Republican Party on the Decline?

[GarfieldJL]

Bush I/Clinton was Obama/Romney in reverse.


Bush I was president during a recession who had a weak domestic/economic record to run on -- nothing near as bad as what Obama was dealing with from 2008-2012, but the difference is that the Democrats picked the absolute best candidate, as opposed to the worst.

While there was a small recession towards the end of Bush I's Presidency, and part of Clinton's first term, it was more of the usual recession.

What we're seeing now, is the result of a bubble bursting (a bubble that Bush II took flak when he warned people about it in 2003), and then Obama's policies are making things worse.

Whereas Romney had no personality to speak of and was utterly unlikable, Clinton had personality to spare and was extremely well liked. He appealed to every demographic and facet of the American people -- whereas Romney in 2012 wasn't even all that liked by his own party.

That's how Bill Clinton behaves on camera, that's not necessarily how he behaves off camera. Though from what I've read he's not nearly as bad as his wife.

I'm not holding Gingrich responsible, I'm just saying that listening to him whine about wiretapping in an era where we were torturing people (Right-wing spin aside, waterboarding is torture) would made him sound like a petty crybaby.

Except he wouldn't have to be the one to bring it up.

Only if Newt could portray himself as a modern-day Lot -- the one righteous and upstanding man in a corrupt city. Doubtful anyone was going to fall for that.

Given what the ethics charge actually stemmed from and the IRS later clearing Newt, it would actually be surprisingly easy to portrary him in a positive light (especially since the lead investigator was Nancy Pelosi).

Pointing fingers and whining "But moooooooommmmmm! They're being bad too!" is hardly what I'd call leadership material.

How is teaching a college history course a bad thing? I'd much rather have a congressman caught teaching history classes, then some of the other shannigans congressmen have been involved in.

Granted that Gingrich hasn't a shred of integrity or personal responsibility; best not to showcase that.

Compared to some people in DC, he actually does. TLK Valentine, I don't know if you've ever worked in the DC area, but I have.

As an intern I had to hitch a ride to the bus station by a co-worker, while in the car he offered to hook me up with a prostitute.

I made sure I never missed the bus for the rest of my time working as an intern.

Except it didn't.

Actually it is unknown as to whether or not it would have worked. It couldn't have been used against other people in the Republican Primaries. Nobody in the primary was tied to some of the 2012 scandals going on. Ron Paul wasn't involved in the insider trading, Santorum was a private citizen, Romney was a private citizen, Bachman wasn't involved, etc.

Never said he was tied to it, but the public had already been shocked, then outraged, then numbed to the realities of it.

And you think Gingrich is going to whine his way to the White House over wiretapping?

I never said he would be the one to bring it up, he probably would be waiting for the Democrats to bring it up. In fact, I'd say he would probably have counted on it.

I believe you -- I've noticed some Conservatives have difficulty dealing with unpleasant realities.

It has to do with the fact they let the media lead them around by the nose, they should have picked one candidate and stuck with said candidate. Also if the primaries were set up differently, I don't think Romney would have gotten the nomination.

Romney didn't impress anyone behind closed doors -- too bad his "47%" comment didn't stay behind the closed doors.

You don't get very far accusing the other side of the things your side gets caught doing.

Heh, the 47% comment wouldn't have done that much damage to say Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman, or Ron Paul (surprisingly).

All of them grew up in poor to lower-end middle class, I doubt any of them would have made that comment either.

100% agreed -- Reagan was popular, funny, and charismatic both in and out of the spotlight... Romney shared exactly none of those traits.

Agreed, though some people have said that behind the scenes Romney is actually a nice guy, but publicly he's as stiff as a board.

It is true, which is exactly why he's not.

I don't think Romney would use the IRS as a political weapon.

"Actually," you just agreed with me. Read it again -- Romney came off as insincere precisely because he was insincere.

And Conservatives stayed home rather than voting for someone that was lieing to them.

Not really, no.

Actually, Romney did win the independent vote in Ohio by 10 pts, but lost Ohio by 2 pts, because a good portion of the base stayed home rather than voting for an "etch-a-sketch."

