Search results

I'm not just gonna keep going in circles explaining the same shit to you over and over, obstinate stu. How can stating their beliefs be considered intolerant at their own institution? if someone finds them intolerant, they shouldn't be there. Why the fuck is this so hard to understand? they...

I agree Jem.. i have now allowed myself to be dragged into a fight over fucking semantics. Bottom line: the school in that example was completely within its rights to hold that mandatory assembly. A desire to prevent them from doing so is anti 1st Amendment.

Actually that is exactly what the argument boils down to. The RIGHT of the catholic school to state it's belief, especially on its own property. There really isn't a rational argument against this, what they did was well within their rights. taking a page out of the Clinton playbook, you...

No, but my original point was: providing for equality of employment is not a power that the fed govt possesses. establishing equality in the eyes of the law, is. Again AA wasn't right then and isn't right now. but if the argument you're going with is there wasn't legal equality before the...

You think you are protected FROM religious belief at a church stu? lol the Amendment: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or...

Look dude, religious belief is protected under the 1st Amendment. You, me, everyone else has a right to believe whatever we want. You can disagree, you can even call it intolerant if you wish. BUT what you can't do is attempt to prevent someone from saying what they believe, especially not on...

if you can prove that EVERY polygamist is forcing girls to marry them, I'll agree with you. If it is not all, then the individuals who are, should be punished like anyone else would be. Forcing sex or marriage isn't legal last i heard.

wtf are u babbling about? There is a vast difference between disagreeing and making illegal. My position is consistent, yours is not. You and I went over that whole thing before, you're wrong man. They were IN A PRIVATE CATHOLIC SCHOOL, and were obliged to hear the catholic position on...

None of these things are intolerant dude.. except maybe forcing people on welfare to work. They should just be kicked off if they refuse work.

getting cranky? i don't see why they need to use the word marriage, but yes they should be able to get hitched with the same bennies as a married man and women. Again i don't like it personally, it's just fair. I like how your all for gay marriage but polygamy is unconscionable to you...

geez dude, if they are NOT consenting it is illegal. brainwashed is almost impossible to prove, and if real, it is a sign of weakness/stupidity, which cannot be legislated away.. people have a right to be stupid lol. If outsiders witness or suspect actual (physical) abuse then why can't the...

You are making an argument against our present tax code. Which is something that I think we can all agree is insane and needs to be vastly improved or abandoned for something better.

Ok, do you get it now? If they are adults then polygamy = ok. If they are not polygamy = illegal. If you oppose, through LAW, ADULT ONLY polygamy, you are being intolerant.

Why dodge, am I being a dick? If they are not adults then it is already illegal through common law, for good reason. But if they are adults, I don't see why they should be stopped. isn't polygamy illegal anyway?

good question.. I think technically that is intolerant. These are adults entering into private contract with one another, while I don't agree with it personally, the federal government doesn't have any legal grounds to ban it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action It was "coined" by executive order 3 years before the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was expanded into its present even more ridiculous form AFTER. It (AA) wasn't needed then and isn't needed now, the laws are on the books, everyone has equal...

his post is on point, and when you are proposing LAWS that infringe on religious belief, you ARE being intolerant. Now I am not going to go look through your countless anti religion threads but I am sure that i have seen posters on here trying to outlaw certain religious freedoms, not...

Dude what are you taking ricters place today? It is racist, bullshit legislation born from phony guilt by people who didn't even exist when there was slavery, for people who didn't exist when there was slavery. White people don't owe blacks or any other minority anything except equality.

+10 I like it, that right there could turn the tide.

In AMERICA, right now, all people are free. everyone living here deserves and has the same Constitutional rights, unless they forfeit them by violating the rights of another. No minorities deserve any unique treatment, like AA, which they have.