|
Post by Galadon on Nov 24, 2003 20:59:33 GMT -5
I'm conservative in my out look on life, but not repbulican. or basically anything out there right now. As long as it's between to concenting adults, why does it matter. If two men or two women want to get married I see no problem in this. I have know plenty of homosexuals in my time, I don't partisipate in the homosexual life style but that hasn't stopped me from talking to them. Isn't this the same kind of conversation some people had about marage for diffrent races.
I was in the Marine Corps for seven years. The reason we told people not admit their gay was health reason. There were some guys who would rather kill a gay man than talk to him. Of course this is wrong, but why tempt fate knowing you could be killed for it.
I am tried of the double standards this country has when it come to subjects like this. Private people think one way but out in public, "Well of course I thinks it's wrong and should be against the law." Yet the same person doesn't mind watching two women fighting or having sex. This country's public view of life is still stuck in the 19th century.
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 24, 2003 21:05:35 GMT -5
Hussar (would that be abbreviated 'Hussy'? ) I think you missed what I said, or I didn't say it right. You made my point, Hussar. The constitution gives us our rights. Everything else takes them away. But, to answer your question, yes, if you put up signs and/or told them to leave, then they would be legally obliged to do so. In Texas, you could shoot the smurfers . It was just that SSD's statement seemed to imply that he should be completely free from religion, freedom of speech be damned, and I was just trying to make a point via vivid imagery . But nooo, you had to ruin my fun.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on Nov 24, 2003 21:19:55 GMT -5
Reading in the Federalist papers, a book that explains why they put things in the Constitution. This might not be the only reason but it was the main one.
Congress shall respect no establishment of religion.
This was put in there to prevent another church of England, a government supported religion.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 25, 2003 0:57:43 GMT -5
NOw now Wyrmy don't go down that road. Hussar was actually the name of my regiment way back when. It means heavy cavalry. You are right about the No Solicitations thing. In a recent Supreme Court ruling, it was ruled that JW's could approach any house so long as it didn't have a No Soliciting sign. So, now, to avoid having someone come on my property uninvited and give me information that I didn't ask for, I have to prominently and in clear view place an ugly sign that says No Soliciting. That makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 25, 2003 1:15:27 GMT -5
(You were in the armed forces? Neato. I'll have to make you tell me about your days in a tank.) Well, it makes about as much sense as warning labels and the little copyright and trademark symbols all over eveything these days... Besides, unless you want to ban everyone from talking to you uninvited, the only other way to avoid that is to specifically discriminate against certain opinions/beliefs. Not something I would enjoy seeing done, nor would anyone else. If you want, you could make it a very pretty keep out sign...
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 25, 2003 1:24:24 GMT -5
There's a point. Could I actually do that. Put up a sign that says, something to the effect of, "Vaccuum salespeople Okay, but no religious pamphleteers" ? Or, am I being a bigot and I'm going to get slapped with a big old lawsuit for discriminatory practices?
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 25, 2003 1:39:30 GMT -5
I doubt you can be sued just for not letting certain groups pn your property. In theory, I could put up a sign that says "no gays, blacks, Jews, refrigeration allowed." and the only recourse would be that my neighbors would stop talking to me and the occasional brick through my window. But, these days, hurting someone's feelings is grounds for a civil suit...
But, I was talking about blanket legislation, not just signs. If they outlawed bible salsmen and not vaccum salesmen, THAT would be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 25, 2003 1:47:36 GMT -5
That's what the town of Statton Ohio sort of tried to do. They stated that anyone going door to door in the town had to register at the town hall first. There was no charge for administration and all they really did was take your name, address and phone number and issue you with a permit.
The JW's freaked saying it was against their 1st Ammendment rights. It went all the way to the Supreme Court before the judges overturned the town's law.
Personally, I don't think having to get a permit to go door to door was that big a deal. And, it stops people like the two teens in NH who murdered a university professor after stealing his credit cards from his mailbox. What about the government's responsibility to protect the people.
BTW, I'm obviously wrong here since the law was overturned and a similar case in Quebec had the same result. I'm just questioning the results.
|
|
|
Post by Wyrmfire on Nov 25, 2003 1:55:25 GMT -5
Well, registration opens the door for that permit to be denied on any grounds, constitutional or otherwise. When there's a possibilty that you can be denied your right for no real reason, that's a clear violation. What you could do, though (in keeping with tonight's theme of 'law exists to limit') is have a list of predetermined activities that invalidate your right to go door to door. Being a sex offender, things like that. As for that New Hampshire case, that's not door to door at all, that is criminal behavior. They took his credit cards from the mailbox without telling him, and besides, even if they had just gotten his credit card info, you still can't do anything illegal when you are going door to door. If someone is planning to sneak in to your home and kill you, I don't think that having a liscence to tresspass is a big deal. Edit: Wow, this thread has been well and truly hijacked...
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 25, 2003 3:27:16 GMT -5
Heh, a similar thought did occur to me. Something you said earlier about letting courts legislate. Well, really, this is precisely what is being done. The politicians refuse to come down off the fence and make a law one way or another regarding marriage. So, it's up to the courts to do so as more and more couples come forward to press their case. So, instead of having the elected officials make laws, we allow judges to do it for them. They get let off the hook by not having to make a decision one way or another and the laws that people want eventually come in through the backdoor of precedent.
This is precisely what has been done in Canada regarding abortion. They struck abortion from the criminal code in Canada about twenty years ago (possibly more) and since then, no politician has come near the issue with a ten foot pole. So, because it is decriminalized, it is no longer illegal, and people can get abortions in Canada. All without a politician having to grow a backbone. Well done them.
|
|
|
Post by ShonenSenshiDave on Nov 25, 2003 21:12:32 GMT -5
But there's the trick Hussar... they leave it up to the judges, and then piss and moan when a decision they wouldn't openly support is handed down, thereby making them look like they "agree with the people", when in reality they just didn't have a backbone one way or another. Probably the biggest problem with nominating the higher judiciary, IMHO (and before anyone reminds me that we have to actually vote for our state judiciary in some states, the party politics ensure that whoever is nominated gets elected and no one ever loses retention votes!). They get to be the bad guys, and usually for doing what's right... welcome to politics, folks!
And Wyrm, I don't remember the exact citation, but it was one of those darned creche cases from Ohio or Pittsburg...
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Nov 25, 2003 21:27:56 GMT -5
That's what I meant. You just said it better.
|
|