He was, of course, wrong. Romney won self-identified Independents in Ohio by a overwhelming 10 points, according to exit polls, but lost the state to President Barack Obama by 2 points.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-romney-independent-vote-polls-moderates-election-2012-11#ixzz3HIuZDLJ0
​

And Romney failed on every level.

He did win the independent vote in Ohio for starters, but still lost the state.

Relevance? All it shows is that more Americans are sick of both parties... they want someone remotely trustworthy, so more of them held their noses and re-elected Obama... after considering the alternative.

I would say a lot of people stayed home or refused to cast a ballot for President.

As I said, the race was the GOP's to lose... and Romney found the way to do it.

Or... I'm proving that you didn't click on any of those links.

not a one, amirite?[/quote]

Actually I did and since my bachelor's was in Computer Graphics Technology, I can say that they are just engaging in spin. Since I know that only an incompetitent idiot would launch a massive website of that nature without doing a complete beta-test to work out the bugs,

Your first link was written by a left-wing partisan hack that is also trying to blame Benghazi on a lack of funding, something that has been disproven.

2nd link is an HTTP 404 error, and is going to DailyKos (not exactly an objective source to begin with).

Third link was just an attempt to smear Republicans, because Republican governors refused to go along with an unconstitutional law, that was declared constitution in a Supreme Court ruling that was unconstitutional because they rewrote part of the law in their ruling.

I stopped after link 3 because at that point, it had become blatently obvious these were partisan hit-pieces.

CBS: Obama Administration Ignored Obamacare Website Warnings - YouTube

Developing Obamacare's Health Care Exchanges Has Cost More Than Apple's Original iPhone - Forbes

A website doesn't take that much money to create, I would have ashamed to charge that much to build a website.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually the far-left has control of the Democrat Party. Furthermore the Tea Party isn't far-right, while they can politically range from center-left to far-right, they pretty much average out to center-right.

No one believes that, probably because it isn't true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You see absolute govt control over every aspect of your life as making the world a better place? You really need help.

No, I don't. But then again I never advocated for absolute government control. You have a funny understanding of liberalism.

 

[Savior2006]

No, I don't. But then again I never advocated for absolute government control. You have a funny understanding of liberalism.

Funny isn't the word I would use.

 

[A2SG]

Certainly, and I know the two aren't the exact same system (you'd know more about this than me), but my main point was that I would've enjoyed seeing Romney defend his healthcare plan as governor while trying to figure out what exactly he was going to replace Obamacare with.

It was a weird balancing act he did when he ran for president...he chastised Obama for "Obamacare" and when the subject of "Romneycare" came up, he did the Mitt Shuffle....quite fun to watch, really.

And that's the problem with Obamacare: it's not a very progressive plan and yet Republicans refuse to acknowledge that Obama and the Democrats really aren't that liberal.

Calling it "socialist" in any way is laughable. It's practically a love letter to the for-profit private insurance industry.

The Democrats are only liberal if you compare them side by side with the Republicans, and even so, not by much when you consider their actions over the past few decades. The Republicans are just not willing to admit that they've been taken over by a far-right ideology that the John Birchers could have only dreamed about in the 1950s and 1960s.

True dat!

-- A2SG, hell, look at who created the EPA!

 

[A2SG]

So where do you advocate we should get our ethical standards from?- because if you say "ourselves" or "common sense" then everyone will have their own standards and their own common sense. We have to get our standards from a source outside ourselves because ourselves is where the problem lies.

See, the problem with that idea is there is no source "outside ourselves." Even those standards that some claim to come from a god or some such are human inventions that are simply credited to that deity. No deity has every stepped down and claimed authorship, it's just been attributed to him.

In the end, we create our own laws. We always have, whether by popular vote, legislative representation, or fiat by a ruler, elected or imposed. The current system here in the US, where laws are voted on and passed by elected representatives who are accountable to the people works fairly well, I see no reason to change it.

Then why are conservatives told that the only way to be is accepting of whatever someone else believes. That is a rule in and of itself.

