Then why bother with democracy and laws and Constitution at all? Why not just appoint a just dictator?

Then why bother with democracy and laws and Constitution at all? Why not just appoint a just dictator?

 

The Constitution makes it quite clear that the courts are designed to challenge laws that are unjust.  Why else would the supreme court exist?  This also wasn't decided willy nilly, it took a decade going to through lower courts, there were hearings, evidence, testimonials.  It's a long process, and it worked exactly as it is supposed to according the the Constitution.

No, Constitution doesn't make that quite clear at all. I suggest you read it before spouting off. The Supreme Court exists to interpret laws, not to make them. What's unjust to you may be perfectly just to someone else, that is not how jurisprudence works.

No, Constitution doesn't make that quite clear at all. I suggest you read it before spouting off. The Supreme Court exists to interpret laws, not to make them. What's unjust to you may be perfectly just to someone else, that is not how jurisprudence works.

 

Let's not pretend that either of us are constitutional lawyers.  But the Supreme Court did not make any laws here.  They looked at the laws that were designed to keep gay couples from marrying and found them unjust.

 

I actually think there is a case for the fact that this opened the door for a lot of possible religious freedom issues, and you can argue that the Supreme Court did not do a good job of clarifying the extent of this ruling.  That would be a logical argument.  But trying to argue they've set aside the Constitution and have gone mad with power smacks of shock jock radio tactics.     

I thought the argument was that laws against gay marriage broke other laws, not that they were necessarily "unjust" (...as much as their ruling may feel like a consequence of the latter instead of the former). I mean, I guess technically, that's a form of injustice, but not really in the traditional sense.

What if someone would found a church of National Socialistology? (A.K.A Naziology) Their doctrine would require them not serve jews, people of mongrel races and other discrimitory practices, but at the same time, they have to do this due to their religious belief in their saviour, so you cannot discriminate against them. Would for example the courts acknowledge their right to require "whites only" toilet booths in the workplace? Their belief is quite important to them and they find it quite triggering and traumatic to share these safe spaces with the jew.

 

It sounds to me that not doing so is quite ignorant and problematic.

 

No, Constitution doesn't make that quite clear at all. I suggest you read it before spouting off. The Supreme Court exists to interpret laws, not to make them. What's unjust to you may be perfectly just to someone else, that is not how jurisprudence works.

 

Let's not pretend that either of us are constitutional lawyers.  But the Supreme Court did not make any laws here.  They looked at the laws that were designed to keep gay couples from marrying and found them unjust.

 

I actually think there is a case for the fact that this opened the door for a lot of possible religious freedom issues, and you can argue that the Supreme Court did not do a good job of clarifying the extent of this ruling.  That would be a logical argument.  But trying to argue they've set aside the Constitution and have gone mad with power smacks of shock jock radio tactics.

 

You don't need to be a constitutional lawyer to understand that what you claim is in the Constitution just isn't there, you just need basic reading comprehension. And what kind of a citizen are you to claim you can't even understand the Constitution? And you a history teacher too, no wonder out country is so screwed up! Do you ever teach your students about Marbury vs Madison or do you only teach them gay, transgender and minority victimization history?

 

What if someone would found a church of National Socialistology? (A.K.A Naziology) Their doctrine would require them not serve jews, people of mongrel races and other discrimitory practices, but at the same time, they have to do this due to their religious belief in their saviour, so you cannot discriminate against them. Would for example the courts acknowledge their right to require "whites only" toilet booths in the workplace? Their belief is quite important to them and they find it quite triggering and traumatic to share these safe spaces with the jew.

 

It sounds to me that not doing so is quite ignorant and problematic.

Current law is that someone's religious freedom can not be abridged unless there's a compelling government reason for doing so, and it's done in the least restrictive way possible. Also you'd have to show it's a sincerely held believe, not just something you made up on the spot. Anyway, how many people would openly patronize a nazi run business? Edit: It's already established you can't discriminate in a public business based on race, religious objections or not.

Edited August 24, 201510 yr by Wrath of Dagon

You don't need to be a constitutional lawyer to understand that what you claim is in the Constitution just isn't there, you just need basic reading comprehension. And what kind of a citizen are you to claim you can't even understand the Constitution? And you a history teacher too, no wonder out country is so screwed up! Do you ever teach your students about Marbury vs Madison or do you only teach them gay, transgender and minority victimization history?

 

 

 

Wow.  Kind of hard to have a reasonable conversation with you when you act like that.  Enjoy your time here making friends.  

Good reason not to answer the question.

It is, actually...since the question is coming from you, someone who clearly doesn't have much interest in the civilized discourse that most of us take part of for our own enjoyment in our free time. There's more to communication (and whether or not it's worth bothering continuing with) than just the one factor: one only has to look at the other pariahs of our little community to determine that.

Very precious.

It is, actually...since the question is coming from you, someone who clearly doesn't have much interest in the civilized discourse that most of us take part of for our own enjoyment in our free time. There's more to communication (and whether or not it's worth bothering continuing with) than just the one factor: one only has to look at the other pariahs of our little community to determine that.

 

Pariahs... 

 

Barti...you make me laugh   I can't think of any pariahs here, so they don't exist ?

