What's the next Civil Rights fight?

[22*43*51]

You cannot legislate away beliefs.

You can only legislate Liberty away. The world has seen tyrant after tyrant try to take Liberty away by force. It never works.

This is where our leaders of the last 50 years have excelled.

You have to compel a populace to give their Liberty away freely. Which is what is happening now.

This is why we are being manipulated to be polarized.

Wether you think you won, or lost today, or last week; you lost.

We are all losing. We are being legislated how to believe. Why is that?

Because voluntary erosion of Liberty is the goal of this Oligarchy. So celebrate your wins wisely. Some are indeed victories. But, small victories are needed on the path to subjegation.

 

[sijoint]

Its weird to me that you think of your lover as a dog, but OK.

Well, it's weird and creepy to me that your lover/husband/whatever is another male..... butt .............OK.

 

[naturalmwa]

Well, it's weird and creepy to me that your lover/husband/whatever is another male..... butt .............OK.

I'm ok with these terms, peace accepted.

 

[83Hawk]

How is endorsing and respecting a religion different in your mind? What mechanism other than laws does the legislature have to to express the order that some bit of decoration should be placed on display? Your objections don't seem logical.

You conveniently omitted "Congress shall make no law". THAT is the most crucial part of the amendment. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how posting the 10 Commandments is a law passed by Congress.

I'm not surprised you think my objection is illogical...after all, I'm only going by what is actually WRITTEN in the Constitution.

 

[83Hawk]

Explain how the state congress did not endorse a single religion by putting up the 10 Commandments, effectively establishing Christianity as the state religion.

Again, if they were willing to put up any and all monuments to all religions and atheists, I and the courts would have no issue with it. But they didn't.

Really, really simple stuff. And the fact that this is the same result every time stuff like that goes to court shows how obvious it is.

I'm not talking about the Oklahoma STATE law. I'm talking United States Constitution. Different animal. US Constitution is very clear and specific. Not that hard really, but some people can't read or understand simple English.

 

[naturalmwa]

You conveniently omitted "Congress shall make no law". THAT is the most crucial part of the amendment. I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how posting the 10 Commandments is a law passed by Congress.

I'm not surprised you think my objection is illogical...after all, I'm only going by what is actually WRITTEN in the Constitution.

Ok, so congress wants the commandments displayed. How do they make that happen? Don't they write up an order that must be carried out because it has the weight of law? The order that says "move that statue here" is a law. And that order is respecting and endorsing a religion. So yes I know you are typing what the constitution says, but you don't seem to know what those words mean. Hence why your argument is illogical.

 

[rocketclone]

Post birth abortions is a right wing policy already.



We should go after the churches....for taxes.

We have 2 churches in town who run daycare for some low income families they need to nail those bastards.

Oh wait, they don't charge anything.

 

[rocketclone]

Its weird to me that you think of your lover as a dog, but OK.

We can't discriminate against these folks

 

[sijoint]

I'm ok with these terms, peace accepted.

I was only responding to your remark....you've been a little snarly lately....whereas, I know, I'm always snarly to liberals/Obama followers.

I don't know if the SC/Obama/politicians should have even get involved in the issue of marriage. In the Christian faith (I'm only familiar with Roman Catholic and Lutheran), marriage is a Holy Sacrament, a special, divine event sanctified by God.....recognized as a union between a man and a women. So, is the government, SC's involving themselves in marriage recognized only as being secular? .........and not sacred!
I don't see how a gay couple can get married in a Christian church....when marriage is a Holy Sacrament applicable to a man and a women only. To me there are both secular (court house/justice of the peace) marriages and sacred marrriages (churches) and the SC decision woulda-shoulda apply to only secular marriages?
If there is a priest/pastor in the crowd?

 

[naturalmwa]

I was only responding to your remark....you've been a little snarly lately....whereas, I know, I'm always snarly to liberals/Obama followers.

I don't know if the SC/Obama/politicians should have even get involved in the issue of marriage. In the Christian faith (I'm only familiar with Roman Catholic and Lutheran), marriage is a Holy Sacrament, a special, divine event sanctified by God.....recognized as a union between a man and a women. So, is the government, SC's involving themselves in marriage recognized only as being secular? .........and not sacred!
I don't see how a gay couple can get married in a Christian church....when marriage is a Holy Sacrament applicable to a man and a women only. To me there are both secular (court house/justice of the peace) marriages and sacred marrriages (churches) and the SC decision woulda-shoulda apply to only secular marriages?
If there is a priest/pastor in the crowd?

