But he has reportedly deported more than other presidentsLike Obama refusing to enforce immigration laws?
But he has reportedly deported more than other presidentsLike Obama refusing to enforce immigration laws?
A Muslim flight attendant in Michigan has filed a complaint against ExpressJet Airlines with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, claiming she was suspended from her job due to her religious beliefs.
Charee Stanley, who converted to Islam about a month after becoming a flight attendant with the airline, filed the complaint with the help of Lena Masri, an attorney for the Michigan chapter of the Council of American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, WWJ News reported.
Masri told The Detroit News that Stanley had worked out an arrangement with ExpressJet in which other flight attendants would serve alcohol to passengers on Stanley's flights, since serving alcohol is against Stanley's religious beliefs.
That arrangement worked until Aug. 25.
Masri told WWJ that the airline put Stanley on administrative leave after another flight attendant filed “an Islamophobic complaint” that referenced Stanley’s head scarf.
“We notified ExpressJet Airlines of its obligation under the law to reasonably accommodate Ms. Stanley’s religious beliefs,” Masri said at a news conference Tuesday, according to WWJ. “Instead, ExpressJet chose to violate Ms. Stanley’s constitutional rights, placed her on administrative leave for 12 months after which her employment may be administratively terminated.”
First Hucabee's appeal is to deep south religious groups.will Huckabee and Cruz rush to her defense? https://www.opposingviews.com/i/rel...t-her-leave-because-she-refused-serve-alcohol
How you get to the desired situation matters. I think an argument could be made that:It took us a little while to get the slavery issue right, we finally did.
It took us a little while longer to get the gay issue right, we finally did.
ever hear the left talk about Citizens United? Or Hobby Lobby? What makes you think the left loves the supremes? If you think all issues recently have gone their way you aren't paying attention.How you get to the desired situation matters. I think an argument could be made that:
- Killing 289,000 southerners, and wounding another 194,000,
- Leaving the freedmen, illiterate and without property, among white southern survivors of this northern benevolence,
- Realizing that freedmen count towards representation in Congress, but the indiscriminate conduct of the Federal government had virtually eliminated any opposition to Democrats in the south, so Democrats would actually gain political power through emancipation, so
- Executing the greatest mass disfranchisement in American history (through a blanket ban on white southerners voting).
...May not have been the best recipe a positive outcome. The next century of American history bears this out.
In the most recent case, yes, recognition of same-sex marriage has been achieved. In the process, the idea that an unelected and unaccountable judge can overrule a direct and material of the constitution (and the clearly expressed will of the people) in pursuit a matter of personal preference on a policy question, or "the direction in which society is deemed to be evolving."
If anyone, and I mean anyone in 1867 had dreamed that this was the use to which their vote on the XIV Amendment would be put, no one, absolutely no one would have vote to ratify that amendment.
At some future date, society may be deemed to be evolving in a direction today's leftists do not like. When that happens, some Federal judge is going to say ,"Hey, I was nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, I prefer this policy, so I am going to rule it constitutional, and there is nothing you can do about it." That is not good for a republic.
Process matters.
whoa, not saying a thing about christians, not at all, so back down a bitFirst Hucabee's appeal is to deep south religious groups.
Second, Cruz is leeching to someone that will allow him to be their runningmate.
so really what's your point? Its the same appeal that Sharpton has when a cop kills a black person, whether be right or wrong its a PR cash grab. I think you are trying too hard to link Hucabee, WBC, or whoever to ALL CHRISTIANS. It doesn't work that way. Its like LSU and Auburn fans trying to link Harvey Updyke to ALL BAMA FANS. Seriously we all get you hate what Christian beliefs are, but it comes off like its your life mission to prove your point of view. We get it, you don't believe so why carry this thing on when 80 to 90% of the people who claim to be Christians on this thread say that the clerk is legally in the wrong?
Well, I am paying attention. The left has been pushing a more expansive view of Federal powers and an assertive Federal judiciary for a long time (particularly the late 1930s onwards). The Federal government generally having more power suits their purposes.ever hear the left talk about Citizens United? Or Hobby Lobby? What makes you think the left loves the supremes? If you think all issues recently have gone their way you aren't paying attention.
honestly, i really don't care what people think about the morality of gay marriage at this point. the point is she is using her government position to push her personal morality on others.Thanks.