It's a principle, and it's the very one behind the founding of this nation. They are free to believe whatever they wish, but by the same token, so is everyone else. You want your rights, you gotta accept that others have the same ones, too. If you don't believe others have rights, then you have nothing to complain about when yours are taken away.

Why are conservatives told to believe the research behind climate change? That's a rule in and of itself.

They're not. If they choose to not believe in the ton of science behind it, that's their business.

Why are they told to have healthcare? That's a rule in and of itself.

If they don't want to go to the doctor when they're sick, that's their own business. But since every human being will need healthcare at some point in their lives, bar none, it's a pragmatic concern to make it available to everyone in some way.

See, it isn't about rules: a society needs them to survive. It's about what those rules are based on and who they apply to. The US is not a theocracy, so rules based solely on one particular religion are not allowed; but rules that apply to everyone equally, and are intended to promote the general welfare are perfectly valid. As such, before passing, they are subject to debate in the court of public opinion.

It came into being with the patriarch in the OT. Everything Jesus said was based on the OT passages. The golden rule, for example was already in the Bible: "Love your neighbor as yourself." You didn't prove that liberals aren't confused about that and that conservatives are.

I did, in fact. It isn't liberals who are seeking to disallow a certain specific segment of the population certain rights that others freely practice on a regular basis, specifically the right to marry the partner of their choice or the right to expect service from a company that serves the general public.

The idea that man is inherently sinful is the basis of US law. That comes from the Bible.

That idea may be in the bible, but it most assuredly is not the basis for US law. US law is based on the Constitution and legal precedent, and the concept of "sin" isn't a part of that.

Would it help my case to say they were infallible?

Not really, since they weren't. You'd have to prove they were, somehow...and good luck with that!

The problem is, they don't seem to apply to anyone else.

Actually, they do. If a baker refused to bake a cake for christians only, they'd be just as guilty, and just as liable were they to be sued.

Discrimintaion is treating someone badly or persecuting them because of what they believe, not just disagreeing with what they believe.

It's also discrimination when you deny service to a certain segment of the public if you offer that service to the public.

Depends on if you consider atheism a religion.

Not really, since no one's trying to use the law to force people to not believe in a deity.

I seem to remember someone saying conservatives were extremists. Maybe it was someone else though.

That certainly wasn't me.

-- A2SG, some might be, but that's true for all groups....all of them have fringe elements, especially the larger the group gets....

 

[A2SG]

Actually it is a liberal plan, it is designed to wreck the healthcare system so that government can then swoop in to impliment government controlled healthcare.

Why would the Heritage Foundation do that?

-- A2SG, they're the ones who came up with the plan, after all....

 

[A2SG]

You do realize that a single payer plan would bankrupt most small businesses? I would be forced to close the doors on my business and throw everyone out of work.

No, it wouldn't. And I offer as proof the fact that that has not happened in any country that has adopted a single payer plan. Ever.

Of course, thats what most leftists want. They want the people to be slaves to the state.

I know of no liberals who want that at all. If you'd care to offer proof of this blatant misrepresentation of those on the left wing of the political spectrum however, I'd be curious to see it.

-- A2SG, as a liberal I'm very aware of the kinds of things liberals want...and that ain't one of them....

 

[A2SG]

Agreed, though some people have said that behind the scenes Romney is actually a nice guy, but publicly he's as stiff as a board.

I've actually met Mitt Romney in person. He is likable, but in the same way many salesmen are...it's a slick, practiced, and often transparent attempt to be likable, not a sincere one.

-- A2SG, but then again, salesmen have friends too.....

 

[GarfieldJL]

Why would the Heritage Foundation do that?

-- A2SG, they're the ones who came up with the plan, after all....

It is was an idea that Heritage Foundation threw in their trash can because it was a bad idea, the Democrats just decided to go dig through Heritage Foundation's garbage.

 

[A2SG]

It is was an idea that Heritage Foundation threw in their trash can because it was a bad idea, the Democrats just decided to go dig through Heritage Foundation's garbage.

Then tell that to Mitt Romney, because he used it. And no one from the Heritage Foundation complained.

But, out of curiosity, when, exactly, did the Heritage Foundation throw the plan in the trash can? What did they admit to being completely wrong about?

