

It seems to me that you have been the one that has been arguing for days on end that the first amendment doesn't apply to the owner of pharmacies. U_S, QW and I have been arguing that the owner of a pharmacy or his employee have the right to decide not to carry a product under the first amendment. Two of us have argued that religion is immaterial to this discussion. You seem to have a problem with that statement and believe that a women has the right to force said business owner or his representative to sell a product they don't want to sell. I have yet to figure out on what grounds you base that?

Was it the right to choose? Did you know that right really doesn't exist in the Constitution? It was contrived under the right to privacy... which by the way is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution either.

The right to an abortion:

The right to an abortion



Note: no "right to choose" is present in the constitution.

The decision was based upon a contrived right, "the right to privacy" which despite the fact the right to privacy is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment we are told that it exists.

The right to privacy:

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?



Immie

NO NO NO, you misunderstood. Syphon is of the belief that the first amendment prevents businesses and individuals from curtailing the rights of others.

IOW he believes the first amendment means that a message board can limit someone's speech, for example.

Lol

Does he realize that the First Amendment only applies to the government?

Does he realize that he can't sue me personally if I own a karaoke club and he goes on stage and sounds like... well, sounds like me, that he can't sue me if I turn the mike off so no one can hear him because he is driving my customers away?

Immie

no, he in fact believes that YOU can't restrict his rights on YOUR property. That Ravi apparently agrees as per the Pharmacy thread where they are advocating that they have a RIGHT to make you sell them things , just as an example.

 

[Syphon]

NO NO NO, you misunderstood. Syphon is of the belief that the first amendment prevents businesses and individuals from curtailing the rights of others.

IOW he believes the first amendment means that a message board can limit someone's speech, for example.

Lol

Does he realize that the First Amendment only applies to the government?

Does he realize that he can't sue me personally if I own a karaoke club and he goes on stage and sounds like... well, sounds like me, that he can't sue me if I turn the mike off so no one can hear him because he is driving my customers away?

Immie

no, he in fact believes that YOU can't restrict his rights on YOUR property. That Ravi apparently agrees as per the Pharmacy thread where they are advocating that they have a RIGHT to make you sell them things , just as an example.

actually can we restrict what you put on your property. if you put a sign that sign "DIE N****S" on your front lawn, is that protect by free speech right or is just hate speech? no right no is absolute. you cant put a sign in the front of your store that says "whites only." thats not protected by free speech or by freedom of religion. you just have your head so far up your ass, you cant see it.

and i havent been arguing for days that first amendment doesnt apply to pharmacy owners, ive been saying that the argument is between the freedom of religion and the right to choose. since you have avoided the questions for 2 days now. i assume youre just to stupid to answer it.

when 2 rights are in conflict which supercedes which? if you choose to ignore my question again, ill just put you on ignore becauase obviously you can not have an intelligent debate.

 

[Syphon]

It seems to me that you have been the one that has been arguing for days on end that the first amendment doesn't apply to the owner of pharmacies. U_S, QW and I have been arguing that the owner of a pharmacy or his employee have the right to decide not to carry a product under the first amendment. Two of us have argued that religion is immaterial to this discussion. You seem to have a problem with that statement and believe that a women has the right to force said business owner or his representative to sell a product they don't want to sell. I have yet to figure out on what grounds you base that?

Was it the right to choose? Did you know that right really doesn't exist in the Constitution? It was contrived under the right to privacy... which by the way is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution either.

The right to an abortion:

The right to an abortion



Note: no "right to choose" is present in the constitution.

The decision was based upon a contrived right, "the right to privacy" which despite the fact the right to privacy is not mentioned in the 14th Amendment we are told that it exists.

The right to privacy:

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?



Immie

NO NO NO, you misunderstood. Syphon is of the belief that the first amendment prevents businesses and individuals from curtailing the rights of others.

IOW he believes the first amendment means that a message board can limit someone's speech, for example.

Lol

Does he realize that the First Amendment only applies to the government?

Does he realize that he can't sue me personally if I own a karaoke club and he goes on stage and sounds like... well, sounds like me, that he can't sue me if I turn the mike off so no one can hear him because he is driving my customers away?

Immie

here a link showing an example of a business being sued and the patron winning because they were gay, and the owner of the restaurant refused them service
The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor, or Attire? | LegalZoom

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where the restaurant policy was to only seat two people of opposite sexes in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.


oops u got pwned again.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[L.K.Eder]

i heard today that some buddhists want to add some buddhists symbols on the Federal Court House. anybody got a problem with that?

swastikas?

 

[Lakhota]

The GOP's Latest Southern Strategy Transports Us to the 19th Century | Tea Party and the Right | AlterNet

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

i just heard that some jews want to put some jewish symbols on the legislative buildings in DC. anybody got a problem with that?

No.

also, some imams want to put some islamic symbols on those same buildings. anybody got a problem with that?

 

[koshergrl]

You really need to quit this line, it's not working for you.

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

You really need to quit this line, it's not working for you.

i also just heard, since some people have decided that atheists and agnostics are religions, that they wanna have some of their symbols on federal buildings as well. i'm not sure what the atheists are gonna use but the agnostics' symbol will be...

"Maybe/Maybe Not"

 

[koshergrl]

Still not working.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Still not working.

then get a job, fer ***** sake

 

[CaughtInTheMid]

Still not working.

just taking decisions to their natural conclusions (since many people don't seem to wanna).

BTW, which religions have a forgotten that will want equal treatment?

 

[L.K.Eder]

Still not working.

just taking decisions to their natural conclusions (since many people don't seem to wanna).

BTW, which religions have a forgotten that will want equal treatment?

hinduism, sikhism, santeria, voodoo, rastafarianism, pastafarianism, bahaiism, cao dai, scientology, falun gong, and palinism

 

[Immanuel]

Lol

Does he realize that the First Amendment only applies to the government?

Does he realize that he can't sue me personally if I own a karaoke club and he goes on stage and sounds like... well, sounds like me, that he can't sue me if I turn the mike off so no one can hear him because he is driving my customers away?

Immie

no, he in fact believes that YOU can't restrict his rights on YOUR property. That Ravi apparently agrees as per the Pharmacy thread where they are advocating that they have a RIGHT to make you sell them things , just as an example.

actually can we restrict what you put on your property. if you put a sign that sign "DIE N****S" on your front lawn, is that protect by free speech right or is just hate speech? no right no is absolute. you cant put a sign in the front of your store that says "whites only." thats not protected by free speech or by freedom of religion. you just have your head so far up your ass, you cant see it.

and i havent been arguing for days that first amendment doesnt apply to pharmacy owners, ive been saying that the argument is between the freedom of religion and the right to choose. since you have avoided the questions for 2 days now. i assume youre just to stupid to answer it.

when 2 rights are in conflict which supercedes which? if you choose to ignore my question again, ill just put you on ignore becauase obviously you can not have an intelligent debate.

Do you think that being a liar makes you a better debater or wins you points?

Immie