DawgTalkers.net
Supreme Court rejects atheists' attempt to scrub 'In God We Trust' off US currency

The Supreme Court rejected an atheist case Monday to remove "In God We Trust," the national motto, from all coins and currency from the Department of Treasury.

Michael Newdow, the same activist attorney who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, lost his case, arguing Congress' mandate to inscribe "In God We Trust" on currency was a government endorsement of religion and a violation of the First Amendment.

Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their "sincere religious belief" that there is no God and turned them into "political outsiders" by placing the phrase "In God We Trust" on their money.

Newdow also tried to silence prayer and any religious references at the inaugurations of President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-money-atheists-god

thumbsup
Step by Step by Step....
When Newdow isn't practicing constitutional law.

So if atheism is a "sincere religious belief", then a systematic rejection of public mentions of God would also be a religious expression, and as such should violate the Constitution.
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
So if atheism is a "sincere religious belief", then a systematic rejection of public mentions of God would also be a religious expression, and as such should violate the Constitution.


Keep in touch bud, Trump may be looking for another Supreme Court Justice down the road. thumbsup
Well, if that is a sincere religious belief, then it should carry no more, and no less Constitutional weight than any other religious expression.

I am not sure how that plays out in the court now, because there is no "non religious" expression, and if no expression is actually a religious expression, then I have no idea how they handle it.

I think I would kick it back to the local, state, and federal authorities.
As an atheist, IMHO this is a non-story being blown into your butts. Most atheist I know couldn't care less about "In God We Trust" being on our money.
Good job Obama thumbsup
They don't have to use cash. Many native tribes refuse to deal with $20s, so why should these guys be special? If you don't like cash, don't use it. You have other options.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
As an atheist, IMHO this is a non-story being blown into your butts. Most atheist I know couldn't care less about "In God We Trust" being on our money.


That's good cuz you just lost, again. thumbsup
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
So if atheism is a "sincere religious belief", then a systematic rejection of public mentions of God would also be a religious expression, and as such should violate the Constitution.


You just don't get it. Atheism is the absence of religious belief.
Interesting angle.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
So if atheism is a "sincere religious belief", then a systematic rejection of public mentions of God would also be a religious expression, and as such should violate the Constitution.


You just don't get it. Atheism is the absence of religious belief.


I just quoted what the lawyer for the atheists stated in his argument.
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
So if atheism is a "sincere religious belief", then a systematic rejection of public mentions of God would also be a religious expression, and as such should violate the Constitution.


You just don't get it. Atheism is the absence of religious belief.


I just quoted what the lawyer for the atheists stated in his argument.
Oops, sorry.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
So if atheism is a "sincere religious belief", then a systematic rejection of public mentions of God would also be a religious expression, and as such should violate the Constitution.


You just don't get it. Atheism is the absence of religious belief.


I just quoted what the lawyer for the atheists stated in his argument.
Oops, sorry.


No problem.

I just found it amazing to finally find a lawyer for an atheist/group who would admit the truth, that rejection of God is a religious expression.
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
So if atheism is a "sincere religious belief", then a systematic rejection of public mentions of God would also be a religious expression, and as such should violate the Constitution.


You just don't get it. Atheism is the absence of religious belief.


I just quoted what the lawyer for the atheists stated in his argument.
Oops, sorry.


No problem.

I just found it amazing to finally find a lawyer for an atheist/group who would admit the truth, that rejection of God is a religious expression.


Ummm, no it's not. I don't 'reject God', I never considered God as factual, how could I reject something I don't believe exists in the first place? It's not even really a choice for me because I never believed there was a God. I did question myself as I witnessed others who believed. I did struggle with rather to believe or not to believe. I did participate in and learn about various religions due to my inner struggle with trying to sort out what I did believe. But never once did I think of God as a literal divine entity.
Quote:

Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their "sincere religious belief" that there is no God
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
Quote:

Newdow argued in his petition to the Supreme Court that because his clients are all atheist individuals or atheist groups, the government violated their "sincere religious belief" that there is no God


IMHO that is a flawed argument from jump.
I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't get upset, and/or see him as an affront to my beliefs when he is plastered all over the place around Christmas time.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, and, in fact, I don't like the fact that attention to the Easter Bunny has a way of blocking out the importance of Easter to a Christian.

However, I am not going to court to sue for the removal of these characters.

If all God is to an atheist is Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or another imaginary character, then why get upset over public mentions of Him?

I think that a lot of atheists doth protest too much, because if God didn't exist, and didn't matter, then neither would public mention of His name.

Just my $0.02 worth.
I don't. That was my point when I said:
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
As an atheist, IMHO this is a non-story being blown into your butts. Most atheist I know couldn't care less about "In God We Trust" being on our money.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
I don't. That was my point when I said:
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
As an atheist, IMHO this is a non-story being blown into your butts. Most atheist I know couldn't care less about "In God We Trust" being on our money.


But many do reject the idea of any public expression of a (especially a Christian) religious belief.
I think that's less about atheism and more about religion in politics.
‘In god we trust” wasn’t added to US currency until 1956. Wasn’t intended to be there by our for fathers but whatever. Some need this representation as a security blanket. So be it. Doesn’t effect me one way or the other.

Actually after thinking about it does effect me slightly. I collect coins. The coins I have without “in god we trust” are usually worth much more than those that have it. Just a fact, that they’re older, rare, and have more silver or copper in them.
thumbsup
I think we should drive religious zealotry from our politics. A few stake burnings should suffice. Obviously I only say this because the alt-right and Trumpian political base closely resemble the american version of the taliban with a big ole dash of fascism and white supremacy to top it off.

Prove me wrong.
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't get upset, and/or see him as an affront to my beliefs when he is plastered all over the place around Christmas time.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, and, in fact, I don't like the fact that attention to the Easter Bunny has a way of blocking out the importance of Easter to a Christian.


That's really no surprise. Christians have always made excuses why it's okay to lie to their kids about pagan customs that have been incorporated in what are supposed to be Christian holidays.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
As an atheist, IMHO this is a non-story being blown into your butts. Most atheist I know couldn't care less about "In God We Trust" being on our money.

Keep up OCD, this is what we do. We take very small, relatively insignificant stories, we give them life, and we use them to perpetuate that things are much bigger than they seem.

I understand that 99% of athiests don't care if God is referenced on government buildings or on the money..

As exhibit B, 3 guys in Boston filing for a permit to have a straight pride parade.. that 99% of straight people don't care about... seems to be all social media can talk about these days..

In other news, Kylie Jenner hosted a "A Handmaid's Tale" themed party in which a bunch of beautiful wealthy women thought it would be fun to dress in the red and white of women who were forced into sexual servitude and conceive children at their masters wishes and drink and dance the night away in joyous merriment....... seems like a fun theme for a party.

What other molehills can we turn into mountains?
I am ok with it.

Just as long as they don't substitute Jesus for God.
Quote:
What other molehills can we turn into mountains?


From the looks of a lot of us old fat guys I'm gonna have to say our boobs.
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Step by Step by Step....


Step by step trump is systematically removing lady liberty from all of our lives.
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't get upset, and/or see him as an affront to my beliefs when he is plastered all over the place around Christmas time.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, and, in fact, I don't like the fact that attention to the Easter Bunny has a way of blocking out the importance of Easter to a Christian.


That's really no surprise. Christians have always made excuses why it's okay to lie to their kids about pagan customs that have been incorporated in what are supposed to be Christian holidays.


That's how Christians got the pagans to convert. They absorbed pagan holidays.
Actually, Christians were so brutally oppressed in the earlier days of Christianity that they celebrated the birth and resurrection of Christ during pagan holidays so that these celebrations would go largely unnoticed. They could gather together without causing any undue notice.
Originally Posted By: ErikInHell

That's how Christians got the pagans to convert. They absorbed pagan holidays.


I think there's a big difference between converting people and joining in with their pagan traditions.
Originally Posted By: ErikInHell
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't get upset, and/or see him as an affront to my beliefs when he is plastered all over the place around Christmas time.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, and, in fact, I don't like the fact that attention to the Easter Bunny has a way of blocking out the importance of Easter to a Christian.


That's really no surprise. Christians have always made excuses why it's okay to lie to their kids about pagan customs that have been incorporated in what are supposed to be Christian holidays.


That's how Christians got the pagans to convert. They absorbed pagan holidays.


Pit has always been confused on this issue. He is against Christmas trees and such but the arrival of Jesus changed the belief one had to be Jewish to become a Christian.

Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent."

That is what is important.

The well-known story of Peter's vision of being invited to kill and eat "unclean" animals comes just before an obvious parallel, where "uncircumcised" men are baptised.

The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.” ...

While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.

Then Peter answered, “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.

Circumcision was no longer necessary.
Kosher foods were no longer necessary.
Christmas trees and many other Gentile things were of no concern.

Spreading the Word that Jesus is the Christ became paramount.
Yeah, following pagan customs is the Christian thing to do. lmao
Atheists cry foul after 18 high school football players get baptized on field

"We request that the district investigate and take the appropriate steps to ensure there will be no further illegal religious events, including team baptisms, during school-sponsored activities," wrote Christopher Line, a FFRF legal fellow. "Coaches and school staff should be instructed that they can neither organize nor participate in religious activities with students while acting in their official capacity."

https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/alabama-football-players-baptized-atheists
Well they're discriminating against Christians because they won't let them baptize people at school. Shame on them! They should always be allowed to use public schools as a place to follow religious customs. I mean everyone who goes to school is a Christian. They should be able to use the football field to lay down their prayers rugs and pray for the Muslim students too, right?
Again, most atheist couldn't care less about what Christians do amongst themselves. More clickbait troll food from Fox.
Quote:
Shame on them! They should always be allowed to use public schools as a place to follow religious customs. I mean everyone who goes to school is a Christian.

They weren't forcing anybody else to get baptized, they weren't forcing anybody else to watch.. tone down the drama just a bit.

As is typical in this type of case... one lonely person had a problem with it..

Meanwhile, a transgender is suing the baker in Colorado who has been sued twice before... because he, again, refused to bake a cake for a transition celebration based on religious reasons.. I'm sure the transgender person sought out this baker to further their point, that they don't just want acceptance, they want to break anybody who disagrees with their choices.

Quote:
They should be able to use the football field to lay down their prayers rugs and pray for the Muslim students too, right?

Nobody should be made to pray FOR anybody else.. but Muslim students are already allowed to pray in school as long as it is not disruptive to other students.. School sponsored prayer is out of bounds... was this baptism school sponsored just because the coach was there?
I’m all for high school kids expressing an interest in religion. And getting baptized is fine.

Getting baptized on the field as a group sounds really hokey.