I think you essentially got it right. The SCOTUS case was about the government recognizing marriage on a secular level and extending the same rights to couples without regard to gender or orientation. It is not about rewriting the sacred definitions which BTW were only invented a thousand years after Jesus supposedly died.

I'm a big believer in the golden rule. I assume people wish to be engaged the way they engage others. So if you put up dog pics you will be engaged at that level. If you post thoughtfully, you will get that in return. I get that its fun to snarl and show your teeth and I'm happy to accommodate that style of discourse as I have nice teeth too.

 

[TJ8869]

Not a civil right so I guess I'm dodging the question, but the next social issue that needs to break through is getting rid of federal anti-marijuana laws.

I predict that within 5 years marijuana will be legal in most states, if not nationwide. But if I'm not mistaken, even in states that have already legalized it, it's still illegal to grow your own. You have to buy it at state licensed dispensaries.

That needs to change. I don't have a problem with outlawing mass growing operations, but people should be allowed to grow enough for their own personal use.

 

[BioHawk]

I predict that within 5 years marijuana will be legal in most states, if not nationwide. But if I'm not mistaken, even in states that have already legalized it, it's still illegal to grow your own. You have to buy it at state licensed dispensaries.

That needs to change. I don't have a problem with outlawing mass growing operations, but people should be allowed to grow enough for their own personal use.

My guess is it will be treated like alcohol and probably tobacco now. You can grow it for your own consumption but you can't be selling it without a license. The government will want their cut. From what I've read, growing pot isn't exactly easy (at least good pot but I'm not an expert on that) so that will prevent most people from growing it on their own.

 

[Hawk and Awe]

I'm enjoying the 10 commandments argument. It's one time I've really been educated here (after some follow up reading). I always thought the separation of church and state was specific in the constitution.

It's all about interpretation and I'd have to agree it is acceptable to have the 10 commandments displayed. I'm not sure if I believe in God, but I do believe there are good teachings in the bible including the 10 commandments. When I look at it from that lense I can support the display. However, if it offends people and the States leaders determine it should be taken down that's OK too.

I wish people could just ignore this crap.... But I know that's asking for way to much.

 

[sijoint]

?

I think you essentially got it right. The SCOTUS case was about the government recognizing marriage on a secular level and extending the same rights to couples without regard to gender or orientation. It is not about rewriting the sacred definitions which BTW were only invented a thousand years after Jesus supposedly died.

I'm a big believer in the golden rule. I assume people wish to be engaged the way they engage others. So if you put up dog pics you will be engaged at that level. If you post thoughtfully, you will get that in return.

The man-dog marriage pic was an actual event where the guy married his dog.....sealed with a kiss. In the 1950s-60s, did anyone think that gays would be marrying? Seemed very unrealistic at the time. So who can really predict what going to happen in the future. There was a struggle back then to even be called gay..... You know why I posted that article....it was reaction meant to (of course) to strike back.... demean....chide.....hurt. It's all both sides do now.
What I'm most concerned/upset about is when gays label all conservatives as their enemies. It is particularly disturbing when the politcal parties use these social issues to promote their influence/power. I have the upmost disrespect for Obama. He is a divider....he's used every opportunity IMO to create devisions among us when he promised/ had the entire nation waiting to make things better. The reaction to his approach has been predictable......a reaction from the extreme right......and now, there is even more division among us. Obama promised to lead all of us and he hasn't.

 

[DanL53]

Not really a civil right but the wage gap and workers rights. We are already seeing unrest due to this and actually seeing some real push to deal with it.

Thank goodness someone mentioned this. Between NAFTA and now the PTT I'm not sure but that the government hasn't stepped in, in opposition to fair wages. We all know, or should, that the American worker can't compete with foreign labor. Especially when we're talking poor human rights conditions, including child labor. We also know that our own regulations, such as environmental laws, stand in the way of good jobs when large corporations can built factories in foreign countries and pollute to their black hearts content!

I'm not even talking minimum wage here folks. I'm asking, have we bent over backwards to assist these corporations in moving out of the U.S.? Have we assisted them? I think we have. It's bad enough when the rest of the world is such a s..t hole that people will work in standards that most of us would find appalling. But when our own government seeks to assist CEO Ratface of Corporation Kill 'Em Inc. in making even more money for Shareholder Big Pockets? Who then is looking out for the rest of us?

By the way, in my state of Illinois ANOTHER location which assists persons with special needs just closed. Funds not being paid by the state caused a non-profit daytime respite location to close it's doors which means several persons with special needs have no place to go, and either their families give up jobs to stay home with them, or they end up homeless (dead is a more accurate term). If you know someone who is pregnant, or plan to have kids yourself someday, keep this in mind....folks with special needs are born that way.

