User Profile: termyt

termyt

Member Since: February 15, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [11] October 22, 2014 at 11:39pm

    You do realize you just used an argument against slavery to support enslaving people, right? I mean your user name implies a certain level of thought, so I’m thinking may your post was meant to be satire as well?

    You say that people must offer their labor to satisfy another’s rights. That to refuse to labor for the benefit of another is a violation of that other person’s rights. Do you know the common word for someone who has no right to refuse to work for the benefit of another person regardless of their own interests? I’ll give you a hint: It begins with S and ends with LAVE.

  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 11:31pm

    It’s a tad hypocritical, or at least extremely dishonest, Harry, to strip the basic rights of people in order to give other people extra rights on top of their basic ones.
    You seem to be the model for the farcical liberal of this author’s imagination.
    Most countries around this planet are happy to deny the rights of many to enhance the rights of the few. Why not go there instead of turning this once great land into another one? I hear North Korea is lovely this time of year and they have a great record of denying basic rights of the many to enhance the benefits of the few.

  • [13] October 22, 2014 at 4:18pm

    That’s because in a Godless state, it is the state that grants rights. Even atheists who claim libertarian or conservative stances don’t have an answer for that. If there is nothing higher than the state, the state is the grantor of rights. If the state grants rights, it has the authority to strip them away.

  • [2] October 22, 2014 at 3:57pm

    He only needs the license plates. Chasing them all around the highway does little if they won’t stop and forcing them to will kill some body.

    They’ll get their summons in the mail.

  • [6] October 22, 2014 at 3:38pm

    Good for him. He certainly has been a douche for a long time now. I hope he finds the peace he is looking for.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] October 22, 2014 at 3:33pm

    It’s youth boxing, so I believe they have different rules about whether or not a fighter can continue.
    Either way, like you said, there is are methods for disputing the results of a fight and I’m pretty sure none of them include the method chosen by the fighter.

  • [14] October 22, 2014 at 12:51pm

    Someone missed the point.

  • [33] October 22, 2014 at 12:50pm

    They haven’t amended the Constitution yet to suit their needs. They just violate it willfully and completely. The first couple of times they looked around to see if anyone was going to object. No one did, so now they do it with impunity.

  • [1] October 21, 2014 at 3:46pm

    Because their entire world view is based on the fervent belief in the nonexistence of something. Their hope is built on Him not being there and their proof is they can’t see Him. When your entire world view is built on a house of cards, you tend to get nervous about it.

  • [5] October 21, 2014 at 3:33pm

    Spoken like a serf, Grover.

    The very worst of all tyrants who have ever ruled on this planet have done so legally with courts backing their monstrous decisions.

    So why shouldn’t a court in the United States also back a strike against freedom that seems so much more reasonable?

    I guess you just know to bow to your betters better than me.

  • [4] October 21, 2014 at 2:46pm

    Ah, so Congress passed a law. OK, well the trumps the Constitution. Oh. Wait a minute…

  • [64] October 21, 2014 at 2:34pm

    It’s really not about whether their interpretation of Christianity is correct or not. It’s about whether we want our government to decide for us whom we will associate/do business with.

    I don’t agree with the Kleins that Christianity requires refusal to bake cakes for gay weddings. I do, however, believe the Kleins have God-endowed rights to religion and association that says if they believe their religion requires them to not associate with certain people or events, they are free to follow their consciences.

    If they are not, I am not and none of us are. Therefore, we are not free.

    Responses (6) +
  • [13] October 21, 2014 at 1:01pm

    We already know this man is either a liar or a fool, so what’s the point in giving his words any credibility?

    America is all about individualism because Christianity is all about individualism. The nature of our relationship with God is an individual one. He wants a relationship with each of us individually.

    This ridiculous poser, who knows nothing but to spout Muslim doctrine about Christ in spite of all historical information we have about him contradicts the Muslim narrative, hasn’t a clue about who He was.

    Christ was no Marxist. Nowhere in His narrative do we see commandments to build up tyrannical nations to force people to at least act like they believe in Him, unlike what Aslan’s Muslim brothers do. We are to follow Him freely of our own accord, which will cause us to unify and take care of the poor, among other things. There’s no government force involved.