Very contrived. ("we'll be on the news")

I wonder what’s going on there behind the scenes.
You seem to be trying to compare a privately owned business to a publicly funded school. hmmmm.... From my understanding it was a small town who only had one baker but I'm not sure about that.

Religious customs were being conducted at a school funded by taxpayers. If you can't understand why people may feel this is improper I can't help you.
Quote:
Getting baptized on the field as a group sounds really hokey.


Remember the Moonies with their mass weddings?

This feels eerily similar to me.
Quote:
You seem to be trying to compare a privately owned business to a publicly funded school. hmmmm....

Nope, not at all what I was doing.

Quote:
From my understanding it was a small town who only had one baker but I'm not sure about that.

Lakewood, CO, with a population of 150,000 people and being a suburb that is less than 8 miles from downtown Denver.... I'm pretty sure there were other bakeries available.

Quote:
Religious customs were being conducted at a school funded by taxpayers. If you can't understand why people may feel this is improper I can't help you.

Public schools open to churches all the time, entire religious services are performed in the auditorium or the gym.. every week. Feeling that something is improper and running to some liberal activist group because you know they will make a big deal about it are two different things... I think a lot of things are improper, I don't whine and complain about most of them, especially the ones that have zero impact on my life.
Originally Posted By: YTownBrownsFan
I don't believe in Santa Claus. I don't get upset, and/or see him as an affront to my beliefs when he is plastered all over the place around Christmas time.

I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, and, in fact, I don't like the fact that attention to the Easter Bunny has a way of blocking out the importance of Easter to a Christian.

However, I am not going to court to sue for the removal of these characters.

If all God is to an atheist is Santa, or the Easter Bunny, or another imaginary character, then why get upset over public mentions of Him?

I think that a lot of atheists doth protest too much, because if God didn't exist, and didn't matter, then neither would public mention of His name.

Just my $0.02 worth.


rofl Mmmmm....fictional Santa ... and Easter Bunny would not exist without the belief of Jesus.
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Lakewood, CO, with a population of 150,000 people and being a suburb that is less than 8 miles from downtown Denver.... I'm pretty sure there were other bakeries available.


I'm not sure that's an excuse for someone to be refused service. The old, "just shut up and take it" approach isn't the way a lot of people take things. If so there would be no civil rights, women would have never gotten the right to vote and slavery would still be a thing.

Quote:
Public schools open to churches all the time, entire religious services are performed in the auditorium or the gym.. every week. Feeling that something is improper and running to some liberal activist group because you know they will make a big deal about it are two different things... I think a lot of things are improper, I don't whine and complain about most of them, especially the ones that have zero impact on my life.


I love the way you label it "liberal activist group" when they try to stand up for the separation of church and state. Like there's no such thing as a "conservative activist group" that exists.

Our nation has become stronger, rights for many groups of people have been instituted and restored thanks to these groups you would label as liberal. Or did you mean that as a good thing?
Quote:
The old, "just shut up and take it" approach isn't the way a lot of people take things. If so there would be no civil rights, women would have never gotten the right to vote and slavery would still be a thing.

It's a cake.

Quote:
I love the way you label it "liberal activist group" when they try to stand up for the separation of church and state. Like there's no such thing as a "conservative activist group" that exists.

I said what I said.. anything beyond that which you choose to read into what I said or omitted, that's on you. I'm not going to disclaim every freakin' thing I say.

Quote:
Our nation has become stronger, rights for many groups of people have been instituted and restored thanks to these groups you would label as liberal. Or did you mean that as a good thing?

Some of what they try to do I agree with, some I don't... I also agree with a person being allowed to live according to their religious convictions, especially when it doesn't impact the other person in the slightest... I understand that some folks believe that people of faith should only do that on their own time and leave it at home when they go to work... when, if they knew the first thing about people of faith, would know it doesn't work that way.
Well, he DID chastise me for not commenting on some articles he posted, that I didn't read apparently.
Well obviously the subject matter wasn't something you felt was important enough to read. However, from your above statement it seems you don't have a problem commenting on topics you don't bother reading.
Supreme Court tosses ruling against Oregon bakers who refused cake for gay couple

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a ruling against two Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

The couple, Melissa and Aaron Klein, cited religious beliefs as their reason for not providing services for a gay wedding. This touched off the latest in a series of such cases making headlines in recent years. During the court's last term, justices ruled in favor of a Colorado baker in a similar situation, stating that a state body demonstrated improper hostility toward the baker's religion in finding that he violated a state anti-discrimination law.

On Monday, the Supreme Court sent the Klein case back down to a lower court "for further consideration in light of" their Colorado decision.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...-for-gay-couple
Legalized discrimination.

Murica!
Bro...

Supreme Court sends same-sex wedding cake case back down to lower court

The Supreme Court on Monday said that it was sending another case over a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple down to a lower court for reconsideration.

The justices, in an unsigned order, said that the Court of Appeals for Oregon should reconsider the case after the Supreme Court's narrow ruling last year in favor of a Colorado baker who similarly refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.


Monday's order means that the justices avoid having to rule on a divisive case that pits claims of religious liberty against allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court's order tosses out a 2017 Oregon Court of Appeals opinion that ruled against the baker, Sweetcakes by Melissa, and upheld a $135,000 fine against the business.

The justices last year had narrowly held in favor of the baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, finding in a 7-2 ruling that a Colorado state commission had violated the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution when it penalized the baker for breaking the state’s public accommodations law.

However, the court is also likely to soon face another decision on whether to hear a similar case: The justices last year had sent back a case on whether a Washington state florist had discriminated against a same-sex couple down to a lower court to determine whether the courts had treated the case fairly.

The Washington Supreme Court earlier this month upheld the ruling against the florist, Arlene's Flowers. But the florist, represented by the conservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, has promised to present the case once again to the Supreme Court.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...k-down-to-lower

Fox News hooples gobble that click bait! Nothing about throwing it out! "Throw it out" is like dismissing the case... that didn't happen, not even close.
Dude, that is what my post says too. rolleyes
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Supreme Court tosses ruling against Oregon bakers who refused cake for gay couple

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a ruling against two Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.

The couple, Melissa and Aaron Klein, cited religious beliefs as their reason for not providing services for a gay wedding. This touched off the latest in a series of such cases making headlines in recent years. During the court's last term, justices ruled in favor of a Colorado baker in a similar situation, stating that a state body demonstrated improper hostility toward the baker's religion in finding that he violated a state anti-discrimination law.

On Monday, the Supreme Court sent the Klein case back down to a lower court "for further consideration in light of" their Colorado decision.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...-for-gay-couple


Really? You can't see the difference? lmao
Yea, they threw it out, refused to hear it, sent it back to the lower court to rethink it because of previous decisions make by the Supremes over cake.

Not that hard.
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Yea, they threw it out, refused to hear it, sent it back to the lower court to rethink it because of previous decisions make by the Supremes over cake.

Not that hard.


Polished turds still don't shine.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Yea, they threw it out, refused to hear it, sent it back to the lower court to rethink it because of previous decisions make by the Supremes over cake.

Not that hard.


Polished turds still don't shine.


Stick to the subject and leave Bernie out of this!
yada yada yada

You seem to be the one with the comprehension issues today. Seems other know how to use the english language at a much higher level. Your PeeWee Herman-esque response/comeback/cutdown/bash (whatever that gibberish is) is just more proof of that fact.
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Stick to the subject and leave Bernie out of this!


Defcon 5. You mean like that?
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
Legalized discrimination.

Murica!

I know, you prefer religious discrimination to any other kind.. a lot of people do.
You must be one of those ‘THERES A WAR ON CHRISTMAS’ kinda dudes.

Don’t worry, trump said he fixed that for us.
Originally Posted By: Swish
You must be one of those ‘THERES A WAR ON CHRISTMAS’ kinda dudes.

Don’t worry, trump said he fixed that for us.

Not really.. but I'm a white Christian male.. so I know I should just shut up, I'm not allowed to complain about anything.
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Originally Posted By: Swish
You must be one of those ‘THERES A WAR ON CHRISTMAS’ kinda dudes.

Don’t worry, trump said he fixed that for us.

Not really.. but I'm a white Christian male.. so I know I should just shut up, I'm not allowed to complain about anything.


Now you're getting it! thumbsup tongue
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Originally Posted By: Swish
You must be one of those ‘THERES A WAR ON CHRISTMAS’ kinda dudes.

Don’t worry, trump said he fixed that for us.

Not really.. but I'm a white Christian male.. so I know I should just shut up, I'm not allowed to complain about anything.


not really.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Originally Posted By: Swish
You must be one of those ‘THERES A WAR ON CHRISTMAS’ kinda dudes.

Don’t worry, trump said he fixed that for us.

Not really.. but I'm a white Christian male.. so I know I should just shut up, I'm not allowed to complain about anything.


Now you're getting it! thumbsup tongue


Sorry but I got the memo and used it as toilet paper.
jc…..

idk, but this seems awfully petty to me....The financial instrument that you use to buy and sell goods and services, and grants you unparalleled convenience at the marketplace, this instrument has a phrase on it that makes you uncomfortable....or that you don't agree with......well....if its that big a deal, then go cashless and just use plastic.....

Getting all litigious, trying to remove a few words.....I mean, how can it possibly be so discontenting to seek the almighty dollar with the words on it, that you make it your added duty to try and scrub them off at a systemic level....

Either you have way, way, way too much time on your hands.....or you are one of the pettiest people on planet earth to get your knickers all bunched up over a phrase that you don't even put any stock into anyway.....

What a bunch of maroons....another example of how stupid people can be....
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Originally Posted By: Swish
You must be one of those ‘THERES A WAR ON CHRISTMAS’ kinda dudes.

Don’t worry, trump said he fixed that for us.

Not really.. but I'm a white Christian male.. so I know I should just shut up, I'm not allowed to complain about anything.


You always have my ears thumbsup
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
Legalized discrimination.

Murica!

I know, you prefer religious discrimination to any other kind.. a lot of people do.


You either are open to the "public" and serve the "public" or you don't. There's a difference in believing what you believe and discriminating against others based on your beliefs.

Maybe they should make their business a private entity and only serve approved members. Because discriminating against gay people and using religion as an excuse to do so is weak. However, watching some people making excuses for it is expected.

They've made those same excuses to exclude serving people of different races, mixed marriages, and everyone else who is different than themselves. This is just an extension of that. So far they're getting away with it. But they got away with those other things before too.
Quote:
Maybe they should make their business a private entity and only serve approved members.

It is a private business... and it does want to serve folks as long as what they are asking for doesn't violate their religious convictions... so that is literally what they are trying to do.

Quote:
Because discriminating against gay people and using religion as an excuse to do so is weak.

Says you.. other people have different and stronger religious beliefs than you do. And this transgender person probably drove by a number of bakeries to get to this one just to prove their point...

