Remember when Republicans were for Religious Freedom

RStringfield said:
So you are saying that any stupid excuse the government gives to violate the first amendment rights of US citizens is good enough for you? The problem with your scenario is the rest of us are not going to pretend it is not about their religion.

?
Click to expand...

LOL... I really don't care how they prevent radical Islam from constructing a trophy mosque at ground zero. That is true! I also don't care what you pretend or don't pretend, it doesn't bother me a bit.
 
Dixie said:
LOL... I really don't care how they prevent radical Islam from constructing a trophy mosque at ground zero. That is true! I also don't care what you pretend or don't pretend, it doesn't bother me a bit.
Click to expand...

So you would not care if they violated the 1st Amendment to prevent the Community Center blocks away from GZ?
 
Dixie said:
No, they will take a look at the case on merit, and determine if ED applies. How many mosques are in the area, is there a need for a hospital or school in the area? Things like that.

And again, no one has said they don't have the right to build a mosque, but ED laws do say they may not have the right to build in that location.
Click to expand...

Anybody that does not have their heads shoved firmly up their ass knows that this is not about the need for a hospital or school, retard.
 
Ice Dancer said:
You are SO dishonest! I did not know about eminent domain until you posted the link. The legal argument, as far as I knew, was a 1st amendment one which NO ONE from the oposition argued was in question!

You're such fucking asshole.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is so dishonest to address what you ACTUALLY said and not what you are now pretending you said. But it does not really matter. An eminent domain taking WOULD violate their first amendment rights. It does not matter if you wish to pretend it is for some other reason, it's quite clear that it would be an attack on freedom of religion.
 
RStringfield said:
Yes, it is so dishonest to address what you ACTUALLY said and not what you are now pretending you said. But it does not really matter. An eminent domain taking WOULD violate their first amendment rights. It does not matter if you wish to pretend it is for some other reason, it's quite clear that it would be an attack on freedom of religion.
Click to expand...
Now you are just pulling your brains out of your ass and repeating shit.

The thread speaks for itself. I addressed eminent domain after you posted the link. Prior to that the question of legality was 1st amendment.

For you to say otherwise is either deliberately disingenuos because of your intellectual dishonesty or just proof of your out-right idiocy.
 
Ice Dancer said:
Now you are just pulling your brains out of your ass and repeating shit.

The thread speaks for itself. I addressed eminent domain after you posted the link. Prior to that the question of legality was 1st amendment.

For you to say otherwise is either deliberately disingenuos because of your intellectual dishonesty or just proof of your out-right idiocy.
Click to expand...

Yes the thread speaks for itself. You changed your story after I proved you wrong. And you are still wrong.
 
Dixie said:
Fuck I don't know, Google Supreme Court eminent domain case, and you'll find it. Happened about 2 years ago, as I recall... there were threads about it! Where were you? I don't know the details of the opinion, but they certainly didn't find ED violated the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

:palm:

What a fucking retard.... Are you talking about Kelo? That had nothing to do with the first amendment or a church. Eminent domain is not an unlimited power and it certainly would not be permitted in this case.

It's like you are debating things in an alternate universe. You just make shit up and think everyone is going to share in your delusional fantasies.
 
RStringfield said:
Anybody that does not have their heads shoved firmly up their ass knows that this is not about the need for a hospital or school, retard.
Click to expand...

Then they would have to recuse themselves from the case. Oh fuckin well!

I can see an ED case, especially considering there are already mosques in the area. Hey, this burro doesn't have a School for the Blind, and this makes a perfect central location for one! If they can prevail, more power to em!

Furthermore, I also think a challenge could be made, on an appeal for public safety. You do have 1st Amendment rights, but you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater... your 1st Amendment rights do not trump public safety. So while the Muslims may have the right to build the mosque, the authorities also have a right to contest it on grounds of danger to public safety. Clearly, building it, might bring some nut out of the woodworks to bomb it, and we can't have people in danger of that in lower Manhattan.

There are indeed a myriad of challenges which can legitimately be made, and will be made. None of which will seek to deny they have a 1st Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
 
RStringfield said:
:palm:

What a fucking retard.... Are you talking about Kelo? That had nothing to do with the first amendment or a church. Eminent domain is not an unlimited power and it certainly would not be permitted in this case.

It's like you are debating things in an alternate universe. You just make shit up and think everyone is going to share in your delusional fantasies.
Click to expand...

