Depends on how you use ED, you could use it in such a way that it would violate the 1st.
Geesh you really dont understand do you!!!?
Remember when Republicans were for Religious Freedom
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
Depends on how you use ED, you could use it in such a way that it would violate the 1st.
Geesh you really dont understand do you!!!?
That does not mean that it never violoates the 1st... Liar!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You don't know what a court might think, the case must first be presented and heard. The opinion of what a party's motivations are, does not determine ANY case, as far as I know. There is always two opinions and cases for motivation presented, not just one. If an officer of the court participates in the case with prejudice or bias, they have not given a fair and impartial consideration of both sides. This is crucial to our legal system, and can't be allowed to prevail. You are free to think whatever you want to think, it doesn't mean a court will agree with your stupid ass.
It's not, nor ever has been, about the Muslims right to practice their religion. You've already established there are other mosques nearby, so no one is being denied a right to worship. If that is the only defense you have to offer, your side will not prevail in an eminent domain case.
He's a dishonest piece of shit.
And herein lies the problem. You base your opinions on what you know, which is not much. This is a fundamental right and so state action would have to serve some interest. Of course, they would consider the states motivation.
Of course, it is about their religion. Again, no court is going to play along with your fantasy.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Of course they would, I never argued they wouldn't. But they would consider both sides arguments for their motivation, not just the side you see. That's the point I was making, which seemed to skip comfortably over your pinhead.
Again, if an judge had already determined it was about their religion, he would have to recuse himself and not hear the case. That is YOUR opinion of their motivation, and it is a biased one. It's not a matter of playing along with a fantasy, it's a matter of legal precedent and legal standing. We all understand people have Constitutional rights, but to prevail in a court case regarding those rights, you have to establish (or defend) that the individual rights supersede a greater public right, or that the public right is fundamentally denying an individual of their constitutional rights. You can't establish the later because you've already established there are other mosques for Muslims to worship, in proximity.
What's funny is, you are the same tards who are arguing that "corporations" have been given "human rights" by being allowed to make political contributions, yet here... we have a "corporation" attempting to build a mosque at ground zero, and you think they have inalienable "human" rights! It's a stunning contradiction of your liberal logic, isn't it?
There is absolutely no merit in the position that the state suddenly decided it needed a school or hospital in this location. It's quite clear what is motivating the action and it has nothing to do with an appropriate "public use." It is clearly intended to infringe upon the 1st amendment rights of the property owners.
Again, the EVIDENCE is going to make it clear that was not the intent and no court is going to accept your revisionist fantasy.
This has nothing at all to do with a judge that formed a decision before hearing all evidence. Is that just another act in your fantasy??? You keep bringing it up as if it is relevant to something, but it is not.
You know I am not that type of "liberal." I do not support CFR and it you are the one that backed McCain.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I fixed that up for ya! Since you seem to be having some trouble with comprehension.
I think it will be terribly difficult to establish Muslims "need" this mosque in order to exercise their freedom to worship. So the fundamental question of whether their rights are being violated in denying the mosque, is answered... NOPE! See, you have to show where they are being prohibited from freely exercising their religion, because that is what the 1st guarantees. By your own admission, there is a mosque nearby this same location, so they are not being prohibited. Sorry about that, but it kind of kills your entire case. Then it becomes a matter of whether the public interest for a hospital or school (whatever) is greater than the need for Muslims to have a mosque in that area, and I am sure a legitimate case can be made for that. Chances are, they are not going to call Stringy and ask him what they should do here, so what you THINK really means about as much as the smelly stuff between my toes.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
Why yes he is and thank you for agreeing with me...Dixie is a gutless piece of fecal matter.
Reverend Jones
Banned
Islam is of the Devil!!!