See, I wouldn't go into a Muslim or Jewish bakery and ask for a "Praise Jesus" cake.. because I'm not a d*ck, like these people.
So now it's a conspiracy theory? What about Sandy Hook?

How did they know these people were Christian? Is it on their sign?

You see, people fight discrimination where they find it.

When segregation was still alive and well in the south, the answer wasn't to move north. It was to right a wrong where you find it.

Just think, this same bakery has probably baked cakes for convicted rapists and murderers too. They just didn't bother to ask them what sins they had committed. The answer? "Yeah, but they didn't know!"
Quote:
So now it's a conspiracy theory? What about Sandy Hook?

No, it's not a theory, unless you believe that a transgender person just coincidentally walked into this bakery without knowledge that they had already been sued twice for refusing to bake a cake for a celebration that was against their religious beliefs...... and Sandy Hook has nothing to do with it.

Quote:
How did they know these people were Christian? Is it on their sign?

Oh, I don't know... maybe as members of the LGBTQ community, I make the assumption that they don't live under a rock.

Quote:
You see, people fight discrimination where they find it.

And some people go out of their way to find it....

Quote:
When segregation was still alive and well in the south, the answer wasn't to move north. It was to right a wrong where you find it.

This isn't a wrong, it's a cake.. that they could get anywhere, many other places that would love to sell them a cake... and they chose the one guy, most famous in all the land, for NOT wanting to make that cake... yea, it's a conspiracy theory... what are the odds?

Quote:
Just think, this same bakery has probably baked cakes for convicted rapists and murderers too. They just didn't bother to ask them what sins they had committed. The answer? "Yeah, but they didn't know!"

Maybe, but they didn't bake cakes celebrating their rapes and murders... Every person who has walked through their door is, in one way or another, a sinner..... and they will bake each and every one of them a cake.. unless they know it's to celebrate that sin... I'm sure if the transgender person came in looking for a cake for their kids kindergarten graduation party, they would make it without question....
So it's not a sin to bake a cake. It's not a sin to put names on a cake. It's only a sin if the couple is gay? That's a pretty far fetched, far reaching rationalization to discriminate.

And yes, discrimination based on sexual orientation is a wrong.

You see, there are republican states that are making laws against abortion they know go against the SCOTUS ruling of Roe vs Wade. They know these laws are currently illegal. They do this and nobody from the right say a word about breaking the law. So it's fine for Conservatives to go out and do controversial things even in making laws they know will end up in court. But if a gay person goes out and looks for a method to bring it to court over something a Christian sees as controversial, suddenly it's an issue to you?

Then they uphold discriminating against gay people and treating them differently. So it seems whether something is legal, whether it discriminates against others makes no difference.

As log as they use the excuse of religious freedom the rest of the nation should just let them treat others as they wish and ignore the laws.
Quote:
So it's not a sin to bake a cake.

Correct

Quote:
It's not a sin to put names on a cake.

Correct

Quote:
It's only a sin if the couple is gay?

According to this guy's religious beliefs, correct

Quote:
That's a pretty far fetched, far reaching rationalization to discriminate.

No, it's really not. You have tried to stretch it and twist it and try to make it seem totally illogical and stupid.. but to a person of faith (and I won't judge where this guy is in his faith) but I can understand why it makes perfect sense to him...

Quote:
As log as they use the excuse of religious freedom the rest of the nation should just let them treat others as they wish and ignore the laws.

I'm sorry you view somebody trying to adhere to their religious convictions as "using it as an excuse". Some people actually have religious convictions that don't waffle, conform, or accept everything society has deemed acceptable and they want to opt out from participating in those things... and to the extent that it is practical and safe, they should be allowed to. And for the record, religious liberty is also a part of "the law" that you keep citing...
It's odd that people have always used religion as a reason to discriminate. They did the exact same thing with race. Even to uphold slavery. People stood behind their Bible to excuse that too.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made...m=.14fe4c6b7e11

http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/publicrigh...s-not-old-news/

https://thinkprogress.org/when-religious...a-67bc973c4042/

But according to the logic you seem to be using, racial discrimination must have been fine as well. Because you know, religion and all.

Now let's get back to another point we seemed to disagree on. You claim this bakery was targeted. And for all I know, you may be right. My point was you fight discrimination where you find it.

Maybe since Rosa Parks knew she wasn't allowed to sit in the front of the bus, she shouldn't have. I mean she knew the rules. But she chose to confront discrimination where she found it.

The "Greensboro Four", according to your logic, should never have been sitting at that Woolworth lunch counter. I mean they knew they didn't serve black people when they went in there. They knew they could have eaten somewhere else with no problem.

So Rosa Parks targeted the transit authority and the "Greensboro Four" targeted Woolworth. And it happened over and over again in the south. I mean why in the hell did they try to drink at the "Whites only" drinking fountains!? The nerve of those people.

And people used the bible as a weapon to discriminate against them too.
Quote:
It's odd that people have always used religion as a reason to discriminate. They did the exact same thing with race. Even to uphold slavery. People stood behind their Bible to excuse that too.

People have misused the Bible for centuries, I'm not going to say they haven't.. but just because people have misused the Bible to defend bad behavior, doesn't mean every time somebody stands on their convictions, that they are wrong.

Quote:
You claim this bakery was targeted. And for all I know, you may be right.

The woman in question was an LGBTQ activist ATTORNEY.. you can stop waffling on whether she knew what was going to happen when she walked in there or not.

Quote:
Maybe since Rosa Parks knew she wasn't allowed to sit in the front of the bus, she shouldn't have. I mean she knew the rules. But she chose to confront discrimination where she found it.

The "Greensboro Four", according to your logic, should never have been sitting at that Woolworth lunch counter. I mean they knew they didn't serve black people when they went in there. They knew they could have eaten somewhere else with no problem.

So Rosa Parks targeted the transit authority and the "Greensboro Four" targeted Woolworth. And it happened over and over again in the south. I mean why in the hell did they try to drink at the "Whites only" drinking fountains!? The nerve of those people.

Do you think that fits with my logic, because you have said it numerous times? Is that how you believe that I think? Because this conversation, nor any conversation with you, will continue until you answer that question.
I don't believe you think this way. My point is quite valid however. Religion has been used as an excuse to treat people who live, believe and even look different than themselves. It's been used as a tool. Most of those who wore white robes not so long ago, and even now are self proclaimed Christians.

This is an example of people searching out where discrimination exists and fighting against it where they find it. Your example was that this person could have gone to a different bakery where they would have been served instead of looking for a fight by going somewhere that they would not be served. I gave you examples of other groups doing the exact same thing.

I don't really believe you see the comparison though. I'm not sure you understand how it would feel or how wrong it is to treat people differently because you choose to have a reason to do so.

In both of these cases, the Bible was the grounds for such treatment. One of the problems is that some people still feel this way about race. Interracial marriage was still illegal in southern states until a 1967 court ruling.

Religion is a wonderful thing for those who find the use for it. I've seen it do a lot of people a lot of good. But the law has shown time and time again you can not use your religion as a weapon to discriminate against others. And this will end no differently.

It won't be so long in the future until our nation will look back on this and see it in the same light as segregation and discrimination against women.
While I understand some of what you are saying, you and a few others on here were always slippery slope types when it came to gay marriage. Well, guess what? You have that same issue here. Where do you draw the line on businesses that serve the public? Which religions get to decide who is served and who isn’t? There are some pretty off the wall folks out there who will take a stance and call it a religious belief. As long as you are okay with everyone being able to to refuse service to anyone that they religiously find icky, then fine.
Would you be fine going into a muslim restaurant, and demanding they serve you bacon? And if they don't, you sue them?

On a side note, my son is getting married in October. Pretty sure he's smart enough to not get a cake from a bakery that won't make it for them.
Originally Posted By: archbolddawg
Would you be fine going into a muslim restaurant, and demanding they serve you bacon? And if they don't, you sue them?

On a side note, my son is getting married in October. Pretty sure he's smart enough to not get a cake from a bakery that won't make it for them.


Not an attack arch, just asking: Don't you find it sad that in 2019 he has to be 'smart enough' to avoid the hatred and bigotry? I do and I see nothing Christian or otherwise justifiable about it.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: archbolddawg
Would you be fine going into a muslim restaurant, and demanding they serve you bacon? And if they don't, you sue them?

On a side note, my son is getting married in October. Pretty sure he's smart enough to not get a cake from a bakery that won't make it for them.


Not an attack arch, just asking: Don't you find it sad that in 2019 he has to be 'smart enough' to avoid the hatred and bigotry? I do and I see nothing Christian or otherwise justified about it.


Really, because in your opinion your hate and bigotry about Freddie Kitchens was posted for all to see.

Your credibility when it comes to hate and bigotry is nil.
Originally Posted By: archbolddawg
Would you be fine going into a muslim restaurant, and demanding they serve you bacon? And if they don't, you sue them?

On a side note, my son is getting married in October. Pretty sure he's smart enough to not get a cake from a bakery that won't make it for them.



I asked a question regarding where people draw the line. Pretty sure that restaurant wouldn’t serve bacon at all, don’t you think? Don’t act like I’m the person demanding anything. I’m not interested in your silly, snarky questions.
No, I don't. I wouldn't find it said if I went to a restaurant where they didn't serve what I wanted, either.

Went to a local, good home cooking restaurant about 10 years ago. 15 of us. Slow time of day. Waitress said we could move 3 tables together. We did.

Owner came out and bitched about it. We ate, and my mom and dad haven't been back, and I've been there twice, with that though always in my head: They wanted our business THEIR way.

Should I have, or my parents, sued them? No. Shut up, and take your business elsewhere.
Originally Posted By: EveDawg
Really, because in your opinion your hate and bigotry about Freddie Kitchens was posted for all to see.

Your credibility when it comes to hate and bigotry is nil.


An unrelated topic that has nothing to do with my post above. You just want to attack me for the sake of attacking me. He sounded like a hick the day I said that. A backwoods hick who had no business being made HC of the Browns. He's grown on me since, but he still has to prove himself as a HC.

You're butt sore over my feelings about how he presented himself 'in my opinion' and the fact that I spoke up. Well, I don't care how that made you feel or how you took it. And I don't think a white hillbilly calling a white southerner a hick is in any way, shape, or form bigotry OR hate. So go get a life.
So, he sounded like a 'hick' to you, and that was enough to judge him on?

Got it. Thanks for admitting it.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: EveDawg
Really, because in your opinion your hate and bigotry about Freddie Kitchens was posted for all to see.

Your credibility when it comes to hate and bigotry is nil.


An unrelated topic that has nothing to do with my post above. You just want to attack me for the sake of attacking me. He sounded like a hick the day I said that. A backwoods hick who had no business being made HC of the Browns. He's grown on me since, but he still has to prove himself as a HC.