-- A2SG, even Newt Gingrich supported the idea of an individual mandate as late as 2009....so, after then maybe?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then tell that to Mitt Romney, because he used it. And no one from the Heritage Foundation complained.

But, out of curiosity, when, exactly, did the Heritage Foundation throw the plan in the trash can? What did they admit to being completely wrong about?

-- A2SG, even Newt Gingrich supported the idea of an individual mandate as late as 2009....so, after then maybe?

Presumably the moment Obama adopted it. Because you know, Obama, and reasons, or something.

 

[A2SG]

Presumably the moment Obama adopted it. Because you know, Obama, and reasons, or something.

Don't you mean...

OBAMA!

-- A2SG, and no matter how many times I see that, I still hear it in Col. Klink's best "Hogannn!" voice....

 

[The Outlier]

See, the problem with that idea is there is no source "outside ourselves." Even those standards that some claim to come from a god or some such are human inventions that are simply credited to that deity. No deity has every stepped down and claimed authorship, it's just been attributed to him.

I guess that's your belief. Its also an opinion.

In the end, we create our own laws. We always have, whether by popular vote, legislative representation, or fiat by a ruler, elected or imposed. The current system here in the US, where laws are voted on and passed by elected representatives who are accountable to the people works fairly well, I see no reason to change it.

Its interesting how many times the current "elected" leader has tried to go around the other branches. He doesn't seem very accountable to me.

It's a principle, and it's the very one behind the founding of this nation. They are free to believe whatever they wish, but by the same token, so is everyone else. You want your rights, you gotta accept that others have the same ones, too. If you don't believe others have rights, then you have nothing to complain about when yours are taken away.

Everyone has certain rights, and everyone is entitled to their own belief- that much is true. But if voting for one person's rights infringes on someone else's rights, that creates a problem. If gay marriage partners can adopt children, then that right infringes on the children's rights, just like it would if two unmarried people tried to adopt a child or if 2 drug addicts tried to adopt a child.

They're not. If they choose to not believe in the ton of science behind it, that's their business.

The amount of research is not the issue. Its the quality and transparency of the research that is.

If they don't want to go to the doctor when they're sick, that's their own business. But since every human being will need healthcare at some point in their lives, bar none, it's a pragmatic concern to make it available to everyone in some way.

The issue is taxation and freedom to not go to the doctor. I think anti-vaxers are silly people, but that's still their right not to get vaccinated if they don't want to. Now, if they become a danger to other people, they may have to be quarantined. But the real question is why under the current system one has to pay a fine for not excepting Obamacare.

See, it isn't about rules: a society needs them to survive. It's about what those rules are based on and who they apply to. The US is not a theocracy, so rules based solely on one particular religion are not allowed; but rules that apply to everyone equally, and are intended to promote the general welfare are perfectly valid. As such, before passing, they are subject to debate in the court of public opinion.

Promoting the general welfare is definitely debatable in this day in age. The real weakness of a democracy is when the voters are uneducated or are just idiots, their democracy will collapse.

I did, in fact. It isn't liberals who are seeking to disallow a certain specific segment of the population certain rights that others freely practice on a regular basis, specifically the right to marry the partner of their choice or the right to expect service from a company that serves the general public.

But we vote on those rights. You are free to vote on rights or vote away rights of others. The issue with gay marriage is, like it or not, it is not illegal to vote away the rights of other people- if its on the ballot. There is no legal crime in not voting to allow same sex marriage.

That idea may be in the bible, but it most assuredly is not the basis for US law. US law is based on the Constitution and legal precedent, and the concept of "sin" isn't a part of that.

It definitely is part of the basis of the system as a whole because checks and balances are based on the assumption that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is based on the idea of sin.

Not really, since they weren't. You'd have to prove they were, somehow...and good luck with that!

Indeed.

Actually, they do. If a baker refused to bake a cake for Christians only, they'd be just as guilty, and just as liable were they to be sued.

That's why its not wise to be in the wedding cake business in this day in age. If I was the head of a church I would make weddings for members only. One can still go to a justice of the peace to get married and bypass churches entirely.

