Democrats: What was/is your red line?
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h



Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 12:55 pm
Fox wrote:
I agree -- the SCOTUS decision was very narrow and didn't address the real issue.

Historically, the tipping point for government intervention has been whether the marketplace provided adequate access to goods and services at competitive prices. Governmental regulation only got involved when the marketplace was clearly failing.

Personally, I would have no problem being told by a Christian or Muslim photographer that they don't do Jewish events. Why? Because I don't particularly want Jewish photographers forced to do Christian or Muslim events against their will.

There is no cake shortage in the U.S. The majority of bakers will happily make cakes for every configuration of couple. Nor, to my knowledge, is there a shortage of florists or photographers. Chasing after the small number of individuals whose faith imposes such constraints is more about activism and less about access.

I don't think that you're correct that "the tipping point for government intervention has been whether the marketplace provided adequate access to goods and services at competitive prices." Surely the government does not take the position that there are plenty of places for Jews to shop, so its fine if they're not welcome in a particularly store; or that in a robust real estate market, African Americans will have no problem finding a place to live even if they're excluded from a particular neighborhood.

Unfortunately, it was not all that long ago when most butchers, bakers and candlestick makers would not serve certain types of people. I don't want to go back to that.
Back to top



Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 1:18 pm
wiki wrote:
I don't vote for Democrats who sell short Israel's interests. That said, I am a supporter of a two-state solution, so criticizing Netanyahu is not "anti-Israel" in my book. (But some things do go beyond that line and I do take this line seriously. That's why Mitt Romney got my vote and not Barack Obama in 2012.)

If it had been Romney or Rubio or someone like that up against Hillary in 2016, I probably would have gone with the Republican.

And that's even considering that I am on the side of Democrats with regard to health care reform, gun control, deficit reduction (seriously. Look at every president since I was a teen in the Clinton eras. Democrats have done markedly better on that score despite the tired talking points), foreign policy out of Israel, climate change as an actual issue, and tax reform (I believe that our current tax cut was pure immorality, giving the wealthiest the lowest taxes in modern times while ballooning the deficit). While I don't support open borders, I am more in line with moderate Democrats' views on immigration--that we need a pathway to citizenship for the undocumented and we need to encourage numbers of legal immigrants.

But Israel is a big and major issue. Even though I would agree with Warren on more issues, if she comes up against Pence, I probably vote for Pence.

But I would never vote for Trump unless he gets a brain transplant and a soul transplant. His narcissism is pathological and I don't think there is anything that would stop him from abusing the power of his office for his personal benefit. Nothing he has done has surprised me.

This is why there will never be a “2 state solution,” much less peace with these filthy terrorists whose only goal is destroying Israel. Anyone who believes it’s just a matter of giving them “some MORE Israeli land” is just plain naive. As Golda Meir said, “There will only be peace when arabs start to love their children more than they hate Israel.”
Back to top



Post  Fri, Oct 11 2019, 1:22 pm
marina wrote:
As of right now, I don’t read your posts because they all say the same thing.

Really now . Is that why you repeatedly repost them and comment? Lol. LOL
Back to top



Post  Sun, Oct 13 2019, 2:49 am
marina wrote:
I don’t find the above argument particularly convincing. There’s no shortage of bakers and photographers who comply with civil rights laws because those laws exist and have been enforced for the last 50 years or so. If we stop enforcing, I have no idea how things will look in 2069, but there may easily be many providers who opt to serve only their own kind. I don’t want to go back to living in a society like that.

Little did I know that Beto O'Rourke would step forward to make my point regarding the fragile state of religious rights:

Though Bernie Sanders disavowed O'Rourke's stand, no other Democratic presidential candidates seem to have done so.

Cory Booker responded, "I cannot allow, as a leader, that people are going to use religion as a justification for discrimination." I will refrain from passing along any bon mots from journalist Chadwick Moore, who tends to tell tales out of school, regarding that.

In short, the 80s called and they want their villains back. The Evangelicals are no longer the totalitarians attempting to force their values and practices on others. They've ceded that role to the HRC, GLAAD, and apparently, Beto O'Rourke.