You're butt sore over my feelings about how he presented himself 'in my opinion' and the fact that I spoke up. well, I don't care how that made you feel or how you took it. And I don't think a white hillbilly calling a white southerner a hick is in anyway shape or form bigotry OR hate. So go get a life.



Insert black person in your narrative above.

And then go tell us some more about how youre not a bigot.
Originally Posted By: archbolddawg
So, he sounded like a 'hick' to you, and that was enough to judge him on?

Got it. Thanks for admitting it.


Yes he did and and I didn't judge him, just voiced that it concerned me. Not a bit ashamed of it. And not playing into your little BS.
Originally Posted By: EveDawg
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: EveDawg
Really, because in your opinion your hate and bigotry about Freddie Kitchens was posted for all to see.

Your credibility when it comes to hate and bigotry is nil.


An unrelated topic that has nothing to do with my post above. You just want to attack me for the sake of attacking me. He sounded like a hick the day I said that. A backwoods hick who had no business being made HC of the Browns. He's grown on me since, but he still has to prove himself as a HC.

You're butt sore over my feelings about how he presented himself 'in my opinion' and the fact that I spoke up. well, I don't care how that made you feel or how you took it. And I don't think a white hillbilly calling a white southerner a hick is in anyway shape or form bigotry OR hate. So go get a life.



Insert black person in your narrative above.

And then go tell us some more about how youre not a bigot.



What I said was not at all racial. But you keep trying to make it racial. When did southern hick become a race? You sound foolish.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: archbolddawg
So, he sounded like a 'hick' to you, and that was enough to judge him on?

Got it. Thanks for admitting it.


Yes he did and and I didn't judge him, just voiced that it concerned me. Not a bit ashamed of it. And not playing into your little BS.


Dude, you already judged him by saying he sounded like a hick. And you proved yourself to be two faced by attempting to reply that he grew on you.

Bigot much?
j/c:

I haven't followed this thread and just read the last 10 posts or so. Thus, I may be way off base....but, that won't stop me from opening my big mouth anyway.

1. I would not refuse to serve or patronize any business, establishment, etc due to a person's sexual, cultural, religious, etc persuasion.

2. If someone did not want to hire me or serve me because of the same criteria.....I would gladly take my business elsewhere because no way would I want to work for or give money to a bigot.

Conclusion: It's sad that we live in a world that is clinging to championing differences instead of us simply accepting our differences as a vessel to make this world a more interesting place to live.

Disclaimer: The only caveat I would add to this is I have no problem admitting that would not support militant groups that preach hate and want to hurt others who are not like them. I don't care what "side" they represent. I have little tolerance for folks who want to hurt others.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: EveDawg
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: EveDawg
Really, because in your opinion your hate and bigotry about Freddie Kitchens was posted for all to see.

Your credibility when it comes to hate and bigotry is nil.


An unrelated topic that has nothing to do with my post above. You just want to attack me for the sake of attacking me. He sounded like a hick the day I said that. A backwoods hick who had no business being made HC of the Browns. He's grown on me since, but he still has to prove himself as a HC.

You're butt sore over my feelings about how he presented himself 'in my opinion' and the fact that I spoke up. well, I don't care how that made you feel or how you took it. And I don't think a white hillbilly calling a white southerner a hick is in anyway shape or form bigotry OR hate. So go get a life.



Insert black person in your narrative above.

And then go tell us some more about how youre not a bigot.



What I said was not at all racial. But you keep trying to make it racial. When did southern hick become a race? You sound foolish.


The foolish one is not me. Take your blinders off.
Nah, you sound foolish.
hick noun
\ ˈhik \
Definition of hick (Entry 1 of 2)
: an unsophisticated provincial person

hick adjective
Definition of hick (Entry 2 of 2)
: UNSOPHISTICATED, PROVINCIAL

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hick


Read a book once in a while.
Whoops.......I was writing my post while the argument between Old, Eve, and arch was going on. My post had nothing to do w/that spat.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
hick noun
\ ˈhik \
Definition of hick (Entry 1 of 2)
: an unsophisticated provincial person

hick adjective
Definition of hick (Entry 2 of 2)
: UNSOPHISTICATED, PROVINCIAL

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hick


Read a book once in a while.


So, biggoted slurs are ok to you?

I'm sure there are some in the dictionary about other races and genders as well.

Got it.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
hick noun
\ ˈhik \
Definition of hick (Entry 1 of 2)
: an unsophisticated provincial person

hick adjective
Definition of hick (Entry 2 of 2)
: UNSOPHISTICATED, PROVINCIAL

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hick


Read a book once in a while.

Arch,

How does that description of my initial impression of him make me a bigot? You are both just attacking me to instigate a ban.

A guy like rocky comes in here two days ago and says that socialism only works in Vermont because the population is mostly white and white people care about the greater good... I saw nothing from you.

Eve gets a little juiced up every now and then and drags this crap out of her closet of misfit BS and now you want me to admit I'm some kind of bigot? Arch I took up for you the other day when you were trolled after admitting you had a gay son, yet I'm a bigot? You two are both just ridiculous to the nth degree.
I'm just giving you crap. Its like bigots talking about bigots make me roll my eyes.

And I'm in a good mood with nothing to research at the moment.

Nobody is trying to get you banned. But we will call you on it.
Originally Posted By: EveDawg
I'm just giving you crap. Its like bigots talking about bigots make me roll my eyes.

And I'm in a good mood with nothing to research at the moment.


Stop. tongue

I still love you, but you know what you are...
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Originally Posted By: EveDawg
I'm just giving you crap. Its like bigots talking about bigots make me roll my eyes.

And I'm in a good mood with nothing to research at the moment.


Stop. tongue

I still love you, but you know what you are...


I have a reason to celebrate. I solved a problem that plagued me for the last six months that was stressing me out. And even Googles stupid core update that tanked some of my keywords couldnt ruin it.
Bummer on the keywords. Been there.
Well, Googles update hosed a lot of sites. Big sites.


So either they will roll it back, or someone will solve the algorithm.

And everybody updates accordingly.

Not too worried about that one. Yet lol
Originally Posted By: EveDawg
Well, Googles update hosed a lot of sites. Big sites.


So either they will roll it back, or someone will solve the algorithm.

And everybody updates accordingly.

Not too worried about that one. Yet lol


Not dealing with SEO much these days so I wouldn't know. But I got hit hard back in the days of google panda. Crushed affiliate marketing for a while.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Arch I took up for you the other day when you were trolled after admitting you had a gay son, yet I'm a bigot? You two are both just ridiculous to the nth degree.


You 'took up" for me? Thanks, but I don't need you doing that. Doesn't change anything. People want to accept? Great. People don't want to? Great. Changes nothing.

I've never found that telling the truth is something to be ashamed of, or lauded for.
Originally Posted By: archbolddawg
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
Arch I took up for you the other day when you were trolled after admitting you had a gay son, yet I'm a bigot? You two are both just ridiculous to the nth degree.


You 'took up" for me? Thanks, but I don't need you doing that. Doesn't change anything. People want to accept? Great. People don't want to? Great. Changes nothing.

I've never found that telling the truth is something to be ashamed of, or lauded for.
Hey I'm all for going at each other in here over our politics and all but family is off limits IMO. So yes I did say something when I saw it and would do it again. But don't worry you can still attack me at will, I don't feel like you owe me for doing what was right or anything. So please do continue with your gotcha moment hunting.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
hick noun
\ ˈhik \
Definition of hick (Entry 1 of 2)
: an unsophisticated provincial person

hick adjective
Definition of hick (Entry 2 of 2)
: UNSOPHISTICATED, PROVINCIAL



Woohoo I'm a hick cool

Originally Posted By: GMdawg
Quote:
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
hick noun
\ ˈhik \
Definition of hick (Entry 1 of 2)
: an unsophisticated provincial person

hick adjective
Definition of hick (Entry 2 of 2)
: UNSOPHISTICATED, PROVINCIAL



Woohoo I'm a hick cool


Duh ... lol. Wear it like a badge of honor bro. thumbsup
Originally Posted By: archbolddawg
No, I don't. I wouldn't find it said if I went to a restaurant where they didn't serve what I wanted, either.


Bacon isn't on the menu at a Muslim restaurant. Cake is on the menu at a bakery. Nobody asked a bakery to serve them bacon.

Quote:
Went to a local, good home cooking restaurant about 10 years ago. 15 of us. Slow time of day. Waitress said we could move 3 tables together. We did.

Owner came out and bitched about it. We ate, and my mom and dad haven't been back, and I've been there twice, with that though always in my head: They wanted our business THEIR way.

Should I have, or my parents, sued them? No. Shut up, and take your business elsewhere.


Yet they didn't refuse you service, did they?
Quote:
Would you be fine going into a muslim restaurant, and demanding they serve you bacon? And if they don't, you sue them?

Arch, this is not the nature of the fight. Now if the restaurant served bacon, but wouldn't serve it to you for some reason, that is the nature of the fight. Nobody would demand that a restaurant that doesn't serve bacon be forced to serve bacon... but if you are going to serve it, you have to serve it to everybody.

So I understand the nature of the fight.
Quote:
While I understand some of what you are saying, you and a few others on here were always slippery slope types when it came to gay marriage.

I'm a slippery slope person about a lot of things, gay marriage isn't really one of them any more.. thanks in large part to you.

As for the rest of the questions you asked, I don't have a great answer for all of them.. Generally I have stated that anybody who has responsibility for health and safety should not be given religious exemption...

For private businesses I find it to be far more complicated... on one hand, I believe that we have come far enough that if a bakery doesn't want to serve cakes for gay events, the market will fill that void and the market will decide which business gets to be successful and which doesn't.

I also understand that some folks might have some pretty bizarre stipulations in the name of their religion... so let the market determine if people are willing to continue to do business with them...
Quote:
Don't you find it sad that in 2019 he has to be 'smart enough' to avoid the hatred and bigotry?

I find it sad that in every instance where somebody wants to try to live into their religious convictions, that you immediately assign the label of hateful bigot on that person.. shows a genuine lack of tolerance and understanding by you as an individual...
It may not be on purpose, but the end result is the same in how it impacts those it's being done to.

Supreme Court rules Peace Cross war memorial can stand

By Ronn Blitzer

Fox News


Supreme Court says Peace Cross war memorial can stay

The Supreme Court has ruled that a Peace Cross war memorial on public land outside Washington, D.C., can stand; Shannon Bream reports on the 7-2 decision.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Peace Cross war memorial on public land outside Washington, D.C., can stand, determining in a 7-2 decision that it does not violate the Constitution.

Residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland and the American Humanist Association (AHA) had sued to have the cross taken down, and the American Legion, whose symbol is also on the memorial, intervened to defend it. While the residents and AHA claimed that a cross memorial on public land violated the Constitution, the Court determined that factors, including the history of the memorial, support the idea that it is not religious in nature.



“For nearly a century, the Bladensburg Cross has expressed the community’s grief at the loss of the young men who perished, its thanks for their sacrifice, and its dedication to the ideals for which they fought,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s opinion. Alito noted that while this particular cross does not serve a religious purpose, removing it because it is a cross would be a religiously charged action.

“It has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of ‘a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions,’” he wrote, quoting Justice Breyer’s concurrence in the 2005 decision in Van Orden v. Perry.

The court's decision reverses the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that the cross was unconstitutional.

The 7-2 majority on Thursday cited the structure's historical nature in its narrowly drawn decision, saying the Latin cross design reflected the nationwide trend at the time it was erected to honor war dead with community monuments. The cross was associated with World War I, and the Court noted that the U.S. used it in military honors, such as the Distinguished Service Cross in 1918 and Navy Cross in 1919.

The Bladensburg Peace Cross, as it is known, sits in a traffic circle in the Washington suburbs to honor 49 local World War I soldiers who died in battle overseas.

Its supporters, including the Trump administration, said it was created solely to honor those heroes and is secular in nature. Opponents called it an impermissible overlap of church and state, since it is controlled and cared for by a Maryland parks commission.

The Court noted that while the cross has its roots in Christianity, it currently appears contexts that are “indisputably secular,” such as trademarks for Blue Cross Blue Shield, Bayer Group, and certain products from Johnson & Johnson.

The Court also made a distinction between keeping established monuments with religious symbols, like the Peace Cross, and erecting new ones, stating, "Familiarity itself can become a reason for preservation," and, "The passage of time gives rise to a strong presumption of constitutionality."

Even AHA recognized that cross memorials may be permissible in some cases, like certain World War I Latin crosses in Arlington National Cemetery. While AHA claimed that those crosses are different because they are in a cemetery and are more associated with individual soldiers, the Court said that does not make a difference, as memorials serve the same purpose as gravestones for many grieving families.

Ultimately, the Court determined that despite the religious significance of crosses in general, this particular memorial does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even though public funds are used for its upkeep.

"[T]there is no evidence of discriminatory intent in the selection of the design of the memorial or the decision of a Maryland commission to maintain it," the Court said. "The Religion Clauses of the Constitution aim to foster a society in which people of all beliefs can live together harmoniously, and the presence of the Bladensburg Cross on the land where it has stood for so many years is fully consistent with that aim."



Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took issue with the notion that a cross could be secularized just because it serves as a war memorial.

"Just as a Star of David is not suitable to honor Christians who died serving their country, so a cross is not suitable to honor those of other faiths who died defending their nation," she wrote in a dissenting opinion, where she was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The dissent claimed that by having the Peace Cross on a public highway, the government "elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion."
Murica! We will only allow Christians to be honored!
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
Murica! We will only allow Christians to be honored!

Your open hostility toward Christianity is becoming pretty predictable.....
Actually it's more about how Christianity is used as a weapon. In this case it's about the constitution. Religious freedom. If one religion is represented in a public place, all religions should be represented in a public place. If not, no religion should be should be represented in a public place.

Sometimes people wish to perceive honoring the constitution as hostility. Sometimes people perceive equality for everyone as hostility. I understand that if you are a Christian, you may have a preconceived bias as to your opinion of what is and what is not hostility. It's much easier to put your personal beliefs in front of others who do not share those same beliefs.

I myself am a Christian. But I've never seen using my beliefs in a way to treat others as inferior or unworthy who do not share my beliefs. Or to refuse to be humane and kind to them. I've also never tried to use my beliefs to claim my beliefs are more important or more worthy of recognition than the belief of others.

Others feel differently than that and that's fine. Bottom line is it's not Christianity I have an issue with. It's the way some people act and feel that are Christians I take issue with.

In a nation of laws and equal religious liberties, it seems quite foreign to me for anyone to think their religious symbols and religious beliefs are somehow a compass that all citizens must bow to. According to you, I guess that doesn't make me a very good Christian. My view is quite different.
Quote:
I myself am a Christian. But I've never seen using my beliefs in a way to treat others as inferior or unworthy who do not share my beliefs.

Is that what you think the folks who erected this over 100 years ago to honor their fallen family members were doing? Are you that [censored] stupid?
I thought you promoted civil discord and healthy debate? So much for that idea huh? Maybe I'm not the one who's [censored] stupid?

No, I think we've come a long way in the past 100 years and it's time we act like that rather than letting those who lived over 100 years ago dictate what's proper now. I guess we could go back to the time before civil rights and Jim Crow laws though.

Is that what MAGA means?
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Atheists cry foul after 18 high school football players get baptized on field

"We request that the district investigate and take the appropriate steps to ensure there will be no further illegal religious events, including team baptisms, during school-sponsored activities," wrote Christopher Line, a FFRF legal fellow. "Coaches and school staff should be instructed that they can neither organize nor participate in religious activities with students while acting in their official capacity."

https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/alabama-football-players-baptized-atheists


Sounds like another group of HS kids wanting some national coverage and controversial attention. Typical.

Imagine 18 Muslims students praying in unity bowing toward Mecca during school activities. Yeah, that would go over well right?
*Raising my hand* um excuse me where does it say this was done at a "School Sponsored activity" ? The article says the coaches " oversaw 18 football players get baptized near the field" it was done on a late Thursday afternoon, so School was already out. IF it was done on their own time and was not sponsored by the school then I don't see any problem.
just layout a couple dozen prayer rugs and Qurans on a football field and snap some pics to post on FB... comments will be very accepting I'm sure rolleyes
Speaking just for myself. If it's done after hours and it's not school sponsored then let them put down as many rugs as they want, and pray away. thumbsup
Originally Posted By: GMdawg
Speaking just for myself. If it's done after hours and it's not school sponsored then let them put down as many rugs as they want, and pray away. thumbsup


A pic of muslims praying on a HS football field would be a viral hit on FB.
BTW the Kids were baptised NEAR the field not on it.
I don't really care GM, none of it bothers me. I've never held religion against anyone who is practicing it in a private way. These kids didn't drag anyone out there and force them to join or watch. They were doing what they wanted without hurting anyone else, so it's no big deal at all IMO.
Originally Posted By: GMdawg
Speaking just for myself. If it's done after hours and it's not school sponsored then let them put down as many rugs as they want, and pray away. thumbsup


Give it up pal...Public School property with public school paid coaches is a public school sponsored activity.
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
I don't really care GM, none of it bothers me. I've never held religion against anyone who is practicing it in a private way. These kids didn't drag anyone out there and force them to join or watch. They were doing what they wanted without hurting anyone else, so it's no big deal at all IMO.


Different story completely if an Islamic or Jewish group did the exact same thing. It would go viciously viral. Look what happened when a Native American War hero single handed successfully diffused a riot in DC. yup Murcia ... the war hero get’s sued.

Not surprised..after all it is the trump era
Quote:
No, I think we've come a long way in the past 100 years and it's time we act like that rather than letting those who lived over 100 years ago dictate what's proper now.


As a nation, we are neither growing nor improving by taking things out of historical context and removing them now. It does NOT make us more inclusive or more enlightened to pretend like our ancestors, for all of their accomplishments and all of their faults, never existed. I can genuinely understand the removal of confederate statues but a small town cross to honor 49 men who died in WWI, is just ridiculous. It's insane and I can't help but think that on some level, you know that.

This country has many monuments, government funded and government maintained, that are at best exclusionary and at worst, downright offensive to many.. We have monuments dedicated to women who served in war, to blacks who served in various war, to native Americans who served, to Jews who served in wars, to Japanese-Americans who served in WWII..... we have dozens of monuments to gay pride and as recently as this month, some of our embassies wanted to fly the gay pride flag... We have some 400,000 headstones in Arlington Cemetery, most with the religious affiliation of the person who lies there proudly emblazoned at the top, and darn near every religion known on earth is represented.... Carved in marble inside the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C., directly above the courtroom bench, is a frieze showing eighteen of the greatest leaders in history who played a role in establishing laws. The line-up includes the Prophet Muhammad.

And when I see or read about these monuments which aren't inclusive of everybody, my thought to specifically honoring women, Jews, blacks, Muslims, gays etc who have served this nation well for many years, and the struggles they endured, is not that it should be removed, it's what took so long? I'm proud that we are finally recognizing that this country was built and made great by a whole lot more than "Christian white men"... Perhaps where we differ is that I don't believe we need to remove the monuments that were very important to our ancestors, simply because they weren't all-inclusive, in order to honor those who, for centuries, went unrecognized. If public opinion dictates, and the group did something honorable to contribute to this country, then let them have a damn monument... and let the monument reflect who they were and what they stood for...

I believe that 99% of the people who live in this country are perfectly comfortable seeing monuments that are not inclusive of their specific beliefs or group because they are intelligent enough to grasp that it had some impact on our history and our present... and that it was important enough to somebody at the time, to do it that way... The other 1% who is always throwing a fit is trying to be "woke" but they come across as weak minded, intolerant, snowflake, arse wipes.
Originally Posted By: PerfectSpiral
Originally Posted By: OldColdDawg
I don't really care GM, none of it bothers me. I've never held religion against anyone who is practicing it in a private way. These kids didn't drag anyone out there and force them to join or watch. They were doing what they wanted without hurting anyone else, so it's no big deal at all IMO.


Different story completely if an Islamic or Jewish group did the exact same thing. It would go viciously viral. Look what happened when a Native American War hero single handed almost started a riot in DC. yup Murcia ... the war hero get’s sued.

Not surprised..after all it is the trump era
Once again the man who makes claims that he wants nothing more than to hold civil debate throws around insults like Trump.

Amazing......
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
The other 1% who is always throwing a fit is trying to be "woke" but they come across as weak minded, intolerant, snowflake, arse wipes.


Oh the civility. I guess you changed your mind huh?
Originally Posted By: PerfectSpiral
Originally Posted By: GMdawg
Speaking just for myself. If it's done after hours and it's not school sponsored then let them put down as many rugs as they want, and pray away. thumbsup


Give it up pal...Public School property with public school paid coaches is a public school sponsored activity.


In small towns football fields and the areas around them get used for other things as well. So just because it was on School property, and the Coaches were there (they are free to be involved on their own time) does not make it a SPONSORED school activity. IF it was sponsored then that's a different story. Your assuming it was bro, while I would like to know for sure if it was or wasn't. comprende un ami
Originally Posted By: PitDAWG
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
The other 1% who is always throwing a fit is trying to be "woke" but they come across as weak minded, intolerant, snowflake, arse wipes.