It's also discrimination when you deny service to a certain segment of the public if you offer that service to the public.

See my reply above

Not really, since no one's trying to use the law to force people to not believe in a deity.

Its forcing them to allow things that their religion doesn't agree with. Of course, in my view allowing something is not always the same as condoning it- but if someone thinks allowing it is wrong its their right to vote against it.

 

[jgarden]

Republican Party on the Decline?

The good news is that the Republican party is in decline.

The bad news is that they have been so successful in "gerrymandering" electoral districts in the past that in 2012 they were rewarded with a 23 seat majority in the House - despite receiving 1.4 million fewer votes than their Democratic opponents.

The Republicans have reacted to their relative decline in numbers by resorting to "creative" measures to surpress the growing visible minority vote.

 

[A2SG]

I guess that's your belief. Its also an opinion.

Not really, as a deity coming forth to claim authorship for the bible would have been pretty newsworthy and would not have gone unnoticed.

Its interesting how many times the current "elected" leader has tried to go around the other branches. He doesn't seem very accountable to me.

Why did you put elected in quotes? If you're referring to President Obama, he was most definitely elected into office, without question. But that aside, all elected officials are accountable to the voters for reelection, at the very least. That the president isn't allowed more than two terms doesn't change that fact.

Everyone has certain rights, and everyone is entitled to their own belief- that much is true. But if voting for one person's rights infringes on someone else's rights, that creates a problem.

You mean like some people wanting to vote on whether or not certain Americans are entitled to the right to marry the person of their choice? I agree, that has created a problem...fortunately, one many state judiciaries have tried to correct.

If gay marriage partners can adopt children, then that right infringes on the children's rights, just like it would if two unmarried people tried to adopt a child or if 2 drug addicts tried to adopt a child.

How does having two loving parents, regardless of gender or marital status, infringe on a child's rights, exactly? I'll grant you that drug addicts might be unsuitable parents, assuming they are not recovering addicts. However, it should be noted that being a drug addict alone, recovering or otherwise does not cause you to lose your parental rights over your own children, adopted or otherwise.

The amount of research is not the issue. Its the quality and transparency of the research that is.

I'm talking about both quality and quantity, both of which point in the same direction.

The issue is taxation and freedom to not go to the doctor.

The only time you're "forced" to go to the doctor is in an emergency situation, where your life may be in danger without treatment. Otherwise, no one's gonna force you to see your doctor.

As to taxation, that's a duty of citizenship.

I think anti-vaxers are silly people, but that's still their right not to get vaccinated if they don't want to.

To an extent....however, there are times when their decision affects others. Already, certain diseases though to be wiped out are making a comeback, due to people choosing not to vaccinate.

At some point, the public good has to be more important than the right to be an uninformed idiot.

Now, if they become a danger to other people, they may have to be quarantined. But the real question is why under the current system one has to pay a fine for not excepting Obamacare.

The idea, put forth by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, is that everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives, and that those who don't have insurance are driving up the costs for those who do when they finally need healthcare. So the Heritage Foundation felt that everyone needed to have skin in the game, so to speak. By requiring everyone have some form of health insurance, it spreads the risk further (which is what insurance is all about) and makes it cheaper overall.

The Heritage Foundation also suggested using private for-profit health insurance carriers to provide health insurance for everyone, because they felt relying on the private sector for healthcare was better than relying on the government to provide health insurance.

And that's what we have now, a conservative, market-driven health care system.

If you don't like this plan, take it up with the Heritage Foundation and the GOP, who first proposed it back in the 1990s.

Promoting the general welfare is definitely debatable in this day in age.

Which is why we debate such things. Liberals are not only in favor of this, we actively support and practice it regularly.

The real weakness of a democracy is when the voters are uneducated or are just idiots, their democracy will collapse.

Then it's in the best interest of society to ensure all citizens are educated, which is why we pay for schools with our tax dollars and require school for all children.

Another idea we liberals love!

But we vote on those rights.

No, we don't. I didn't seek a vote when I chose to get married, why should anyone else?

You are free to vote on rights or vote away rights of others.