What if someone would found a church of National Socialistology? (A.K.A Naziology) Their doctrine would require them not serve jews, people of mongrel races and other discrimitory practices, but at the same time, they have to do this due to their religious belief in their saviour, so you cannot discriminate against them. Would for example the courts acknowledge their right to require "whites only" toilet booths in the workplace? Their belief is quite important to them and they find it quite triggering and traumatic to share these safe spaces with the jew.

 

It sounds to me that not doing so is quite ignorant and problematic.

 

They couldn't — unlike sexual orientation, those are protected classes and the lawyers would fall on them like a ton of bricks.

Edited August 25, 201510 yr by 213374U

Two Brothers Allegedly Beat Up A Latino Man, Say They Were Inspired By Donald Trump

 

A pair of siblings in Boston, Massachusetts targeted and ambushed a 58-year-old homeless Latino man because one brother was “inspired in part” by 2016 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, the Boston Globe reported.

 

Police arrived on the scene early Wednesday to a homeless man covered in urine, whose nose was broken and chest and arms were battered. The victim told police that “he was awakened by two men urinating on his face.” He said they ripped away his blankets and sleeping bag, hit him in the face and the head, and punched him several times. According to the Boston Globe, several witnesses saw the homeless man being attacked.

 

The victim is in fair condition, though he has a broken nose and multiple bruises on his head and torso.

 

Scott Leader, one of the two brothers, told police that the victim started the confrontation. He also reportedly said that “it was OK to assault the man because he was Hispanic and homeless,” adding, “Donald Trump was right, all these illegals need to be deported.”

 

In his campaign launch speech, GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump made incendiary comments suggesting that Mexican immigrants are rapists, drug dealers, and killers — remarks that immigrant advocacy groups widely condemned.

 

Boston officials, including Mayor Martin J. Walsh and Police Commissioner William B. Evans, condemned the Leaders. When Trump heard about the incident, he reportedly said, “It would be a shame… I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.”

 

Trump’s assumptions about immigrants being criminals are simply unfounded. A recent Immigration Policy Council report found that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. In this case, the Leader brothers have extensive criminal records.

 

Hate crimes against Latinos have been on the rise for some time. Statistics published annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation have found that anti-Latino crimes rose by 35 percent between 2003 and 2006, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. And a 2013 FBI Hate Crime Statistics report found that 52.6 percent of 821 Latino victims were targeted because of anti-Hispanic or anti-Latino bias.

 

Still, attacking a homeless Latino man in Boston was perhaps an illogical choice for the Leader brothers. There are actually over 10,000 undocumented Irish immigrants living in the city. Trump, for his part, once advocated for European-only immigration.

 

Scott Leader also once served a year in prison for a hate crime after he attacked a Moroccan man in Boston just days after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, according to court records.

 

 

No, Constitution doesn't make that quite clear at all. I suggest you read it before spouting off. The Supreme Court exists to interpret laws, not to make them. What's unjust to you may be perfectly just to someone else, that is not how jurisprudence works.

 

Let's not pretend that either of us are constitutional lawyers.  But the Supreme Court did not make any laws here.  They looked at the laws that were designed to keep gay couples from marrying and found them unjust.

 

I actually think there is a case for the fact that this opened the door for a lot of possible religious freedom issues, and you can argue that the Supreme Court did not do a good job of clarifying the extent of this ruling.  That would be a logical argument.  But trying to argue they've set aside the Constitution and have gone mad with power smacks of shock jock radio tactics.

 

You don't need to be a constitutional lawyer to understand that what you claim is in the Constitution just isn't there, you just need basic reading comprehension. And what kind of a citizen are you to claim you can't even understand the Constitution? And you a history teacher too, no wonder out country is so screwed up! Do you ever teach your students about Marbury vs Madison or do you only teach them gay, transgender and minority victimization history?

 

What if someone would found a church of National Socialistology? (A.K.A Naziology) Their doctrine would require them not serve jews, people of mongrel races and other discrimitory practices, but at the same time, they have to do this due to their religious belief in their saviour, so you cannot discriminate against them. Would for example the courts acknowledge their right to require "whites only" toilet booths in the workplace? Their belief is quite important to them and they find it quite triggering and traumatic to share these safe spaces with the jew.

 

It sounds to me that not doing so is quite ignorant and problematic.

Current law is that someone's religious freedom can not be abridged unless there's a compelling government reason for doing so, and it's done in the least restrictive way possible. Also you'd have to show it's a sincerely held believe, not just something you made up on the spot. Anyway, how many people would openly patronize a nazi run business? Edit: It's already established you can't discriminate in a public business based on race, religious objections or not.

 

 

 

 

What if someone would found a church of National Socialistology? (A.K.A Naziology) Their doctrine would require them not serve jews, people of mongrel races and other discrimitory practices, but at the same time, they have to do this due to their religious belief in their saviour, so you cannot discriminate against them. Would for example the courts acknowledge their right to require "whites only" toilet booths in the workplace? Their belief is quite important to them and they find it quite triggering and traumatic to share these safe spaces with the jew.

 

It sounds to me that not doing so is quite ignorant and problematic.

 

They couldn't — unlike sexual orientation, those are protected classes and the lawyers would fall on them like a ton of bricks.

 

 

That's not freedom. Obviously the people who thought of that pesky law were a bit unlucky when they were thinking.

 

Now, i will first file the necessary papers, create a liturgy, hire a public relations beauro and so on. So much to do.