By the way, thirty large cities have, or are considering, laws making it illegal to feed a homeless person in public. Just something else to look forward to when some guy in another country gets your job. Or you are caught deciding between working or caring for a loved one.

 

[83Hawk]

Ok, so congress wants the commandments displayed. How do they make that happen? Don't they write up an order that must be carried out because it has the weight of law? The order that says "move that statue here" is a law. And that order is respecting and endorsing a religion. So yes I know you are typing what the constitution says, but you don't seem to know what those words mean. Hence why your argument is illogical.

Um, no. Not only don't you understand the simple, easy to read language of the Constitution, you also apparently don't know how laws are made. So....when they need a new lightbulb in the restroom, a work order is written, specifying a 100 watt bulb. That now becomes the law of the land? Better check your lightbulbs, to be sure you aren't breaking the law by having a 60 watt instead of 100! Unless Congress introduces a bill to display a statue listing the 10 commandments on Capitol grounds, has it go thru committee, then gets voted on and passed by both houses, then THERE IS NO LAW. Even then, there is the question that the statue is ESTABLISHING a religion.

Also...explain to me why the 10 Commandments are in the Supreme Court room? And bible verses are etched on Federal buildings and monuments all over DC? But that can't be! That (apparently) violates the Constitution!!

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."


Fact is...you and others like you...interpret the Constitution to fit your own agenda, instead of the way it is written. It's not that hard to understand. "Congress shall make no law..." is pretty clear and straightforward. How that got mangled into how people interpret it today just boggles my mind.

 

[Lone Clone]

On the other side, I think too many are taking this ruling as an attack on their religion, when their religion and rights to worship as they please have not been infringed in the least.

OK is being forced to remove the 10 Commandments from it's State Capital. Many conservative Christians on my FB feed are already claiming "oh, here we go..'murrica was founded on Christianity..those evil libs...herp derp". This is clearly not an attack on any religion, but an obvious and correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

State and religion should be respectfully separate.

The point is that a lot of the people who hail the court decision on SSM are also anti-religion, just as a lot of the people who assail the decision are religious bigots (or at least intolerant of those who don't share their faith). So whether the decision should affect religion or not, it does. Some religious people will see it as an assault on their beliefs -- and in some cases, they will be right.

 

[naturalmwa]

Um, no. Not only don't you understand the simple, easy to read language of the Constitution, you also apparently don't know how laws are made. So....when they need a new lightbulb in the restroom, a work order is written, specifying a 100 watt bulb. That now becomes the law of the land? Better check your lightbulbs, to be sure you aren't breaking the law by having a 60 watt instead of 100! Unless Congress introduces a bill to display a statue listing the 10 commandments on Capitol grounds, has it go thru committee, then gets voted on and passed by both houses, then THERE IS NO LAW. Even then, there is the question that the statue is ESTABLISHING a religion.

Also...explain to me why the 10 Commandments are in the Supreme Court room? And bible verses are etched on Federal buildings and monuments all over DC? But that can't be! That (apparently) violates the Constitution!!

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement "We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."


Fact is...you and others like you...interpret the Constitution to fit your own agenda, instead of the way it is written. It's not that hard to understand. "Congress shall make no law..." is pretty clear and straightforward. How that got mangled into how people interpret it today just boggles my mind.

There are also Muslims, Pagans, and Atheists in the SCOTUS building statues. Hence it isn't respecting an establishment of religion. You don't think there is a regulation on the books that governs building maintenance and allocates funds for lightbulbs? You think the light bulb fairy just appears and replaces them? Those regulations and appropriations are laws in a broad sense. The same broad sense that the Bill of Rights was written under. You're hanging a lot on a very tiny peg.

Don't you agree that the point was to ensure that the US government didn't adopt an official religion? Do you think that would be a good idea? How can a society have freedom of religion if the officials are imposing and venerating one faith philosophy over another?

 

[83Hawk]

There are also Muslims, Pagans, and Atheists in the SCOTUS building statues. Hence it isn't respecting an establishment of religion. You don't think there is a regulation on the books that governs building maintenance and allocates funds for lightbulbs? You think the light bulb fairy just appears and replaces them? Those regulations and appropriations are laws in a broad sense. The same broad sense that the Bill of Rights was written under. You're hanging a lot on a very tiny peg.

Don't you agree that the point was to ensure that the US government didn't adopt an official religion? Do you think that would be a good idea? How can a society have freedom of religion if the officials are imposing and venerating one faith philosophy over another?

