There is a difference between having rights infringed and persecution. I reserve the latter for truly punitive measures enacted by the State, such as fines, imprisonment, death, etc. There are many instances of rights being infringed, that I would not raise to the level of persecution. That said, there have been some very high-profile instances of actual persecution, including ruinous fines for a business that chose not to enter into a contractual relationship to bake cupcakes for a gay wedding, because of sincerely held religious beliefs.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up
- Thread starter mrjarrell
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
There is a difference between having rights infringed and persecution. I reserve the latter for truly punitive measures enacted by the State, such as fines, imprisonment, death, etc. There are many instances of rights being infringed, that I would not raise to the level of persecution. That said, there have been some very high-profile instances of actual persecution, including ruinous fines for a business that chose not to enter into a contractual relationship to bake cupcakes for a gay wedding, because of sincerely held religious beliefs.
I think the SCOTUS got the Oberfell decision wrong. Not for the same reasons as you though. People working in a government capacity don't have the right to impose their authority by enforcing their religious views. But we went back and forth on that back then I won't try to rehash it here. I oppose the SCOTUS decision because I think it was progressive for the sake of progression. It sets no limits on what can be a protected class. I think those questions were asked but not effectively answered during arguments.
I won't join a political party unless it is for pragmatic reasons. I do think the L party is lead by too many progressive libertarians, but I don't think libertarianism is inherently progressive as we define "progressive" today.
Trump passes Romney?s popular vote total, likely to break GOP record - POLITICO
Note: Trump is actually over 10 million popular votes now.
And that's going to be problematic. If Trump wins 35 states and shatters the Republican primary popular vote record, but does not earn the nomination outright, the party will be within its rights and rules to nominate someone else. But doing so will destroy the party.
Note: Trump is actually over 10 million popular votes now.
And that's going to be problematic. If Trump wins 35 states and shatters the Republican primary popular vote record, but does not earn the nomination outright, the party will be within its rights and rules to nominate someone else. But doing so will destroy the party.
Whatever the case, this has opened up the process going forward.
If you can get there without the support of the media and entirety of 1 of the 2 major political parties the future looks bright for a better candidate.
If you can get there without the support of the media and entirety of 1 of the 2 major political parties the future looks bright for a better candidate.
This happens a lot with web tools. It's what happens when people who know a lot about the domain and little about intuitive web design, get to make the tool. It's generally better for web designers to learn the domain, and then design the tool. The worst is when accounts design GUIs. They really tend to suck most at it.
MisterChester
Master
I myself don't know all of the facts behind the instances, but I think they mostly had to do with city ordinances being violated.
And that matters, how?
If it does get destroyed, I'd like to see a more "conservatarian" based party come up in its place. But really if anything blows up I would like it to be our voting system. A system that inherently makes political parties this influential is not productive for a free, self-governed society. I want a voting system that makes political parties matter much, much less, and one that doesn't effectively enforce a two-party system.
Careful, now; we're still trying to avoid the apocalypse. (I also agree that the national GOP needs to be philosophically destroyed, because it no longer respects, much less reflects, the grassroots of the party.)
MisterChester
Master
This is a defining moment of the party, and it is changing. Some people will fall off the back to make room for others. I say it's about damn time.
So you think the Supreme Court got the decision right but for the wrong reasons? I oppose the state taking any part in marriage but I'm not sure I'd say the Supreme Court got the decision wrong because they didn't come to that same conclusion.
Suit yourself. But I have a set of litmus tests on which I am pretty inflexible. Let your conscience be your guide and so will I.
I don't disagree.
If Trump is the nominee they will not have made the tent bigger, they will have picked up the tent poles and moved it to a different location. A lot of the people who were standing in that tent will be no longer.
No. I'm saying they arrived at the wrong conclusion because they used the wrong process by which to decide. Their decision was progressive for the sake of progressing. In other words, they legislated from the bench.
Personally I agree that government should not be involved in marriage at all. "Marriage" is a religious construct. If we want government to have some mechanism to administer rights and privileges that are inherent to people living in common, such as rights of surviorship, common property, combined taxes, etcetera, we should make that construct a civil union. And the civil union should have nothing to do with the type of relationship. Civil unions can be married, they can be siblings, platonic friends, whatever relationship is not the business of government. If you want to be married in the eyes of your God then go to your church/synagogue/mosque/temple/alter/beachfront/whatever and abide by your religion's view of marriage.
But that's not the state of things and that desirable state of things is not a realistic goal we can achieve. So, within what is possible, let's not create a precedence for an unlimited progression of who or what can be defined as "married". I think that's what the scotus ruling did wrong.
The GOP has been attempting to push itself to the right for the last couple of decades. The Tea Party brought chaos. Religious fundamentalism as a requirement to be labeled a "conservative" further decimated the party. Hatred of Obama and a do nothing Congress. Is it any wonder you ended up with Trump? No one is "pure" enough for your standards, so you end up with a red-headed stepchild.
It would be funny except he might win the presidency.....
It would be funny except he might win the presidency.....
It's a pretty good analogy. The idea of expanding the tent shouldn't be at the expense of current members. That said, there are some ideologies within the Republican party that are not compatible. But they're forced to live together because there are only two viable parties in which each ideology must be pigeonholed, and as incompatible as some diverse Republicans are, they are even more incompatible with Democrats.
- Status
