Treason/ the A.C.L.U.

[jgarden]

Another irrelevant post which does not even attempt to address the point

***************************************************************************************************
I'm adding, "If in doubt, declare the opposition's posts as irrelevant to the point" to the list.
***************************************************************************************************
A "liberal" analysis of "conservative" posting strategy:

- Because having sex with a man would be a bad thing, right? (11 words) -rule 7
- Then Nathan Poe's comment didn't make much sense did it? (10 words) -rule 9
- Such as ? (2 words) - rule 1
- Another irrelevant post which does not even attempt to address the point. (12 words) - rule 1, rule 10
***************************************************************************************************
4 posts = 35 words
references provided - 0

 

[MachZer0]

***************************************************************************************************
I'm adding, "If in doubt, declare the opposition's posts as irrelevant to the point" to the list.

Which was indeed appropriate

 

[tulc]

I'm still a little confused how the ACLU supporting peoples rights makes them traitors?
tulc(did anyone explain that yet?)

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm still a little confused how the ACLU supporting peoples rights makes them traitors?
tulc(did anyone explain that yet?)

I believe in the OP's mind, people should have no rights -- therefore, to support such nonexistent rights is treason.

In other threads -- possibly this one as well, SoF has gone on record to say he's against Freedom, because "freedom" includes the freedom to sin. Of course he'd be against America -- the freest nation in existence -- and want to start his own nation, and against the ACLU, which fights for individual freedoms, something SoF's theology is dead-set against.

 

[oldbetang]

I'm still a little confused how the ACLU supporting peoples rights makes them traitors?
tulc(did anyone explain that yet?)

Tell that to the Boy Scouts of America , who , if the ACLU had its way, would have been denied the first amendment right of freedom of association. Try convincing the Truth Bible Club of Kent, Washington that the ACLU are not hypocrites and that they support peoples rights equally.

 

[dlamberth]

Tell that to the Boy Scouts of America , who , if the ACLU had its way, would have been denied the first amendment right of freedom of association. Try convincing the Truth Bible Club of Kent, Washington that the ACLU are not hypocrites and that they support peoples rights equally.

This is confusing to me. The 1st amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You are wrongly using the 1st Amendment. The rights of schools to limit membership based upon association is not a 1st amendment issue.

.

 

[[serious]]

Tell that to the Boy Scouts of America , who , if the ACLU had its way, would have been denied the first amendment right of freedom of association. Try convincing the Truth Bible Club of Kent, Washington that the ACLU are not hypocrites and that they support peoples rights equally.

if by "first amendment rights" you mean the "right to recieve government funding", then yes. If by "first amendment rights" you mean the actual first amendment, no. And if by "support people's rights equally" you mean "give religious clubs not only equal access, but excuse them from the rules that all other clubs are held to" then yes. If you mean actually grant equal access under equally enforced rules, then no.

A bit more on the "truth" case: http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=737

 

[scraparcs]

Are you kidding? Have you seen his C.S.A. thread? Shield hates the Constitution.

People don't have to like the constitution. Clearly it is not such a prized document in his arsenal as it seems to be for Americans generally. It's actually rather nice to see dissent can happen.

 

[kiwimac]

Tell that to the Boy Scouts of America , who , if the ACLU had its way, would have been denied the first amendment right of freedom of association. Try convincing the Truth Bible Club of Kent, Washington that the ACLU are not hypocrites and that they support peoples rights equally.

As far as the Truth Bible Club is concerned, it seems that the courts did not agree and the article linked by serious gives the reasons why;

The Court of Appeals agreed with the ACLU brief, ruling that the school did not violate the federal Equal Access Act or the First Amendment when it refused to give school sponsorship and student government affiliation to Truth.
“On their face, the District’s non-discriminatory policies do not preclude or discriminate against religious speech,” said the court. “Indeed, there are two other Bible clubs at Kentridge that have received ASB (Associated Student Body) recognition, and do not share Truth’s general membership restrictions.”

 

[MachZer0]

Tell that to the Boy Scouts of America , who , if the ACLU had its way, would have been denied the first amendment right of freedom of association. Try convincing the Truth Bible Club of Kent, Washington that the ACLU are not hypocrites and that they support peoples rights equally.