No, you're not. Not in the US, anyway, due to the Constitution. Do you know what "inalienable" means?

The issue with gay marriage is, like it or not, it is not illegal to vote away the rights of other people- if its on the ballot. There is no legal crime in not voting to allow same sex marriage.

It may not be a crime, but it is unconstitutional. Check out the 14th Amendment some time.

This is another thing that distinguishes liberals from conservatives: liberals don't favor voting away the constitutional rights of entire segments of the public. We believe in equal protection under the law.

It definitely is part of the basis of the system as a whole because checks and balances are based on the assumption that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is based on the idea of sin.

Nope. It's based on the idea that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, not through some deity.

Or, to put it another way:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.​

No mention of sin anywhere.

That's why its not wise to be in the wedding cake business in this day in age.

Only if you don't wish to serve the public with your service. It's a reality some find hard to accept: people you don't like have the same rights you have.

If I was the head of a church I would make weddings for members only. One can still go to a justice of the peace to get married and bypass churches entirely.

Sure. Religious organizations are well within their rights to practice according to their faith and not necessarily according to the law.

However, private businesses open to the public are not free to deny services to entire segments of the public. The right to serve the public and be paid for your product or service carries the responsibility to actually serve the public, even "those kinds of people" you might not like.

See my reply above

Then see my response to it.

Its forcing them to allow things that their religion doesn't agree with.

One individual's right to practice his or her religion does not include the right to allow or disallow others to live as they choose to. Liberals have fought for decades to uphold the right of all individuals to live as they see fit.

Of course, in my view allowing something is not always the same as condoning it- but if someone thinks allowing it is wrong its their right to vote against it.

Only to a point. It is unconstitutional to try and vote away civil rights for a certain segment of Americans. Many have tried, but they've found out over time that many brave Americans will stand strong against such tyranny.

It's a fight liberals have been, and continue to be, proud to undertake whenever they are called upon to.

-- A2SG, we're funny like that.....

 

[William67]

Not really, as a deity coming forth to claim authorship for the bible would have been pretty newsworthy and would not have gone unnoticed.



Why did you put elected in quotes? If you're referring to President Obama, he was most definitely elected into office, without question. But that aside, all elected officials are accountable to the voters for reelection, at the very least. That the president isn't allowed more than two terms doesn't change that fact.



You mean like some people wanting to vote on whether or not certain Americans are entitled to the right to marry the person of their choice? I agree, that has created a problem...fortunately, one many state judiciaries have tried to correct.



How does having two loving parents, regardless of gender or marital status, infringe on a child's rights, exactly? I'll grant you that drug addicts might be unsuitable parents, assuming they are not recovering addicts. However, it should be noted that being a drug addict alone, recovering or otherwise does not cause you to lose your parental rights over your own children, adopted or otherwise.



I'm talking about both quality and quantity, both of which point in the same direction.



The only time you're "forced" to go to the doctor is in an emergency situation, where your life may be in danger without treatment. Otherwise, no one's gonna force you to see your doctor.

As to taxation, that's a duty of citizenship.



To an extent....however, there are times when their decision affects others. Already, certain diseases though to be wiped out are making a comeback, due to people choosing not to vaccinate.

At some point, the public good has to be more important than the right to be an uninformed idiot.



The idea, put forth by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, is that everyone needs healthcare at some point in their lives, and that those who don't have insurance are driving up the costs for those who do when they finally need healthcare. So the Heritage Foundation felt that everyone needed to have skin in the game, so to speak. By requiring everyone have some form of health insurance, it spreads the risk further (which is what insurance is all about) and makes it cheaper overall.

The Heritage Foundation also suggested using private for-profit health insurance carriers to provide health insurance for everyone, because they felt relying on the private sector for healthcare was better than relying on the government to provide health insurance.

And that's what we have now, a conservative, market-driven health care system.

If you don't like this plan, take it up with the Heritage Foundation and the GOP, who first proposed it back in the 1990s.



Which is why we debate such things. Liberals are not only in favor of this, we actively support and practice it regularly.