Oh the civility. I guess you changed your mind huh?

No, I just wanted to see if you would totally ignore 3 1/2 paragraphs of honest debate to focus on that one last sentence. Congrats on being shallow and predictable. Clearly you aren't looking for debate, you are looking for the fight.. I guess that's your Murica...
I have been debating you all along. Rather than to continue that, you resorted to the very thing you claim you dislike.

We used to have healthy debates on things. There was never a " last sentence" of labeling and name calling. But you are the one that changed that. You needn't place that burden on others.
Yes, aside from the insults, you have been debating all along..

We used to do a lot of things on here that are no longer possible because some people won't allow it... It's sad really.

Quote:
But you are the one that changed that. You needn't place that burden on others.

I changed nothing. I spent considerable time trying to explain to you why you should maintain a more adult/rational approach, you said, basically trump is an arse and he is the President, therefore it's ok for you to be arse too.

That's why your insulting obnoxious behavior goes back years, mine goes back to a few days ago when I decided to play the game everybody else plays.. sorry you don't like it.
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Yes, aside from the insults, you have been debating all along..


Can we really consider boiling all arguments down to an over-simplified strawman and getting in the last word, healthy debating?
Yes.

But seriously, no not really. Debate however requires open minds and open exchanges of ideas without petty insults. I USED to try to do that in here, but when the feces started flying every second, I got tired of being hit.
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
We used to do a lot of things on here that are no longer possible because some people won't allow it... It's sad really.


saywhat I don't have a clue what you are talking about... angel
Originally Posted By: ExclDawg
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Yes, aside from the insults, you have been debating all along..


Can we really consider boiling all arguments down to an over-simplified strawman and getting in the last word, healthy debating?

Healthy debating is dead... I'm sure it still exists in some corners of the political biosphere but in general, the people don't want it and the politicians/talking heads don't want to do it. It almost certainly doesn't exist on the internet any more.

Gone are the days of making points, actually listening to the other side, mutual respect.. and the outcome "agree to disagree" is not an option any more, every battle must be fought to the death or until it just gets so nasty with personal insults that somebody taps out... that's how you win a debate these days...
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Originally Posted By: ExclDawg
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Yes, aside from the insults, you have been debating all along..


Can we really consider boiling all arguments down to an over-simplified strawman and getting in the last word, healthy debating?

Healthy debating is dead... I'm sure it still exists in some corners of the political biosphere but in general, the people don't want it and the politicians/talking heads don't want to do it. It almost certainly doesn't exist on the internet any more.

Gone are the days of making points, actually listening to the other side, mutual respect.. and the outcome "agree to disagree" is not an option any more, every battle must be fought to the death or until it just gets so nasty with personal insults that somebody taps out... that's how you win a debate these days...



Yeah, it’s frustrating because I used to enjoy discussing issues and ideas on the board. Pretty much all that is left in this particular forum are trolls and people who like arguing with and berating trolls so that they can feel superior. That isn’t enjoyable for me or worth my time. I still like the board and visit from time to time, but it’s just not as much fun as it used to be, though I think it’s more the current political climate than it is this particular message board.
I miss sea cows and Ted Williams head.
frown
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
That's why your insulting obnoxious behavior goes back years, mine goes back to a few days ago when I decided to play the game everybody else plays.. sorry you don't like it.


I don't really care one way or the other. I can go toe to toe in either direction. I can hold a civil debate with those who wish to do so. I can sling arrows with those who wish to do so.

In your case? It's more like the preacher who gives a sermon on fidelity and then immediately gets caught porking his neighbors wife in the church parking lot.
Quote:
I don't really care one way or the other. I can go toe to toe in either direction. I can hold a civil debate with those who wish to do so. I can sling arrows with those who wish to do so.

this will be my last post on this topic, feel free to respond, I will read it but I will not respond...

We have had debates, you have slung your share of arrows in the middle of otherwise reasonable debates... if you believe the tone our debates have taken on recently is all on me, then there is nothing I'm going to try to do to change that...

All I can control is me.. so I will try to be better in my tone and more selective in what I respond to...

Peace.
Supreme Court decides federal judges cannot block gerrymandering

-The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that federal courts may not block partisan gerrymandering in a 5-4 decision that fell along partisan lines.

-“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who delivered the opinion of the court.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/supreme-court-decides-that-courts-cannot-block-gerrymandering.html
Such a trash ruling. On par with citizens united.
Supreme Court Blocks Citizenship Question on 2020 Census

Breaking story, link to come.
Wow they’re on a roll today.
A busy week for Diana Ross and the girls.

Diana Ross and the Supremes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXGz8i0I2L0
While I think it’s important to ask the question on the census. Without knowing the opinion and dissent of the SC, I can see why.

I can see the responses to that question being used to further the gerrymandering crap we see going on. Politicians can easily pull a speculation excuse like “we drew it this way cause we *believe* there’s a ton of illegals in this area so we tried to compensate for it”. It could further lead to a huge imbalance of district maps, something the SC already screwed up 20 minutes prior.
An update has arrived, posted below...
Supreme Court effectively blocks census citizenship question for now in a blow to Trump administration

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a setback to the Trump administration’s plans to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, effectively blocking the addition of the question for now.

In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court questioned the administration’s reasoning for adding the question and ordered the case to be reconsidered by a lower court.

The Census Bureau has said it faces a July 1 printing deadline, raising questions about whether the government will be able to add the question even if it ultimately prevails.

The Constitution requires the government to conduct a census every 10 years, and the results of the survey are used to allocate billions of dollars in federal funding. The census is also used to determine representation in the House and the Electoral College.

Critics of the citizenship question argued that asking it would result in less accurate data and disproportionately harm cities and states with large immigrant populations, as well as immigrants themselves. The question has not been posed to all U.S. households since 1950.

If included on the census, one government analysis determined that as many as 6.5 million fewer people may respond. As a result, California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, New York and Illinois all face serious risk of losing a seat in the House, one federal court found.

The Trump administration acknowledged in court that the inclusion of the citizenship question could make the survey less accurate. But the Commerce Department argued that the question would enable the government to better enforce certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

That rationale did not pass muster before three federal courts, which each blocked the addition of the question. Those courts, in New York, Maryland and California, found that the rationale offered by the Commerce Department was a pretext.

The official justification for the question came under further scrutiny in recent weeks after new documents surfaced that provided new evidence of a political motive behind the addition of the question. The documents were obtained by the government watchdog group Common Cause, and provided to the justices.

One of those documents was an unpublished 2015 study by an influential Republican redistricting expert, who found that the addition of the citizenship question could benefit “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” if the data were used in redistricting.

The study’s author, Thomas Hofeller, appeared to help ghostwrite a 2017 draft letter from the Justice Department to the Commerce Department that provided the Voting Rights Act rationale for the citizenship question, the documents show.

The Trump administration denied that Hofeller played any role in the Justice Department’s request for the citizenship question. After his death in August, his estranged daughter discovered hard drives in her father’s home and turned them over to Common Cause.

The new development has thrust the case into uncertainty.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court based in Richmond issued an order reopening a similar case in light of the new documents. In briefs, the Commerce Department asked the justices to prevent the lower court from barring the citizenship question, but it was not clear the top court will do so.

Challengers of the citizenship question asked the justices to send the case before them back to a lower court to consider the new evidence, if the top court was not inclined to bar the question outright.

The case is known as Department of Commerce v. New York, No. 18-966.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/27/supreme-...ower-court.html
i read this article and another article on the ruling.

basically, the SC said the question itself isn't the problem, but the administration's decision and reasoning FOR the question to be put on is what ultimately made them rule that way.

basically, this won't be going anywhere since they just sent it back to the lower courts. and since the trump administration faces a july 1st deadline for printing, that question won't be getting added on to the 2020 census.
Originally Posted By: Swish


basically, this won't be going anywhere since they just sent it back to the lower courts. and since the trump administration faces a july 1st deadline for printing, that question won't be getting added on to the 2020 census.


Agreed.
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Supreme Court effectively blocks census citizenship question for now in a blow to Trump administration



So now the illegals in sanctuary states and cities will be counted as residents which effects how many congressional seats they get and how much federal money they get.

Now we know why the Liberal Democrats pretend to care about illegals. It is all about gaming the system.
Census law clearly states that ALL residents will be counted.
Period.

The inverse is a naked attempt to suppress census participation which in turn, would have an effect on the very things you mentioned, chief among which are appropriations. Your focus on the illegals (clearly a fraction of the population ignores the 98% of legal American citizens who would also be effected by such policy.

ALL residents. Period.

He, as well as you, are perfectly fine with hurting Real Americans in your zeal to deal with these others. Shame on you both.

Interesting side note: The IQ45 admin went to the whip and spurs to get this decision done with all due haste. As soon as the ruling came down Dolt45 made 2 statements:

1. We would like to slow down and take more time to revisit this issue
2. We might consider postponing the official census.



Only spolied, petulant 6 year-olds try to change the rules of the game after the final whistle has blown.

Typical.
Originally Posted By: DCDAWGFAN
Quote:
Maybe they should make their business a private entity and only serve approved members.

It is a private business... and it does want to serve folks as long as what they are asking for doesn't violate their religious convictions... so that is literally what they are trying to do.

Quote:
Because discriminating against gay people and using religion as an excuse to do so is weak.

Says you.. other people have different and stronger religious beliefs than you do. And this transgender person probably drove by a number of bakeries to get to this one just to prove their point...

See, I wouldn't go into a Muslim or Jewish bakery and ask for a "Praise Jesus" cake.. because I'm not a d*ck, like these people.


Praise Jesus cake? Lol.. I just love these ridiculous scenarios. Everybody is a Jessie Smoltz nowadays.
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Supreme Court effectively blocks census citizenship question for now in a blow to Trump administration



So now the illegals in sanctuary states and cities will be counted as residents which effects how many congressional seats they get and how much federal money they get.

Now we know why the Liberal Democrats pretend to care about illegals. It is all about gaming the system.


Lol. Yeah bro. We got sum catching up to do, because the GOP gerrymandering is light years ahead in this gaming the system thang.
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING

So now the illegals in sanctuary states and cities will be counted as residents


You do comprehend that where you reside and live is what constitutes you being a resident, right?
And there you have it!

You guys are basically admitting to gaming the system.
res·i·dent

a person who lives somewhere permanently or on a long-term basis.

Hope that helps.
So it wasn't enough to have dead people voting but now you game the Census for residency.

Too much.
I see things like the English language and the definition of words no longer have meaning to you. Why am i not surprised?
Trump DOJ scores rare win on sanctuary city crackdown in appeals court

President Trump notched a win on Friday in a federal appeals court, which upheld a Department of Justice method for cracking down on sanctuary cities.