It had to do with MORE than a church, it had to do with an individual right. Property rights, which are certainly part of the same constitution and same Bill of Rights. Last I checked, they haven't put YOU in charge of what is permitted. Sorry Stringy!
 
ZappasGuitar said:
So it's all about the Mosque/Community Center they wish to build in Manhattan ONLY?

I see to recall some trouble with intolerant Christians protesting the building of a Mosque in Tennessee.

I also recall more intolerant Christians protesting a Mosque being built somewhere in Wisconsin.

Do you STILL claim it's only about the Mosque being built in Manhattan?
Click to expand...

Anyone else wonder why ol Gutless/Dixie won't respond to this pretty straightforward little point?
 
Dixie said:
Then they would have to recuse themselves from the case. Oh fuckin well!
Click to expand...

A grasp on reality does not disqualify one from judging the case.

I can see an ED case, especially considering there are already mosques in the area. Hey, this burro doesn't have a School for the Blind, and this makes a perfect central location for one! If they can prevail, more power to em!

Furthermore, I also think a challenge could be made, on an appeal for public safety. You do have 1st Amendment rights, but you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater... your 1st Amendment rights do not trump public safety. So while the Muslims may have the right to build the mosque, the authorities also have a right to contest it on grounds of danger to public safety. Clearly, building it, might bring some nut out of the woodworks to bomb it, and we can't have people in danger of that in lower Manhattan.

There are indeed a myriad of challenges which can legitimately be made, and will be made. None of which will seek to deny they have a 1st Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.
Click to expand...

None of those arguments have any merit. You are just a despicable piece of shit that is looking for some convenient excuse to deny these people the right to practice their faith. It's completely transparent and no court would accept your games of make believe.
 
RStringfield said:
A grasp on reality does not disqualify one from judging the case.
Click to expand...

No, but preconceptions about the case before it is heard, most certainly does. Again, this happens all the time. The case will be judged on legal merit, and not public sentiments, or perceptions. You stated that "everyone knows this is about preventing a mosque" and if that is how the ED case is presented, they will lose. ED can't be used just to prevent the mosque, but it can be used to build a school for the blind, or a fire department... I highly doubt the lawyers who bring the ED case will establish it is for the purpose of preventing the mosque. Doesn't matter what 'everybody knows'.

None of those arguments have any merit. You are just a despicable piece of shit that is looking for some convenient excuse to deny these people the right to practice their faith. It's completely transparent and no court would accept your games of make believe.
Click to expand...

And you can repeat that I am denying Muslims the right to practice their faith from now until November 2, for all I care. If you think that is helping your side, I fully understand.... what's that ticking sound? ....ohh... that's your poll numbers slowly ticking down another notch... hahaha. You should take a clue from your White House, they stopped talking about this, because it's a caustic and toxic issue, and they know it. Nearly 70% of the country is opposed to this, the other 30% are either like you, and favor it, or have no opinion... I think most of that 30% really have no opinion... so, we can see you are clearly on the outside looking in here.
 
Dixie said:
It had to do with MORE than a church, it had to do with an individual right. Property rights, which are certainly part of the same constitution and same Bill of Rights. Last I checked, they haven't put YOU in charge of what is permitted. Sorry Stringy!
Click to expand...

Kelo did not deal with the first amendment. This case has little relevance to it.

Kelo dealt with public use. It was a crappy ruling but it does not expand public use into being a legitimate tool to oppress freedom of religion or any of our other rights.

You are insane.
 
Dixie said:
No, but preconceptions about the case before it is heard, most certainly does. Again, this happens all the time. The case will be judged on legal merit, and not public sentiments, or perceptions. You stated that "everyone knows this is about preventing a mosque" and if that is how the ED case is presented, they will lose. ED can't be used just to prevent the mosque, but it can be used to build a school for the blind, or a fire department... I highly doubt the lawyers who bring the ED case will establish it is for the purpose of preventing the mosque. Doesn't matter what 'everybody knows'.
Click to expand...

Dumbass, the facts of the matter will be introduced concerning what motivated the taking. The court will not just pretend the state was suddenly motivated to build a hospital.

And you can repeat that I am denying Muslims the right to practice their faith ....
Click to expand...

Of course, you are. You think if everybody just pretends then it will not be about their religion but you are not even really pretending it is not. Like I said, you are insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top