Then it's in the best interest of society to ensure all citizens are educated, which is why we pay for schools with our tax dollars and require school for all children.

Another idea we liberals love!



No, we don't. I didn't seek a vote when I chose to get married, why should anyone else?



No, you're not. Not in the US, anyway, due to the Constitution. Do you know what "inalienable" means?



It may not be a crime, but it is unconstitutional. Check out the 14th Amendment some time.

This is another thing that distinguishes liberals from conservatives: liberals don't favor voting away the constitutional rights of entire segments of the public. We believe in equal protection under the law.



Nope. It's based on the idea that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, not through some deity.

Or, to put it another way:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.​

No mention of sin anywhere.



Only if you don't wish to serve the public with your service. It's a reality some find hard to accept: people you don't like have the same rights you have.



Sure. Religious organizations are well within their rights to practice according to their faith and not necessarily according to the law.

However, private businesses open to the public are not free to deny services to entire segments of the public. The right to serve the public and be paid for your product or service carries the responsibility to actually serve the public, even "those kinds of people" you might not like.



Then see my response to it.



One individual's right to practice his or her religion does not include the right to allow or disallow others to live as they choose to. Liberals have fought for decades to uphold the right of all individuals to live as they see fit.



Only to a point. It is unconstitutional to try and vote away civil rights for a certain segment of Americans. Many have tried, but they've found out over time that many brave Americans will stand strong against such tyranny.

It's a fight liberals have been, and continue to be, proud to undertake whenever they are called upon to.

-- A2SG, we're funny like that.....

What part of: Congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. Do you not understand? If you dont understand that, I will break it down for you.

1. Congress can not make a law that creates an "official state religion".
2. Congress shall make no laws concerning the free exercise of religion.

Liberals love the first part but want to completely ignore the second. For Christians, their faith permeates every facet of their lives, including work. I dont work on Sunday. I dont force the people who work for me to work on Sunday.

It is UnConstitutional for the govt to force someone to turn over sermons for "inspection". It is UnConstitutional for the govt to force someone bake a cake for a "gay wedding" if it violates their religious beliefs.

 

[A2SG]

What part of: Congress shall make no laws concerning the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. Do you not understand?

No part of it. I understand it fully.

If you dont understand that, I will break it down for you.

1. Congress can not make a law that creates an "official state religion".
2. Congress shall make no laws concerning the free exercise of religion.

Okay so far.

Liberals love the first part but want to completely ignore the second.

Nope. We love that part too!

For Christians, their faith permeates every facet of their lives, including work. I dont work on Sunday. I dont force the people who work for me to work on Sunday.

And that's your right.

But you don't have the right to force others to follow and not work on Sunday if that's their choice. Nor can you refuse to serve those who work on Sunday if your business serves the public.

It is UnConstitutional for the govt to force someone to turn over sermons for "inspection".

This is true.

It is UnConstitutional for the govt to force someone bake a cake for a "gay wedding" if it violates their religious beliefs.

Also true.

No one forced the baker to open a business that serves the public by baking custom wedding cakes. That was his choice. And that choice comes with certain responsibilities: including the responsibility to serve the public and not discriminate against certain segments of it.

Just like someone can't refuse to serve you if you're a christian, or if you're black, a woman, or even if you choose to work on Sunday.

If your business is open to the public, that means it's open to the public, including those who might be christian, black, women, even those who choose to work on Sundays.

Or gay.

You get to live how you want to, and so do they. It works both ways.

If a baker -- or anyone -- feels they cannot serve the public due to their religion, then they are not forced to open a business that serves the public.

But if they do, they need to understand the responsibilities involved.

-- A2SG, rights often come with responsibilities.....

 

[William67]

No part of it. I understand it fully.



Okay so far.



Nope. We love that part too!



And that's your right.

But you don't have the right to force others to follow and not work on Sunday if that's their choice. Nor can you refuse to serve those who work on Sunday if your business serves the public.



This is true.



Also true.

No one forced the baker to open a business that serves the public by baking custom wedding cakes. That was his choice. And that choice comes with certain responsibilities: including the responsibility to serve the public and not discriminate against certain segments of it.