In a 2-1 decision that overturns a nationwide injunction, the DOJ is now allowed to give preferential treatment for community policing grants to cities that don't defy federal immigration enforcement.


"The department is pleased that the court recognized the lawful authority of the administration to provide favorable treatment when awarding discretionary law enforcement grants to jurisdictions that assist in enforcing federal immigration laws," the DOJ said in a statement.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-d...n-appeals-court

No Funds For You! thumbsup
And it's going through the process like almost everything Trump decides to do. It will go to a higher court next. And nowhere does it say, "no funds for you". Of course you seem to never have gained a grasp of the English language.
Your comprehension skills are still very much lacking unless you missed this part...

"In a 2-1 decision that overturns a nationwide injunction, the DOJ is now allowed to give preferential treatment for community policing grants to cities that don't defy federal immigration enforcement."
Here's what you're missing. "Preferential treatment" is not saying "no funding".
Trump administration scores win over challenge to asylum restriction


Democrats outraged by new rules cracking down on asylum seekers

A federal judge decided Wednesday to leave in place a Trump administration rule that imposes restrictions on individuals seeking asylum in the United States if they passed through a third country on their way to the border between the U.S. and Mexico, potentially leading to a sharp reduction in Central American migrants entering the country.

The rule, published in the Federal Register last week, requires people seeking asylum to first apply in one of the countries they pass through on their way to the U.S., with certain exceptions. The rule was quickly met with a legal challenge from advocacy groups, who moved for a temporary restraining order blocking the rule. After a hearing in Washington, D.C. federal court, District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion. The rule will remain in place for the duration of the case, unless the decision is successfully appealed.

"We are disappointed in the court's decision today," said Claudia Cubas, litigation direction for the Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition.

Kelly, who was appointed to the bench by President Trump said the immigrant advocate groups who filed the lawsuit did not show that their work would be irreparably harmed if the policy moved forward.

With certain exceptions, the rule requires individuals to apply for and be denied asylum in another country in order to apply in the U.S. That means that migrants from Central American nations who travel through Mexico – who make up a significant portion of recent asylum seekers – will not be eligible for asylum in America unless they previously applied for asylum in Mexico or any other country they traversed and were turned down.

The new rule’s exceptions include certain cases of human trafficking.

The rule is meant to crack down on asylum seekers coming to the U.S. more for economic reasons than to escape persecution in their home countries. Administration officials say this could help close the gap between the initial asylum screening that most people pass and the final decision on asylum that most people do not win. The goal in part is to allow quicker determinations in these cases.

The policy follows the Trump administration's Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly referred to as the "remain in Mexico" policy. Under that policy, asylum seekers were often told to go back to Mexico to await hearings, rather than be allowed to remain in the U.S.

Democrats railed against that policy, with 2020 hopeful Beto O'Rourke calling it "inhumane."

A reduction in asylum seekers would ease the burden on federal agencies currently overwhelmed by the volume of individuals seeking entry into the U.S.

Detention facilities have been notoriously stretched for resources, resulting in outcries against the government. The criticism has particularly been strong when it comes to the conditions in which migrant children have been kept.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-scores-win-over-move-to-limit-asylum-claims
Is that all that he's missing?
Hey, treating people following a legal process as illegal as possible seems reasonable. I mean maybe if we make them all feel like they're in prison they'll quit trying to follow the legal process and just come here illegally.

No, wait....
Step by Step by Step, your open borders agenda is closing.


thumbsup
Boy did I jut start a thread you need to read. rofl
Good ruling. If you pass scott free through another country to make us decide, I call BS.

Claim asylum in the first country you enter. It's wrong to say we are going to claim asylum in the USA another 2,000 miles away.

No wonder California is screwed up. We got all the rejects Mexico didn't want.
Not so fast...

Federal court blocks Trump asylum rules hours after judge ruled to keep restrictions in place

A federal judge in California on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from imposing restrictions on individuals seeking asylum in the United States, just hours after a judge in Washington had decided to let the rule stand while lawsuits play out in court.

The rule, published in the Federal Register last week, required people seeking asylum to apply first in one of the countries they cross on their way to the U.S. -- with certain exceptions. It targeted tens of thousands of Central Americans who have crossed Mexico each month trying to enter the U.S.

The rule was met quickly with a legal challenge from advocacy groups, who moved for a temporary restraining order blocking the rule. After a hearing in Washington, D.C. federal court, District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion. But hours later, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, an Obama appointee, blocked the enforcement of the rule. His ruling took effect immediately.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-scores-win-over-move-to-limit-asylum-claims
I guess Trump will need to do more court stacking... rolleyes
Originally Posted By: Ballpeen
No wonder California is screwed up. We got all the rejects Mexico didn't want.


Yeah, because, "Mexico isn't sending their best people", right?

I mean Mexico is just rounding up the ones they don't want and expelling them to America.

You sound like trump in a bad way. I mean you do know that these are people that wanted to leave Mexico and that Mexico didn't "reject" these people, right?

Why do you just want to make up BS peen?
When your arguments are based on lies, it's hard to find real facts to back them up, that's why.
Supreme Court paves way for Trump administration to use military funds for border wall

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in lifting a freeze backed by a lower court that had halted plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction.

The decision, which split the bench along ideological lines, allows the administration to move ahead with plans to use military funds to replace existing fencing in California, Arizona and New Mexico.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...for-border-wall

Build that Wall
Straight and Tall
Stop them Criminals
The Big and The Small!
thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup

You Can't Stump The Trump!

The president celebrated the ruling on Twitter: "Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall. The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed. Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!"
"Nice poem 40" thumbsup
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING


Build that Wall
Straight and Tall
Stop them Criminals
The Big and The Small!
thumbsup thumbsup thumbsup


"Nice poem 40" thumbsup


Nice poem indeed! Congrats to President Trump on this ruling. thumbsup
He keeps on working to fulfill his campaign promises as the Left does all it can to stop him.

Winning! thumbsup

By the way, the do nothing Congress is taking a vacation from doing nothing while the Nation struggles with their inaction on the border. Shame!
Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin to use Defense funds for border wall construction

(CNN)The Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to use $2.5 billion from the Department of Defense to construct parts of a wall along the southwestern border that the government argues is necessary to protect national security.

The decision allows the Defense Department money to be spent now while a court battle plays out over whether the government had the authority to divert funds that were not appropriated for the wall. The Supreme Court voted 5-4, along ideological lines, to allow the funds to be used while the court appeals proceed.

In a brief order, the court said that it was ruling in favor of the Trump administration before the litigation has played out because the government had made a "sufficient showing" that the challengers did not have the legal right to bring the case.
Three members of the liberal wing of the court -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- wrote they would have blocked the funds for now. The fourth member, Justice Stephen Breyer, wrote separately to say that he would have allowed the government to use the funds to finalize the terms for contractors but block the funds from being used for the actual construction.

The Supreme Court's order is a significant win for Trump, who is likely to use the construction of a wall as a major talking point on the campaign trail. The President celebrated the decision in a tweet Friday evening.

"The United States Supreme Court overturns lower court injunction, allows Southern Border Wall to proceed," the President tweeted. "Big WIN for Border Security and the Rule of Law!"

The decision overrules a lower court decision that had blocked the transfer of funds while appeals played out. A panel of judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow the use of the funds earlier in the month, holding that the challengers were likely to prevail in their case because the use of the funds "violates the constitutional requirement that the Executive Branch not spend money absent an appropriation from Congress."

The order comes after Trump ended a 35-day government shutdown in February when Congress gave him $1.4 billion in wall funding, far less than he had sought. He subsequently declared a national emergency to get money from other government accounts to construct sections of the wall.

The $2.5 billion had been shifted from various programs including personnel and recruiting, Minuteman III and air launch cruise missiles, E-3 aircraft upgrades and the Afghan security forces training fund. The Pentagon said it was able to move that money due to uncovered cost savings as part of a process known as "reprogramming." The money was moved into a Defense Department counter-drug account that is authorized to spend money on the construction of border barriers.

Many lawmakers slammed the decision to move the money away from those national security priorities, threatening to strip the Pentagon of its ability to move money around, something the Defense Department has acknowledged would be detrimental.
"We are pleased with the Supreme Court's decision," Pentagon spokeswoman Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich told CNN.

Lawyers for the government had asked the Supreme Court to step in on an emergency basis and unblock the use of the funds while legal challenges proceed in the lower courts.

Solicitor General Noel Francisco noted in court papers that the projects needed to start because the funds at issue "will no longer remain available for obligation after the fiscal year ends on September 30, 2019." He said that the funds are necessary to permit the construction of more than 100 miles of fencing in areas the government has identified as "drug-smuggling corridors" where it has seized "thousands of pounds of heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine" in recent years.

"Respondents' interests in hiking, birdwatching, and fishing in designated drug-smuggling corridors do not outweigh the harm to the public from halting the government's efforts to construct barriers to stanch the flow of illegal narcotics across the southern border," Francisco argued in the papers, regarding the challenge from environmental groups.

Legal expert Joshua Matz said the decision is a major victory for Trump.

"But the Court did not signal that Trump followed the law. Instead, the majority took a narrow view of who, if anybody, is allowed to challenge Trump's decision in court," he said.
It is a loss for critics, including the Sierra Club and the Southern Border Communities Coalition that argued the administration had illegally transferred the funds after Congress denied requests for more money to construct the wall. The groups argued the wall -- in areas in Arizona, California and New Mexico -- would harm the environment.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the groups, argued in court papers against a stay of the lower court ruling, fearful of the wall's impact on border communities.
"Issuance of a stay that would permit Defendants to immediately spend this money is not consistent with Congress's power over the purse or with the tacit assessment by Congress that the spending would not be in the public interest,"ACLU lawyers told the court.

The ACLU slammed the decision after it was released Friday evening.

"This is not over. We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump's border wall.
Border communities, the environment, and our Constitution's separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied," said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/26/politics/supreme-court-pentagon-border-wall-construction/index.html
DONALD TRUMP'S BORDER WALL: HOW MUCH OF THE BARRIER HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BUILT—AND WILL IT EVER BE COMPLETE?

For much of his life, President Donald Trump, a real estate-tycoon-turned world leader, has been a builder. With towers going up around the world in his name, it could be argued that success, for the U.S. leader, is a tangible thing only made real once it's written across the skyline.

So, it should have come as little surprise when, in 2014, Trump, then referred to as a "real estate tycoon" and "Celebrity Apprentice" star in the headlines, first hinted at what one of his first priorities would be if he were to be elected president.