I actually think the point of his post (he can correct me if I'm wrong) is to get people thinking of the reality of personal morality vs the law, and if that's his intention, it's a good point. While I believe she needs to do her job or resign, if we pursue the thought exercise it makes it clear it's not nearly the black and white issue that many are making it.
Stepping back and talking more generally about personal morality vs the law, where is the line? I suppose that will vary with everyone.
correct, it was obamacare that is the new slavery, not gay marriage, my bad. the gay marriage comparisons have been more focused on conflating christians taking a "stand" against gay marriage with rosa parks. honestly, i am having a hard time keeping up with all of the hyperbole while spending my time in the square circle with all of the non-interesting questions.No one is claiming gay marriage is the new slavery, but I guess getting all hyperbolic about it is a good way to avoid having to wrestle with the interesting questions.
Then you're missing the point that I was making completely. I'm not interested in BiB's post wrt this case, but the example that he made regarding the general issue of personal morality vs the law.honestly, i really don't care what people think about the morality of gay marriage at this point. the point is she is using her government position to push her personal morality on others.
No they don't, but what's new. They are taking a stand to win appeal with the average church goer voter. That's like scrushy going to black church to win the appeal of black jurors. Again what's the significance of a politician being a politician lying through their teeth.this is about huck and Cruz and whether or not they actually care about religious freedom as they have been defining it in the Davis case. If they do they'll rush to this girls defense. If not they won't. Simple
to you clearly nothing but there are quite a few on tidefans that have extolled the virtues of both of these guys so I jumped on the opportunity to point out that they are slimeballs. If you don't care then move alongNo they don't, but what's new. They are taking a stand to win appeal with the average church goer voter. That's like scrushy going to black church to win the appeal of black jurors. Again what's the significance of a politician being a politician lying through their teeth.
Then what was your purpose of bringing out a Muslim getting fired for not serving liquor on a plane. You know good and well what Huckabee's appeal is, and you clearly know that he isn't going to go to bat for a Muslim. Is it right when it pertains to a person that is running for president to have a narrow viewpoint like that. No, but at the same time I didn't see Obama looking in the best intrests of the men and women serving in Afghanistan during one of the most violent periods of the conflict when he was pushing the DADT repeal either. You want to talk about the potential of a huge disaster then that is one of them that could've really happened. For the record DADT should've been repealed, but it should've been done at a less violent point of time.to you clearly nothing but there are quite a few on tidefans that have extolled the virtues of both of these guys so I jumped on the opportunity to point out that they are slimeballs. If you don't care then move along
my point was to illustrate that they simply don't give a damn about religious freedom and are largely full of crap, thought I was pretty clear on that. Posting that also shows quite clearly what many on my side of these issues have been saying all along that these Guys and their RFRA law pushes are all about trying to legalize persecution not protect their religious belief. They want the right to be bigots and/or are willing to pander to those who do to get elected. Issues like this is where you can truly see who is honest and who isn't. The ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh when he needed them and lost a lot of their supporters over it (not me they were right to defend Rush) Huck, Cruz, Paul, Santorum, none of these guys is standing up for the Muslims and that should tell you exactly what kind of people they are. You seem to want to just say "oh well they're politicians what do you expect" Personally I expect a whole lot more. Since all of them have come out as strong supporters of Davis I felt it appropriate to call out.Then what was your purpose of bringing out a Muslim getting fired for not serving liquor on a plane. You know good and well what Huckabee's appeal is, and you clearly know that he isn't going to go to bat for a Muslim. Is it right when it pertains to a person that is running for president to have a narrow viewpoint like that. No, but at the same time I didn't see Obama looking in the best intrests of the men and women serving in Afghanistan during one of the most violent periods of the conflict when he was pushing the DADT repeal either. You want to talk about the potential of a huge disaster then that is one of them that could've really happened. For the record DADT should've been repealed, but it should've been done at a less violent point of time.