    Responses (1) +
  • [6] October 20, 2014 at 2:28pm

    Rabid, I don’t know where to start. Talk about amateur – or at least someone perfectly willing to have their government dictate whom they will associate with and when. Misapplying the Constitution while complaining of others doing the same. It’s kind of weird. Just what form of patriotism are you rabid for? Because it kind of looks like the USSR right now.
    Freedom of religion, like all the others, is an individual one, not a corporate one. Decisions religious folk make are grounded in their religion. That doesn’t wake up at 9:00 on Sunday morning and go back to sleep at noon. They have that freedom all 7 days of the week.
    Forcing someone to violate their beliefs by associating with someone they would not care to is a violation of their First Amendment rights which protect our right to associate or disassociate with whom we please. Whether a speech / religion issue or not, that’s still the First Amendment.
    If I am forced to buy from or sell to any entity for any reason, it violates my right to free association. If forced servitude also contradicts or limits the practice of my religion, then it also violates freedom of religion.
    This doesn’t take a law degree to understand. The Constitution is written in English for all of us to read and digest.

  • [11] October 20, 2014 at 2:02pm

    “So if one holds that it is their religious belief / right to own slaves… Does that mean that form of religious expression is to be allowed? ”
    Apparently so, Zapp, as businesses have no right to refuse service to the master classes. That’s what slavery is – you are a slave if you do not have the right to refuse service to your master.

    The folks here and in photo studios and bakeries all over this country are slaves to their homosexual masters and must provide them the services they feel due.

  • [6] October 20, 2014 at 1:57pm

    What does taming picky pre-schooler’s eating habits have to do with whether or not school lunches have enough calories for high schoolers?

    If there’s a link between the two, I missed it. Are you saying the government is trying to trick us into starving our children to death?

  • [15] October 20, 2014 at 12:04pm

    What if I refuse to buy a sandwich from the deli only because the owner is a black Jewish gay woman? I only buy from straight white Christian men.
    I am discriminating based on race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, which is against the law. Should I be forced to buy from that deli?
    It sounds ridiculous, right? Why isn’t it ridiculous, then, to force the transaction in the opposite direction?

  • [4] October 20, 2014 at 11:01am

    This really shows J-Mo has has no idea that there’s a difference between public and private, like the good little serfs who will do whatever their lord tells them to do.
    But that’s not fair. I’ll wager that J-Mo understands his rights to his own property. He just doesn’t care about anyone else’s.

  • [24] October 20, 2014 at 10:47am

    Say we have two people, X and Y. One owns a business, the other is a prospective customer. It doesn’t even matter which is which.

    They both have the right to free association, the primary right when it comes to doing business (religious rights actually don’t come into play here, save as a reason for deciding how to use your free association rights).

    Y wants to do business with X. X does not want to do business with Y. What is the answer to this problem that best preserves the rights of both X and Y?

    Free association requires consent of all parties. If someone does not want to associate with another, it is a violation to force that association.

    Let’s say X is the customer and Y is the business. Y wants to do business with X, but X doesn’t want to buy what Y is selling. Does X’s reason matter? No. If X doesn’t want to use his resources on Y, he doesn’t have to. Everyone seems to get it this way.

    Let’s reverse it and say Y is the customer and X is the business owner. Can Y force X to sell him something? How is this different? If X doesn’t want to use his resources on Y, he still should not have to.

    Y has a right to play in the market, but not the right to force another, against his right of association, to be his partner.

  • [11] October 20, 2014 at 10:39am

    Hello, TT2, and good day to you as well. My main goal for my government is one that equally respect the rights of all of its citizens. The only legitimate reason to form a collective government is to secure the rights of its citizens against threats to those rights, both foreign and domestic.

    All branches of the government are capable of infringing our rights, the judiciary included. A court proclaiming that rights infringement is OK, or that clear infringement is not infringement at all is just as bad, if not worse than a law that says the same. “Public accommodation” is nothing but tyrannical doubletalk to make rights infringement sound more reasonable.

    I will make a second post with an example that I hope demonstrates my point of view well.

123 To page: Go