There is no empirical basis for the idea that allowing religious wedding purveyors to politely decline to create custom products for same-s-x couples will inexorably lead to widespread refusal to provide services on the basis of race, s-x, national origin, etc. It's a problem created by activists who neither represent the constituencies they claim nor enjoy widespread support for many of their specific stands.

Here's a DM I recently received on Twitter (it was subsequently sent out as a tweet):

. . . 34 years ago, when I came out, if you had told me that it wouldn't be the right-wing heterosexuals fighting me - but people in MY OWN [ALLEGED] COMMUNITY - I would have asked what hallucinogens you had ingested - and yet here we are!

"Gary on Twitter"? Yes. But there are a lot more Garys out there than, say, Charlotte Clymers.
Back to top



Post  Thu, Oct 17 2019, 3:13 pm
marina wrote:
Masterpiece Cake shop is an interesting and complex situation. The Supreme Court essentially avoided the hard questions and took the easy way out. The case itself is not an attack on conservatives or religious people- it’s a fascinating situation in which two groups’ rights clash and either way you decide, someone is going be upset - no way to please everyone.

Imagine if the gay people were Jewish for example and Masterpiece Cake Baker explains it was against his faith to prepare commissioned cakes for jewish celebrations or black ones or women who work outside the home. Does his faith win every time? Is there no circumstance where the other party’s rights to be served win out? What if he’s a Masterpiece florist or photographer or artist? Should those professions be able to discriminate against Jews and blacks and women by citing to a sincere religious belief? Can you imagine calling a photography studio just to be told, “we do not do jewish events - against our faith sorry.”

I believe a PRIVATE business should have the right to discriminate. I don't believe in today's times any business that said "No Jews" or "No Blacks" would survive - people would boycott. A business could not even right "No Homosexuals" and survive.

But the Government should not have the right to FORCE a PRIVATE business against their will. That is ANTI-FREEDOM.

(Unless the business is essential - like the ONLY grocery store or gas station for miles. Similar to Public Utilities who must service anyone. But there are very few businesses that are essential and the only one for miles.)
Back to top



Post  Thu, Oct 17 2019, 3:32 pm
WhatFor wrote:
So you're knowingly promoting Christian ideology (idolatry) on this website because they're not atheists? I don't usually read or click on your links but the one time I did, there it was. So now I'm curious: Is this a one-off or are you regularly promoting Christianity here?

I never wrote anything promoting christianity.

But that doesn't mean I disagree with EVERYTHING a christian says.

The quotations I cited were that Democrat Party has a litmus test and will not support
any candidate that is pro-life which is True.
Back to top



Post  Thu, Oct 17 2019, 3:36 pm
WhatFor wrote:
Well bestbubby never need worry about Trump being an atheist. He believes he's God.

1. When did Trump claim he's God?

2. The President who says "I" the most in speeches is......OBAMA

But you will never hear Fake News pointing that out.
Back to top



Post  Thu, Oct 17 2019, 3:51 pm
#BestBubby wrote:
1. When did Trump claim he's God?

2. The President who says "I" the most in speeches is......OBAMA

But you will never hear Fake News pointing that out.

Well, he did retweet something about how Jews in Israel like him like like "he’s the King of Israel. They love him like he is the second coming of G-d..." Second coming? Oops.

He also claimed that "I am the chosen one."
Back to top



Post  Thu, Oct 17 2019, 3:57 pm
He also stated that he has "great and unmatched wisdom"
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Recent Topics

Page 6 of 6 View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Sweet potatoes, red onions & cranberries
by penguin
3 Yesterday at 9:40 pm View last post
Red (lentil?) soup from Fountain Ballroom (iso recipe)
by mamaleh
20 Yesterday at 9:03 am View last post
Red Rash, but not a diaper rash. What is it? 11 Thu, Oct 31 2019, 4:44 pm View last post
RED CURRY GINGER SQUASH SOUP 0 Tue, Oct 29 2019, 2:45 pm View last post
Large angry red mark on baby's back
by amother
20 Mon, Oct 28 2019, 7:50 pm View last post

Jump to: