Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:00 PM
Adam's Avatar
Adam Adam is offline
Vice Cobra Assistant Commander
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: XMVDCCXLIX
Images: 29
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
You want individuals separated into groups, much easier to manipulate their behavior that way, right?

Idiotic thinking like that will have brown eyed people lynching green eyed people you fucking moron.

Hey, your eye color does or does not allow special group privilege, therefore you should have animosity, nay, you must have anger for those other fucks with the wrong color eyes because those fucks do not have your group's eye color.
That is quite possibly the most obtuse reading possible of what I posted. CONGRATULATION! A winner is you!

:medal:
__________________
"Trans Am Jesus" is "what hanged me"
ARMORED HOT DOG
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (10-10-2011), Dragar (10-10-2011), Nullifidian (10-10-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #52  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:00 PM
Watser?'s Avatar
Watser? Watser? is offline
Fishy mokey
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Furrin parts
Posts: LMMDCCCLXVIII
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Second, no, what I "want" (or, rather, what I understand to be the point of hate crime legislation) is for their to be a recognition of and a penalty for the fact that, implicit in every lynching, is a death threat aimed at every member of the targeted group.
You want individuals separated into groups, much easier to manipulate their behavior that way, right?

Idiotic thinking like that will have brown eyed people lynching green eyed people you fucking moron.
Whatever happened to polite Gnome?

Anyway, thanks for this history lesson. I never knew it was hate crime laws that led to the wave of lynchings after the US Civil War.
__________________
:typingmonkey:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-10-2011), beyelzu (10-12-2011), ChuckF (10-10-2011), chunksmediocrites (10-10-2011), Deadlokd (10-11-2011), Dragar (10-10-2011), erimir (10-11-2011), Kael (10-10-2011), Nullifidian (10-10-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #53  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:03 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser? View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Second, no, what I "want" (or, rather, what I understand to be the point of hate crime legislation) is for their to be a recognition of and a penalty for the fact that, implicit in every lynching, is a death threat aimed at every member of the targeted group.
You want individuals separated into groups, much easier to manipulate their behavior that way, right?

Idiotic thinking like that will have brown eyed people lynching green eyed people you fucking moron.
Whatever happened to polite Gnome?

Anyway, thanks for this history lesson. I never knew it was hate crime laws that led to the wave of lynchings after the US Civil War.
lol no retard, Adam caused that, because of how he dreamed up separating people into groups
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-10-2011), beyelzu (10-12-2011), chunksmediocrites (10-10-2011), Deadlokd (10-11-2011), Kael (10-10-2011), Nullifidian (10-10-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011), Watser? (10-10-2011)
  #54  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:06 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMCML
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Chuck, the actions denote the determination.
That is partially correct (at least if you separate it from the post which you responded)!

I can't help but wonder whether contemplation of the intent-motive distinction might be of service here. Nah, prolly not.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #55  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:06 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Chuck, the actions denote the determination.
That is partially correct (at least if you separate it from the post which you responded)!

I can't help but wonder whether contemplation of the intent-motive distinction might be of service here. Nah, prolly not.
NO FAIR! NO HELPING!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (10-10-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #56  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:08 PM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCXCIX
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
So it's OK for the state to punish someone for the content of his or her thoughts when that person's actions denote a determination to take such action? The state could punish homophobe for killing a homosexual since his actions in killing a homosexual denotes a determination to kill a homosexual? Is that what you're saying?
No Chuck.

The action determines if there is malice. Thought is not relevant, the action is.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:11 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMCML
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watser? View Post
I never knew it was hate crime laws that led to the wave of lynchings after the US Civil War.
lol don't be silly. It was the presence of uppity coloreds that led to those lynchings.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
huntress (07-02-2014), LadyShea (10-10-2011), Nullifidian (10-10-2011), Pan Narrans (10-11-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #58  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:12 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
So it's OK for the state to punish someone for the content of his or her thoughts when that person's actions denote a determination to take such action? The state could punish homophobe for killing a homosexual since his actions in killing a homosexual denotes a determination to kill a homosexual? Is that what you're saying?
No Chuck.

The action determines if there is malice.
Sometimes malice can be imputed by particular acts and factual circumstances, it's true. This is still the law imputing a mental state to the actor. But not always. Proving malice aforethought requires the prosecution to present evidence that tends to establish the actor's state of mind.
Quote:
Thought is not relevant, the action is.
Whoa! Where did that come from? With the exception of felony murder, murder is not a strict liability crime. There is a mens rea (which means - get ready for it - guilty mind) element to it.

Should the law be allowed to punish people for having a guilty mind?

Matlock is helping you out here.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #59  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:18 PM
livius drusus's Avatar
livius drusus livius drusus is offline
Admin of THIEVES and SLUGABEDS
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: LVCCCLXXII
Images: 5
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Uh oh... Looks like J needs to watch Legally Blonde again to brush up on his skills. This is what happens when you skip a month, JEROME. You forget mens rea.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-10-2011), ChuckF (10-10-2011), chunksmediocrites (10-10-2011), Clutch Munny (10-10-2011), Deadlokd (10-11-2011), Dragar (10-10-2011), Ensign Steve (10-11-2011), Nullifidian (10-10-2011), Pan Narrans (10-11-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011), Zehava (10-10-2011)
  #60  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:20 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by livius drusus View Post
Uh oh... Looks like J needs to watch Legally Blonde again to brush up on his skills. This is what happens when you skip a month, JEROME. You forget mens rea.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-10-2011), Angakuk (10-11-2011), chunksmediocrites (10-10-2011), Clutch Munny (10-10-2011), Deadlokd (10-11-2011), Kael (10-10-2011), livius drusus (10-10-2011), Nullifidian (10-10-2011), Pan Narrans (10-11-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011), Watser? (10-10-2011)
  #61  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:21 PM
livius drusus's Avatar
livius drusus livius drusus is offline
Admin of THIEVES and SLUGABEDS
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: LVCCCLXXII
Images: 5
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Orly wishes she has Elle's keen legal mind. And actual blonde hair. And probably Bruiser too, because that dog is awesome.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
chunksmediocrites (10-10-2011), huntress (07-02-2014), LadyShea (10-10-2011), Nullifidian (10-10-2011), Ripley (10-11-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #62  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:32 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Jesus H Christ, I don't care if she's a woman and I should support her, pink satin does not belong on a middle aged woman, just sayin'.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #63  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:34 PM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCCCLXXIX
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

habeas corpus!
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Nullifidian (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #64  
Old 10-10-2011, 10:55 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, MI, cancels Center for Inquiry–Michigan event with biologist Richard Dawkins because of his atheist philosophy.

Quote:
In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.
According to CFI this is prolly actionable (see below). Counselors?

Quote:
Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions. According to Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964, “open to the public” means “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
Also lol Country Clubs
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Deadlokd (10-11-2011), Nullifidian (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #65  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:00 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
The Wyndgate Country Club in Rochester Hills, MI, cancels Center for Inquiry–Michigan event with biologist Richard Dawkins because of his atheist philosophy.

Quote:
In a phone call to CFI–Michigan Assistant Director Jennifer Beahan, The Wyndgate’s representative explained that the owner did not wish to associate with individuals such as Dawkins, or his philosophies.
:lol: That's pretty awesome. I bet Dawkins is deeply disappointed that Judge Smails said he can't play golf at Bushwood.
Quote:
According to CFI this is prolly actionable (see below). Counselors?

Quote:
Although privately owned, The Wyndgate facilities are open to the public for special events and occasions. According to Title II of the Federal Civil Rights Law of 1964, “open to the public” means “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.”
Also lol Country Clubs
Prolly not. Wyndgate may or may not fall within the scope of Title II. Even if it does, it would have to be shown that its action here was prohibited. Unless by "individuals such as Dawkins" meant Brits or white people. (I'm guessing the place might have a few token white members.) I know nothing about civil rights law, but on its face the statute does not address discrimination or exclusion on the basis of ideology or philosophy. So Dawkins would want to argue that atheism is a religion or something, which doesn't sound like him.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-10-2011), Deadlokd (10-11-2011), LadyShea (10-10-2011), Nullifidian (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #66  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:02 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Doesn't "religion" usually imply all worldviews that have a stance on deity?
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:11 PM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMLXXXV
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

IANAE, but it seems to me that "...on ground of... religion" is, on its face, broader than "on grounds of the excluded party's religion".
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:17 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Probably not in this case. The 1972 amendments to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act give us a rather unhelpful definition of "religion": "[t]he term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief . . ." Statutes are assumed to be internally consistent, so courts have probably looked to that definition to be applied in Title II, which is silent on the definition of "religion." I would say that where observance, practice, and belief are absent, there is no religion.

Lexis search underway.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-11-2011), Clutch Munny (10-10-2011), Nullifidian (10-10-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #69  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:23 PM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMLXXXV
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

It's more the breadth of "on ground of X", as opposed to "on ground of excluded party's positive participation in X" that I was smurfing.

I dunno. Do you think that a systematic prejudice against stateless persons (born on the high seas, say) ought to run afoul of the national origin clause? A clause prohibiting discrimination on ground of gender ought to prohibit discrimination against persons of ambiguous gender, it seems to me. But this may just highlight the fact that IANAE.
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (10-11-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #70  
Old 10-10-2011, 11:42 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

So yeah! The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois said: "Title II's prohibition of religious discrimination is consistent with this modern recognition that stereotyping on the basis of religious belief or the lack of belief in God is unwarranted." Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America, 742 F. Supp. 1413, 1434 (N.D.Ill. 1990). The Seventh Circuit affirmed on a different basis and declined to reach the constitutional question. Welsh v. Boy Scouts of Am., 993 F.2d 1267 (7th Cir. Ill. 1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 1012, 114 S. Ct. 602, 126 L. Ed. 2d 567 (1993). The dissent in the CoA opinion noted that the majority left that particular question unanswered:
The majority's interpretation of Title II would leave the Boy Scouts and other like organizations free to discriminate not just against atheists--or those whose beliefs arguably conflict with the group's most central philosophy--but against anyone at all on sheer whim. Under the majority's analysis, a group such as Rotary International or the Jaycees or Little League is, absent a more comprehensive state statute, perfectly free to exclude blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc. Rather than unduly narrow the reach of Title II, I would hold that the statute does prevent discrimination by membership organizations. This does not necessarily mean that the Boy Scouts could be forced to admit atheists, however, because the First Amendment protects organizations from having to accept those who do not share its most elementary beliefs. Id. (Cummings, J., dissenting)
Long story short, outside of the Northern District of Illinois, nobody knows. Hooray!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-11-2011), Clutch Munny (10-10-2011), Kael (10-11-2011), Nullifidian (10-11-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #71  
Old 10-11-2011, 12:03 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clutch Munny View Post
It's more the breadth of "on ground of X", as opposed to "on ground of excluded party's positive participation in X" that I was smurfing.

I dunno. Do you think that a systematic prejudice against stateless persons (born on the high seas, say) ought to run afoul of the national origin clause? A clause prohibiting discrimination on ground of gender ought to prohibit discrimination against persons of ambiguous gender, it seems to me. But this may just highlight the fact that IANAE.
Yeah this highlights the fact that YANAE because you sound like a thinking person. This does not require thought, it requires a judicial construction of the phrase "on the ground of" for purposes of the Civil Rights Act. Which I guess I will go look up now, thanks. Also somewhere the DOJ should have published summat in the Code of Federal Regulations about this. This is probably like day 2 of Civil Rights law, and I am completely out of my depth here, but what the fuck, it would be p. expensive for you guys to sue me or whatever.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-11-2011), Clutch Munny (10-11-2011), Deadlokd (10-11-2011), Nullifidian (10-11-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #72  
Old 10-11-2011, 12:35 AM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDXXIII
Images: 2
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

I ain't finding shit. So why don't I make up some shit instead. If I'm reading you correctly, you would broaden "on the ground [of] . . . religion" effectively to include "on the ground [of] . . . religious viewpoint." Normatively this makes sense, and it seems to be consistent with Congressional intent in the 1964 act, and the District court's opinion in Welsh.

