Are your religious liberties being threatened?

[Spartacus]

When it's appropriate to discuss something in the context of court decisions, I do so. When it's not appropriate, I do not. Unless you've suddenly developed a penchant for mind-reading, do not presume to know what I think.

In this context, it is certainly appropriate to discuss what the Supreme Court has said on the subject of religious liberty. The opinion of a single minister is hardly as important in this circumstance as the Supreme Court's opinions.

[Outis]

In this context, it is certainly appropriate to discuss what the Supreme Court has said on the subject of religious liberty. The opinion of a single minister is hardly as important in this circumstance as the Supreme Court's opinions.

If you feel it is appropriate to discuss them, discuss them. As I am the one who made the post, I believe I am capable of deciding what _I_ feel is appropriate to include in my posts. And I believe I am quite capable to make that decision without your approval.

[Epoetker]

When it's appropriate to discuss something in the context of court decisions, I do so. When it's not appropriate, I do not. Unless you've suddenly developed a penchant for mind-reading, do not presume to know what I think.

I can't read minds, but in my experience, any verbally expressed version of YOU DON'T KNOW ME!!! tends to end in futility, or hilarity. So far, it's looking like that second one.

I feel...encouraged.

[Spartacus]

If you feel it is appropriate to discuss them, discuss them. As I am the one who made the post, I believe I am capable of deciding what _I_ feel is appropriate to include in my posts. And I believe I am quite capable to make that decision without your approval.

Very well. The author of the link you posted is to be ridiculed for employing straw-men with respect to the other side and for neglecting the definition of religious liberty which the Supreme Court has set forth, and you are to be ridiculed for giving even minimal approbation to the author.

[Outis]

Very well. The author of the link you posted is to be ridiculed for employing straw-men with respect to the other side and for neglecting the definition of religious liberty which the Supreme Court has set forth

Are you, in turn, to be ridiculed for confusing a light-weight illustrative post with a substantive argument for a position?

and you are to be ridiculed for giving even minimal approbation to the author.

I will be ridiculed regardless of what support I set forth. That happens when one side of the argument rejects the facts--it's a common method of voicing that rejection.

And I'll be back to our more serious discussion when I can. But for the moment, I'm having fun kicking sacred cows. If your particular sacred cow got kicked, too bad.

[Darth Executor]

Are you, in turn, to be ridiculed for confusing a light-weight illustrative post with a substantive argument for a position?

It's illustrative of the intellectual bankruptcy of the liberals, on that we agree.

[Spartacus]

Are you, in turn, to be ridiculed for confusing a light-weight illustrative post with a substantive argument for a position?

Does my response look substantive, or more or less proportional to the flippancy of the OP?

I will be ridiculed regardless of what support I set forth. That happens when one side of the argument rejects the facts--it's a common method of voicing that rejection.

And I'll be back to our more serious discussion when I can. But for the moment, I'm having fun kicking sacred cows. If your particular sacred cow got kicked, too bad.

The question is not whether you will be ridiculed, it is whether you (or, rather, your arguments) deserve to be ridiculed.

Be careful which cows you kick: some can kick back. I'm far more intellectually prepared to argue about 1st Amendment jurisprudence than about marriage-related law, so watch yourself .

[Outis]

Does my response look substantive, or more or less proportional to the flippancy of the OP?

Yet you chide me for posting flippantly about a flippant post, by saying my post should be less flippant. Seems pretty inconsistent to me.

The question is not whether you will be ridiculed, it is whether you (or, rather, your arguments) deserve to be ridiculed.

For some here, the argument is not the issue. Ridicule will appear merely because of the position I support. Seems to be a common feature on internet forums.

Be careful which cows you kick: some can kick back. I'm far more intellectually prepared to argue about 1st Amendment jurisprudence than about marriage-related law, so watch yourself .

Meh, we may tangle with that at some point. Right now, we've got the one substantive convo going, and that's sufficient.

And sacred cows make the best hamburger anyway.

[Spartacus]

Yet you chide me for posting flippantly about a flippant post, by saying my post should be less flippant. Seems pretty inconsistent to me.

Do you really expect flippancy and consistency to go hand-in-hand?

[Outis]

Do you really expect flippancy and consistency to go hand-in-hand?

Meh, fair cop. Now, go fetch me a shrubbery!

[Psychic Missile]

LOL anti-discrimination laws are already opposed to the free market. You are against religious liberties and are only happy when YOUR view is mandated.

That was easy.

That was the point. He's against the free market and restrictions on the free market. So what does he want?

I'm against systems stacked in favor of liberalism. Right now it's the free market when it comes to persecuting anti-liberals and anti-discrimination laws when it comes to persecuting liberals. I'd even settle for choosing one over the other and applying it consistently, but right now it's your view that is mandated, so obviously I'm not happy.

The free market working isn't persecution. Unless you mean persecution against bad business practices. It's nowhere near my view being mandated. The USA would be completely different.

I've read the article in the OP. It's pure garbage.

You're the one picking the B answers, aren't you?

[Darth Executor]

The free market working isn't persecution. Unless you mean persecution against bad business practices. It's nowhere near my view being mandated. The USA would be completely different.

Anti-discrimination laws aren't free market. They also selectively protect certain people from discrimination. I can't refuse to hire someone for being black. I can, however, refuse to hire them for being "racist".

Naturally I would prefer that anti-discrimination laws simply be abolished but if we're gonna have them they should protect the neo-nazi with a swastika tattooed on his face just as much as they protect women or blacks or gays.

You're the one picking the B answers, aren't you?

I didn't pick any answers at all, why would I participate in a nonsensical quiz?

[Psychic Missile]

Anti-discrimination laws aren't free market. They also selectively protect certain people from discrimination. I can't refuse to hire someone for being black. I can, however, refuse to hire them for being "racist".

Naturally I would prefer that anti-discrimination laws simply be abolished but if we're gonna have them they should protect the neo-nazi with a swastika tattooed on his face just as much as they protect women or blacks or gays.

I didn't say anti-discrimination laws are free market. That makes no sense. When someone isn't hired or is fired because of a non-liberal viewpoint or a business is boycotted because of a non-liberal corporate stance, that's just the free market working. Nobody is being persecuted.

Having a tattoo is a choice. I don't think that should warrant a protected class.

I didn't pick any answers at all, why would I participate in a nonsensical quiz?

It's not really a quiz, it's more a thought exercise highlighting the problem that when a group in power loses its special privileges and is put on equal footing to everyone else, that group sees persecution.

[Darth Xena]

LOL, the Constitution grants privileges for religious liberties. Sorry you hate that so much.

[Juvenal]

LOL, the Constitution grants privileges for religious liberties.

Hardly its only mistake.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Sorry you hate that so much.

It's not as if you mean any of that. You're not sorry, and he's not hating. You're just trying to pump out a reaction. Why are you trolling, Deeds?

As ever, Jesse