How buildings are maintained and funds for light bulbs are not "laws". You are really reaching here. Again....trying to twist what the Constitution actually says to fit your own beliefs/agenda. Do I think Congress should pass laws establishing a religion? Of course not. But the Constitution does NOT forbid the display of anything religious on government property. The mere act of displaying something does not make it a law. Period. End of argument. You think it does? Then the 10 Commandments are the Law of the Land, because they are displayed in the Capitol building.

Also, what religion does the 10 Commandments "establish"? They are in the Bible. The Torah has them. The Quran also has similar commandments.

 

[theIowaHawk]

they are coming after the church, mark my words. that is the plan. there will be tons of lawsuits saying "this pastor refused to marry us and it's our right", they proved it with the wedding cake. see, that's the problem with the supreme court trying to say it's a right. once it's a right, then actually the feds should start issuing the fed license and churches should render unto ceasar which is ceasar's.

It is amazing how your mind works and how factually and legally incorrect it always seems to be.

Something being a right does not require Federal licensing.

The "wedding cake" issue has a distinct and important difference: One entity is a "church" or religious organization, the other is a public-accommodation bakery.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I think you essentially got it right. The SCOTUS case was about the government recognizing marriage on a secular level

Not even on a secular level, on a legal level, you know, the only level available to the government.

 

[theIowaHawk]

How buildings are maintained and funds for light bulbs are not "laws". You are really reaching here. Again....trying to twist what the Constitution actually says to fit your own beliefs/agenda. Do I think Congress should pass laws establishing a religion? Of course not. But the Constitution does NOT forbid the display of anything religious on government property. The mere act of displaying something does not make it a law. Period. End of argument. You think it does? Then the 10 Commandments are the Law of the Land, because they are displayed in the Capitol building.

Also, what religion does the 10 Commandments "establish"? They are in the Bible. The Torah has them. The Quran also has similar commandments.

I think I see where you went with all of this, but you are ignoring budgets, which are legislation.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

It is amazing how your mind works and how factually and legally incorrect it always seems to be.

Something being a right does not require Federal licensing.

The "wedding cake" issue has a distinct and important difference: One entity is a "church" or religious organization, the other is a public-accommodation bakery.

well, it is not a right at all. so if the feds step in and say it's a right, when it's not, then they need to issue the license and the church and the local entities need to step back and get out. the cake deal proves it and going after the churches proves it: this was not about rights: it was about attacking the church and attacking business owners plain and simple, using a fake made up right to do so.

see, now gays can be common law married, no church and no license needed, however they will not stand back and say that's good enough, they are on the attack. fake rights in hand like it's a gun. I know natural does not come off this way, he's a good guy, but there are militants like this, trust me. they are backed by globalist bankster new worid order, using the gays as cover.

 

[DanL53]

There are also Muslims, Pagans, and Atheists in the SCOTUS building statues. Hence it isn't respecting an establishment of religion. You don't think there is a regulation on the books that governs building maintenance and allocates funds for lightbulbs? You think the light bulb fairy just appears and replaces them? Those regulations and appropriations are laws in a broad sense. The same broad sense that the Bill of Rights was written under. You're hanging a lot on a very tiny peg.

Don't you agree that the point was to ensure that the US government didn't adopt an official religion? Do you think that would be a good idea? How can a society have freedom of religion if the officials are imposing and venerating one faith philosophy over another?[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry but I still chuckle at this when many of those rocks with the Ten Commandments carved on them came from Cecil B DeMille's promotional marketing of his "Ten Commandments" motion picture. Yes, it was the "Loyal Order of Eagles" that originally was handing out paper copies of the Ten Commandments as a way to promote morals in teens (started in 1940's), and later the Eagles started setting up the rocks on Courthouse lawns and other public places, but WITH the encouragement and monetary donations of DeMille. (could go on...folks can web search if they want)

Essentially, those rocks represent the real one faith of the United States......money. Much like I'm sure many sellers of Confederate Flags are going to enjoy with all the recent publicity surrounding them.

 

[Titanhawk2]

On the other side, I think too many are taking this ruling as an attack on their religion, when their religion and rights to worship as they please have not been infringed in the least.

OK is being forced to remove the 10 Commandments from it's State Capital. Many conservative Christians on my FB feed are already claiming "oh, here we go..'murrica was founded on Christianity..those evil libs...herp derp". This is clearly not an attack on any religion, but an obvious and correct interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

State and religion should be respectfully separate.

Tell that to the bakery shop owner who gets boycotted and slandered, and run out of business because they chose not to serve a particular event.