The problem with that normatively-appropriate reading, and the problem that it would inevitably encounter, is that Title VII's statutory definition of "religion" gave Congress a second bite at the apple. In order to define this term, Congress said that it "includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief." (This was probably written this way to avoid establishment clause issues.)

If I were representing Bushwood, I would say "Hey, Scalito. Congress had a fucking chance to include lack of religious observance, lack of religious practice, and lack of religious belief in its definition of 'religion.' So not only is non-belief inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term 'religion,' it is also inconsistent with Congress's definition. We don't even have to get to this 'on the ground of' business." And heads would nod vigorously from the bench.

Then you would say "Wait! The Congressional definition isn't exhaustive! It only says what it does include, not what it exclusively includes!" Brows are furrowed.

Then I would say "That's true, but LOL this joker would have the Court read non-religion into the statutory definition of religion! What wouldn't be included in the new judge-made definition of religion! Way to defeat Congressional intent!" More vigorous head nodding.

Then you would say "Hold it, asshole! That's not what I'm asking, I'm just saying that the definition of religion could be reasonably read to include religious viewpoint, and this statute would proscribe discrimination on that basis, which is entirely consistent with Congressional intent." Uh oh, that sounds reasonable. Throat-clearing from the bench.

Then I would say "NO U. Congress could have said that and it didn't! If you've got a problem with that, take it up with your Congressman and leave the Court alone!" Then I would wink at Justice Roberts and my red light would come on.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-11-2011), Angakuk (10-11-2011), Clutch Munny (10-11-2011), Crumb (10-11-2011), Janet (10-29-2011), Nullifidian (10-11-2011), Sock Puppet (10-11-2011), SR71 (10-11-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-11-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #73  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:13 AM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCCCLXXIX
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

I thought of that Boy Scouts of America case when I read this, actually. I just don't know anything about looking up or citing actual cases...
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-11-2011, 01:19 AM
Nullifidian's Avatar
Nullifidian Nullifidian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: MVCMLXXXVIII
Blog Entries: 5
Images: 19
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
I thought of that Boy Scouts of America case when I read this, actually. I just don't know anything about looking up or citing actual cases...
That's what they teach you in law school before you can be invested by a letter patent from the Monarch with the title "Esquire".
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (10-11-2011), ChuckF (10-11-2011), Deadlokd (10-11-2011), Kael (10-11-2011), livius drusus (10-11-2011), Pan Narrans (10-11-2011), Sock Puppet (10-11-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-11-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
  #75  
Old 10-11-2011, 02:35 AM
Clutch Munny's Avatar
Clutch Munny Clutch Munny is offline
Clutchenheimer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Canada
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMLXXXV
Images: 1
Default Re: Conservatives say stupid shit

Thanks, Chuck. Before I sue you, let me say that, while you are surely right and would surely win with Scally and the Chief, here is the bit where I would (inter alia) make many reductios that leaned heavily on the qualifier "shoooooorly".
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
If I were representing Bushwood, I would say "Hey, Scalito. Congress had a fucking chance to include lack of religious observance, lack of religious practice, and lack of religious belief in its definition of 'religion.' So not only is non-belief inconsistent with the plain meaning of the term 'religion,' it is also inconsistent with Congress's definition. We don't even have to get to this 'on the ground of' business."
Okay, I wrote up a reply to this, then realized how rhetorically persuasive, rationally consistent, and legally disastrous it was. Dang.
__________________
Your very presence is making me itchy.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ChuckF (10-11-2011), Nullifidian (10-11-2011), The Man (10-28-2011)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.39286 seconds with 15 queries