And Cruz is clearly trying to either to tie himself to a stronger candidate in order to gain a possible position or try to gain momentum by taking the crowd that stronger candidate appeals to when they fall. The motives for the people in the middle and back of the pack are clear.
moving on
And yet if I believe what I see on TV and the Internet, Hispanics think any Republican who advocates that very solution is a racist and therefore they.....voted for OBAMA.But he has reportedly deported more than other presidents
Find me one good politician that fits your expectations. Also tell me when do we actually have a say in who runs this country. The electoral college trumps popular vote in choosing a president. So is that really the people's opinion, or just a ruse that makes people feel they have a legitimate say in their country. So really why take stock in what a politician does and says in terms of social issues. Do you think Obama really adamant about gay rights and the Iran deal as he acts or do you think it is more of establishing a personal legacy.. You seem to want to just say "oh well they're politicians what do you expect" Personally I expect a whole lot more. Since all of them have come out as strong supporters of Davis I felt it appropriate to call out.
Those who (like Jon, who, while superficially espousing "libertarian" ideas, but who are really left-statists) embrace politicians who say they are now in favor of same sex marriage, yet are busily erected a potentially monstrous system capable of incredible judicial tyranny, which may one day create a system that has really bad unintended consequences. If, in a century's time, a muslim majority says that not only is islam the established church of the US, but everyone, even atheists like Jon, must go to the mosque on Fridays because that is the direction society is evolving towards, or that, "everyone knows we must put gays into ovens" because that is the direction of societal evolution, will point in vain to the Constitution for protection. The judges of that day will point to decisions like those of the last few years and say, "See? Judges in that day ruled based on their personal preferences, and found that their personal prefrenses were in fact paramount to what the Constitution said, so, now, I find that my personal preferences are that everyone must go to the mosque (or all gays must go into the ovens, or whatever dystopian future left-libertarians like Jon can imagine) are what the Constitution now says.Find me one good politician that fits your expectations. Also tell me when do we actually have a say in who runs this country. The electoral college trumps popular vote in choosing a president. So is that really the people's opinion, or just a ruse that makes people feel they have a legitimate say in their country. So really why take stock in what a politician does and says in terms of social issues. Do you think Obama really adamant about gay rights and the Iran deal as he acts or do you think it is more of establishing a personal legacy.
Politicians can't be fully taken at their word because to get where they are they had to kiss some posteriors and look the other way at some shady stuff to get elected. And that is what huck is doing now.
Federalism be damned.Being fired by a private employer vs. getting put in jail. The better example would be a Muslim clerk who won't issue a liquor license or a Quaker who won't issue a pistol permit. I get the thrust of your argument, and it's a good one. Just don't think that it applies here.
In my view, the judge should have imposed a fine on the state for every day she refused to exercise her duty. Then the state would have to decide whether to impeach her or not. She should never have been sent to jail.
what?Those who (like Jon, who, while superficially espousing "libertarian" ideas, but who are really left-statists) embrace politicians who say they are now in favor of same sex marriage, yet are busily erected a potentially monstrous system capable of incredible judicial tyranny, which may one day create a system that has really bad unintended consequences. If, in a century's time, a muslim majority says that not only is islam the established church of the US, but everyone, even atheists like Jon, must go to the mosque on Fridays because that is the direction society is evolving towards, or that, "everyone knows we must put gays into ovens" because that is the direction of societal evolution, will point in vain to the Constitution for protection. The judges of that day will point to decisions like those of the last few years and say, "See? Judges in that day ruled based on their personal preferences, and found that their personal prefrenses were in fact paramount to what the Constitution said, so, now, I find that my personal preferences are that everyone must go to the mosque (or all gays must go into the ovens, or whatever dystopian future left-libertarians like Jon can imagine) are what the Constitution now says.
Jon will doubtless say that the people will never elect politicians who would nominate judges like that, but I am not so sure. Judges in the future will point to the precedents of the last few years and base their decisions on those precedents, saying that the Federal judicial system has already established that judges can rule however they want, based on their personal preferences, constitutions be darned.
I would prefer that government, especially the judiciary be, to quote Jefferson, "bound by the chains of the Constitution," but that is not what is now happening.
The irony is that, left to the people, both gay rights and the Constitution could have been respected (I believe that if a referendum were held today in Virginia, same-sex marriage would probably win), but with the impatience of the left, the Constitution must be suppressed/shredded/violated in order to ensure the immediate objective of the day.
Process matters, but not to the left. Only the immediate results matters.