 

[theIowaHawk]

well, it is not a right at all.

Fine, you can stick to that.

so if the feds step in and say it's a right, when it's not, then they need to issue the license

Why?

and the church and the local entities need to step back and get out.

Why? Aren't you constantly arguing that governmental control should be local, not national?

the cake deal proves it and going after the churches proves it: this was not about rights: it was about attacking the church and attacking business owners plain and simple, using a fake made up right to do so.

Now there is the OiT we all love. The government hasn't gone after churches. So far two things have happened: 1. State legislatures/Courts have determined it to be a right (marriage, that is), 2. The SCOTUS has extended marriage to same sex partners. Nothing else has happened, but certainly you are free to doom-n-gloom, but the "cake deal" doesn't prove it, as the bakery was a private, public accommodation business, and a church is a church granted separate legal status.

see, now gays can be common law married, no church and no license needed, however they will not stand back and say that's good enough, they are on the attack.

Because a common law marriage is much more complicated than marriage in its proof and requirements. Now gays can be "license" married as well, no church needed.

fake rights in hand like it's a gun. I know natural does not come off this way, he's a good guy, but there are militants like this, trust me. they are backed by globalist bankster new worid order, using the gays as cover.

Well, maybe we will find that out, or maybe we won't.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Tell that to the bakery shop owner who gets boycotted and slandered, and run out of business because they chose not to serve a particular event.

Wait, are you against capitalism? Boycotting and "slandering" as you term them are foundational in American culture.

 

[moral_victory]

Tell that to the bakery shop owner who gets boycotted and slandered, and run out of business because they chose not to serve a particular event.

And then he was forced to gay sex and gay marry

 

[naturalmwa]

Tell that to the bakery shop owner who gets boycotted and slandered, and run out of business because they chose not to serve a particular event.

Wait, there's a cake god?

 

[DanL53]

And then he was forced to gay sex and gay marry

This isn't going to go away anytime soon, is it. Meanwhile there are far more important things that deserve attention.

SSM is the law. Good, done. Public businesses can't discriminate. Good, done. Churches or other religious organizations enjoy the right to worship in their tax exempt buildings just like always, including performing ceremonies for whomever they wish, or not. Good, that's how it is. It someone tries to screw up any of these...there should be (excuse the term) Hell to pay.

Nice line, no one get's treated unfairly. Everybody gets to believe what they want and the government isn't stepping on toes unjustly.

 

[Lone Clone]

I predict that within 5 years marijuana will be legal in most states, if not nationwide. But if I'm not mistaken, even in states that have already legalized it, it's still illegal to grow your own. You have to buy it at state licensed dispensaries.

That needs to change. I don't have a problem with outlawing mass growing operations, but people should be allowed to grow enough for their own personal use.

I wouldn't be shocked to see abortion -- the civil rights of the about-to-be born -- resurface. If the SCOTUS is really responding to public opinion, stricter limits on abortion certainly would be in the cards.

 

[INXS83]

This and polygamy. You can bet on it.

 

[SondyRules]

Wait, there's a cake god?

 

[naturalmwa]

Not a fan of fondant, it seems like cheating.

 

[thewop]

Freedom of Religion will be the next wave of fights.

Too many are trying to parlay a win for LGTB into an attack on organized religion.

Both can find a balance, but won't be able to because everything is so polar these days.

While I think this is a strong possibility, so far I think it's more fear of the possibility it could happen than religions actually being attacked. I hope it stays that way. I believe the danger is real, hope it doesn't really materialize. When people's religion is taken by government, that's a VERY DARK place for America to be, and exactly the opposite of what America was founded on.

Agree to disagree everyone.

 

[theIowaHawk]

This and polygamy. You can bet on it.

Eye roll.

But, seriously, you talk about betting on it, betting often uses statistical analysis to determine what to bet on. What do you think the percentage of polygamy-wanting-people are as a whole? Homosexuality is supposed to be, what, 2-3%? (of them even less probably intend to be married) But, how many polygamists? Enough to fill a small city? 30,000?

If you were making a bet, would you really put it on such a small minority? And even of those, who would readily admit it? It took decades (?) for homosexuals to be as "out" as they are now, are you thinking decades before polygamists?

Or, are you thinking the one guy in Utah will file in court and take it to the SCOTUS? That would be fun, because according to many on here, this was done, basically as an act of legislation. IF that is true, then they would rule against polygamy, right? Or would Scalia pull an IMCC and openly support polygamy to try and make a point?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Is the officiant photoshopped?

 

[pablow]

Personal privacy rights.

States sovereignty.