Based on the responses to your post, it appears that the 1st Amendment is only meant to apply to people who follow the liberal agenda

 

[tulc]

Tell that to the Boy Scouts of America , who , if the ACLU had its way, would have been denied the first amendment right of freedom of association.

hmmm they kicked a guy out because he was gay. He was a member since he was 8, and a leader when they gave him the boot. Not because he DID something wrong, they kicked him out because of who he was. I'm sorry how does that make them the good guys and the ACLU the bad guys?

Try convincing the Truth Bible Club of Kent, Washington that the ACLU are not hypocrites and that they support peoples rights equally.

Interesting, never heard of them before, I'll have see what it's about.
tulc(be back in a little bit!)

 

[oldbetang]

This is confusing to me. The 1st amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You are wrongly using the 1st Amendment.

Excuse me, but are you saying that freedom of association is not a 1st amendment right? The Boy Scouts v Dale case and the Curran case in California were both ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts on the basis of their 1st amendment right to freedom of association.

The rights of schools to limit membership based upon association is not a 1st amendment issue.

This point I was making is that the ACLU was hypocritical in supporting the law when it benefited a group it approved of and then turned around asking for the ruling to be overturned when it might benefit one it disapproved of.

 

[MachZer0]

hmmm they kicked a guy out because he was gay. He was a member since he was 8, and a leader when they gave him the boot. Not because he DID something wrong, they kicked him out because of who he was. I'm sorry how does that make them the good guys and the ACLU the bad guys?

Excuse me, but to many people, being homosexual is a bad thing. So now, we have the government in the position of dictating our morality to us?

 

[oldbetang]

if by "first amendment rights" you mean the "right to recieve government funding", then yes. If by "first amendment rights" you mean the actual first amendment, no. And if by "support people's rights equally" you mean "give religious clubs not only equal access, but excuse them from the rules that all other clubs are held to" then yes. If you mean actually grant equal access under equally enforced rules, then no.

Neither the Dale case, nor the Curran one, heard a "government funding" argument.

 

[tulc]

Based on the responses to your post, it appears that the 1st Amendment is only meant to apply to people who follow the liberal agenda

Like Rush Limbaugh
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html
and these guys:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/16767prs20030825.html
or these:
http://www.libertyboard.org/modules...le=article&sid=66&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
tulc(just thought these should be mentioned)

 

[MachZer0]

Like Rush Limbaugh
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html
and these guys:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/16767prs20030825.html
or these:
http://www.libertyboard.org/modules...le=article&sid=66&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
tulc(just thought these should be mentioned)

Maybe you should have mentioned them somewhere else since they weren't 1st amendment cases

 

[oldbetang]

As far as the Truth Bible Club is concerned, it seems that the courts did not agree and the article linked by serious gives the reasons why;

The court was wrong! Not an unusual thing for the Ninth Circuit. The Truth Bible Club was intended to be an association of like-minded individuals. Their right to exist and exclude those who don't share their values is no different than the right of "student clubs promoting tolerance for gay students" to exclude those with expressed views that are contrary to their stated purpose.

 

[tulc]

Excuse me, but to many people, being homosexual is a bad thing. So now, we have the government in the position of dictating our morality to us?

Well as we all know there's always someone somewhere who doesn't like someone else, this is more along the lines of trying to protect people from that dislike. And it would seem that the Courts agreed.
tulc(that Constitution, it's quite the document)

 

[tulc]

Maybe you should have mentioned them somewhere else since they weren't 1st amendment cases

Maybe.
tulc(has had a great fathers day so far!)

 

[oldbetang]

hmmm they kicked a guy out because he was gay. He was a member since he was 8, and a leader when they gave him the boot. Not because he DID something wrong, they kicked him out because of who he was. I'm sorry how does that make them the good guys and the ACLU the bad guys?

The Supreme Court majority went out of its way to state that they were not ruling on the morality of the matter. The ruling stated that the Boy Scouts are protected under the 1st amendment. The ACLU was part of the effort to deny them that constitutional right. That makes them the bad guys.