Back then, it was a "fence"—"a border fence like you have never seen before," the real estate magnate told an audience in New Hampshire in April 2014. That summer, the "fence" would become a "wall" as Trump's advisers considered how to best brand a 2016 campaign that could be run on the promise of cracking down on immigration and putting "America first."

"And what better way than to have his brand incorporated by Donald Trump saying, 'Yeah, I'm going to build a wall. Nobody builds like Trump'?" former Trump adviser Sam Nunberg once told NPR.

Fast forward five years later and one of the biggest election upsets in U.S. history, and Trump, now president, is seeing his border wall ambitions become a reality one "beautiful" steel slat at a time, as the U.S. leader has put it, despite an uphill battle in Congress to see his vision brought to fruition.

How much of the wall has been built?

So, just how much of the president's long-promised border wall has been built? According to data provided by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, not a whole lot.

"Since January 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and [CBP] have received funding to support construction of up to 201-205 miles of new border barriers," CBP said in a "border wall status" update dated on June 14.

Of those 201-205 miles the Trump administration has received funding for through a combination of appropriations and the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF), however, only 46.7 miles have been built two-and-a-half years into Trump's presidency. Much of the border wall that has been built has been put up in places where construction is replacing "dilapidated designs."

While, during his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had vowed to build a towering 2,000-mile wall that would stop migrants in their tracks before they considered attempting to cross into the U.S. outside a designated port of entry, the U.S. leader scaled back on that promise in January of this year, admitting that his border wall would not, in fact, be the "a 2,000-mile concrete structure from sea-to-sea" that he promised to build. "These are steel barriers in high-priority locations," he said.

The 46.7 miles of border wall that has so far been built (a meager 2.3 percent of the border itself), according to CBP, stands small in the shadow of the 654 miles of barriers that already existed along the southwest border before Trump took office. That total included 354 miles of pedestrian fencing, designed to stop people from crossing on foot, in addition to 300 miles of vehicle barriers, which prevent vehicles from driving across the border, but which can be scaled by a person on foot.

The graphic below, provided by Statista, illustrates that border apprehensions are hitting historic highs.



Is Mexico paying for Trump's wall? If not, who is?

While during his presidential campaign, Trump vowed to make Mexico pay for the construction of his long-promised border wall. However, it quickly became apparent after the U.S. leader's election that it would be U.S. taxpayers footing the bill.

With the U.S. leader unable to convince the country's southern neighbors cover the costs, Trump has faced repeated barriers of his own in Congress, with Democrats determined to push back against the president's plans.

Overall, the president's administration has been able to secure $6.1 billion in funding as of May 2019 to build it's border wall, according to CBP. That total includes funding that has been approved by Congress, in addition to extra money the U.S. leader has mined after declaring a state of emergency over immigration in February.

While Democrats in Congress have questioned just how much Trump's long-promised border wall would actually accomplish in deterring illegal immigration, CBP has backed the president's plans, asserting that "many older segments [of pre-existing border barriers] "are dilapidated, having been built with scrap metal from left-over Vietnam-era landing mat," in addition to having been, in some cases, "welded by Border Patrol Agents in the 1990s."

"Since 2008, CBP has received little funding to upgrade border barriers and no funding to expand the border wall's footprint into operationally necessary locations," CBP said in its progress update.

The Customs and Border Protection agency is not alone in believing those upgrades are necessary, with some Trump supporters showing so much enthusiasm for the president's border wall plans, that they were willing to pay for and build it themselves.

One landowner in Sunland Park, New Mexico could now face up to three months in jail after allowing part of a citizen-led border wall project to be put up on their property without city permission after a GoFundMe campaign calling on Americans to build Trump's wall themselves raised more than $23 million over the span of five months.



Border barrier or 'vanity project'?

While many within Trump's base would like to see the president's border wall plans brought to fruition, the majority of Americans appear to believe their money could be spent better elsewhere, with a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in January finding that the majority of Americans, or 58 percent, to be against Trump's plans to expand U.S. border barriers, while 40 percent were in support of the plan.

Meanwhile, Trump's harshest critics, including California Senator and 2020 Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, have dismissed the president's bid as nothing more than "vanity project" aimed at securing an emblem to represent his legacy.

Immigration experts also appear to agree with that sentiment, with one former senior DHS official speaking to Newsweek on the condition of anonymity earlier this year, branding the border wall project a "truly absurd" waste of money that will see Americans' money "burned" for the "vanity project of an egomaniac."

"There are things that we can do with that money. So many things that would be more valuable to the average American," the former DHS official, who served under the Obama administration, said.

Rather than using taxpayers to build Trump's wall, which the former senior official said "isn't going to do anything," the Trump administration should be focusing on the "push factors" that drive refugees to flee their countries and come to the U.S. in the first place.

In Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, which are collectively known as the Northern Triangle, poverty, violence and food security are among those push factors.

Current homicide rates in Central America are among the highest ever recorded in the region, according to the UNHCR, with several cities, including San Salvador, El Salvador; Tegucigalpa, Honduras; and San Pedro Sula, Honduras, being listed among the 10 most dangerous in the world.

Meanwhile, in Guatemala specifically, many asylum seekers are also being driven to leave their home country due to food insecurity caused largely by drought.

Trump, the former official said, is right that the U.S. does "have a crisis at the border. But, it's a refugee crisis. Not a crisis of illegal crossings."

"The way you address refugee crises is by ending the push factors wherever those refugees are coming from," they said.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-border-wall-built-progress-how-much-1446311
40, here is a complete list of Trump's promises and how he's done.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/
Yeah, at this rate, even if he's in office for a total of eight years, he will have built 300 feet of it.

What an accomplishment! lmao
Once again the unhinged Democrats get spanked...

Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, slams claims 'entirely divorced from the facts'

A federal judge in frank terms has dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) against key members of the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over hacked DNC documents, saying they "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and therefore bore no legal liability for disseminating the information.

The ruling came as Democrats have increasingly sought to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia, in spite of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings that the campaign in fact refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.

The DNC asserted in court filings that the Trump team's meetings "with persons connected to the Russian government during the time that the Russian GRU agents were stealing the DNC's information" were a sign that they were conspiring with the Russians to "steal and disseminate the DNC's materials."

The suit did not allege that the stolen materials were false or defamatory but rather sought to hold the Trump team and other defendants liable for the theft of the DNC's information under various Virginia and federal statutes.

However, Judge John Koeltl, a Bill Clinton appointee sitting in the Southern District of New York, wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC's argument was "entirely divorced" from the facts.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dnc-lawsuit-trump-campaign-russia-wikileaks-hacking-dismissed

Entirely divorced from the facts! Sound familiar? rofl
It was in Mueller's report that the Russians did the hacking. But this Judge's ruling flies in the face of precedent IMHO. Disseminating stolen documents is why we've been after Assange for years. He didn't hack and steal those docs. So this will get interesting for hacking laws.

BTW, I agree they didn't steal them. But Trump knew who stole them.

I could go online right now and buy IDs, SSNs, and CC#s knowing they are stolen and if I just post them online for others to see, I'm going to jail. I don't see the difference between that and what wikileaks/Trump did, do you?
"Entirely divorced from the facts!"
read the edit above.
Originally Posted By: 40YEARSWAITING
Trump administration scores win over challenge to asylum restriction


Democrats outraged by new rules cracking down on asylum seekers

A federal judge decided Wednesday to leave in place a Trump administration rule that imposes restrictions on individuals seeking asylum in the United States if they passed through a third country on their way to the border between the U.S. and Mexico, potentially leading to a sharp reduction in Central American migrants entering the country.

The rule, published in the Federal Register last week, requires people seeking asylum to first apply in one of the countries they pass through on their way to the U.S., with certain exceptions. The rule was quickly met with a legal challenge from advocacy groups, who moved for a temporary restraining order blocking the rule. After a hearing in Washington, D.C. federal court, District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion. The rule will remain in place for the duration of the case, unless the decision is successfully appealed.

"We are disappointed in the court's decision today," said Claudia Cubas, litigation direction for the Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition.

Kelly, who was appointed to the bench by President Trump said the immigrant advocate groups who filed the lawsuit did not show that their work would be irreparably harmed if the policy moved forward.

With certain exceptions, the rule requires individuals to apply for and be denied asylum in another country in order to apply in the U.S. That means that migrants from Central American nations who travel through Mexico – who make up a significant portion of recent asylum seekers – will not be eligible for asylum in America unless they previously applied for asylum in Mexico or any other country they traversed and were turned down.

The new rule’s exceptions include certain cases of human trafficking.

The rule is meant to crack down on asylum seekers coming to the U.S. more for economic reasons than to escape persecution in their home countries. Administration officials say this could help close the gap between the initial asylum screening that most people pass and the final decision on asylum that most people do not win. The goal in part is to allow quicker determinations in these cases.

The policy follows the Trump administration's Migrant Protection Protocols, commonly referred to as the "remain in Mexico" policy. Under that policy, asylum seekers were often told to go back to Mexico to await hearings, rather than be allowed to remain in the U.S.

Democrats railed against that policy, with 2020 hopeful Beto O'Rourke calling it "inhumane."

A reduction in asylum seekers would ease the burden on federal agencies currently overwhelmed by the volume of individuals seeking entry into the U.S.

Detention facilities have been notoriously stretched for resources, resulting in outcries against the government. The criticism has particularly been strong when it comes to the conditions in which migrant children have been kept.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-scores-win-over-move-to-limit-asylum-claims

-------------------------------------------------------------
Not so fast...

Federal court blocks Trump asylum rules hours after judge ruled to keep restrictions in place

A federal judge in California on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from imposing restrictions on individuals seeking asylum in the United States, just hours after a judge in Washington had decided to let the rule stand while lawsuits play out in court.

The rule, published in the Federal Register last week, required people seeking asylum to apply first in one of the countries they cross on their way to the U.S. -- with certain exceptions. It targeted tens of thousands of Central Americans who have crossed Mexico each month trying to enter the U.S.

The rule was met quickly with a legal challenge from advocacy groups, who moved for a temporary restraining order blocking the rule. After a hearing in Washington, D.C. federal court, District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion. But hours later, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, an Obama appointee, blocked the enforcement of the rule. His ruling took effect immediately.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-scores-win-over-move-to-limit-asylum-claims
-------------------------------------------------------------

WHOA!!!

Not so fast again!

Appeals court sides with Trump administration on asylum rule, limits injunction

A federal appeals court sided with the Trump administration on Friday in the legal battle over its efforts to limit asylum claims from Central America – blocking, for now, a nationwide injunction that blocked the implementation of the rule.

“The district court clearly erred by failing to consider whether nationwide relief is necessary to remedy Plaintiffs’ alleged harms,” the ruling says. “And, based on the limited record before us, we do not believe a nationwide injunction is justified.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-trump-administration-asylum-rule
© DawgTalkers.net