Just like someone can't refuse to serve you if you're a christian, or if you're black, a woman, or even if you choose to work on Sunday.

If your business is open to the public, that means it's open to the public, including those who might be christian, black, women, even those who choose to work on Sundays.

Or gay.

You get to live how you want to, and so do they. It works both ways.

If a baker -- or anyone -- feels they cannot serve the public due to their religion, then they are not forced to open a business that serves the public.

But if they do, they need to understand the responsibilities involved.

-- A2SG, rights often come with responsibilities.....

Show me in the Bible where being black, or female, is called an abomination? You cant.

However, I can repeatedly show you where it called homosexuality an abomination. I can also show you where Jesus said that a man was to leave his father's house and take unto himself a wife. He said nothing about a man taking unto himself a husband, or a woman taking unto herself a wife. I can also show you where Jesus said that sex outside of marriage is also a sin.

So, with just a few passages, Jesus excludes homosexuals and homosexual marriage.

Again, show me where the Bible says that blacks or females are an abomination.

Homosexuality is not a race or gender! And the US Constitution was never meant to restrict the rights and freedoms of the people. It was meant to restrict the powers of the govt. Equality laws were meant to prevent the govt from discrimination. People have every right to discriminate and we do it all the time. If I like brunettes more than blondes does that make me a bigot? Marriage laws fall under the purview of the state, not the Federal govt.

I know you dont like it, but even being racist is legal. Saying racist things is legal and protected under the Constitution. Just because you own a business that sells to the public does not mean that it is a "public business". A public business is owned by the public. A "sole proprietorship" is owned by an individual or individuals. By not selling to homosexuals, they are not preventing homosexuals from getting married or any other such nonsense. There has been no loss of rights or freedoms, which is what the equality laws are all about.

 

[A2SG]

Show me in the Bible where being black, or female, is called an abomination? You cant.

As soon as you show me where it says the bible now determines US law.

However, I can repeatedly show you where it called homosexuality an abomination. I can also show you where Jesus said that a man was to leave his father's house and take unto himself a wife. He said nothing about a man taking unto himself a husband, or a woman taking unto herself a wife. I can also show you where Jesus said that sex outside of marriage is also a sin.

So, with just a few passages, Jesus excludes homosexuals and homosexual marriage.

So?

Again, show me where the Bible says that blacks or females are an abomination.

Again, as soon as you show me where it says the bible now determines US law.

Homosexuality is not a race or gender!

No, but those who are gay have the same legal, civil rights as every other American, regardless of race or gender. Or sexual orientation.

And the US Constitution was never meant to restrict the rights and freedoms of the people.

Maybe not...though it has in some cases. Not often, though, I grant you that.

It was meant to restrict the powers of the govt. Equality laws were meant to prevent the govt from discrimination.

No, it wasn't. All businesses are affected, not just the government. What this means is that while the government cannot discriminate based on gender, race, etc., neither can businesses that are open to the public. Businesses like lunch counters, say for example.

People have every right to discriminate and we do it all the time. If I like brunettes more than blondes does that make me a bigot?

Nope. But if your business is open to the public and you refuse to serve blondes, you're gonna have a problem.

Marriage laws fall under the purview of the state, not the Federal govt.

True enough. However, the full faith and credit clause applies to every state, as does the 14th Amendment.

I know you dont like it, but even being racist is legal.

Sure. You can't help what you are. But what you do is a different story.

Saying racist things is legal and protected under the Constitution.

To a point.

Just because you own a business that sells to the public does not mean that it is a "public business".

You're talking two different things here. Whether or not your company is owned by shareholders or a single individual doesn't change the fact that if you serve the public, the public has a right to expect service.

A public business is owned by the public. A "sole proprietorship" is owned by an individual or individuals.

None of which has a thing to do with whether or not you serve the public.

By not selling to homosexuals, they are not preventing homosexuals from getting married or any other such nonsense. There has been no loss of rights or freedoms, which is what the equality laws are all about.

No, but if your business is open to the public, you can't deny service to an entire segment of the public.

-- A2SG, not only is it illegal, it's bad business, frankly....