And just so you know, I throw stones at the Pubs when they deserve it .
So, because she shared via You Tube Dennis's link makes all her research futile - right? I am not a follower of Dennis Prager myself. I am sure you can find the same info on numerous sites. I am sure that you are more of an expert on the history of the Democrat party than she - perhaps yes? Who founded the Democrat Party hmmm?Thomas Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican platform, it was made more popular under Andrew Jackson who was responsible for the Cherokee "Trail of Tears" along with William T. Sherman of Civil War fame . Check that history out . But, in case you don't like that link, you can look at this one:
Oh, and nobody else does that on this site right ?
Oh, racism exists and is found in all races to one extent or another. Not blind to it, just not sold that racism is to be found "under every rock" so to speak. Does white racism still exist? Unfortunately yes. Does black racism exist? Unfortunately yes. I could go on about every race or ethnic origin. Do a majority of any ethic group practice racism or support it - no! As for the "thoughtful conservative" comment: I am sure only liberals or progressives own the "thoughtful" space - NOT! A reading of the Federalist papers or Anti- Federalist papers would prove that "thoughtful debate or discussion" is not owned by any particular political leaning. Just because someone has a different perspective doesn't make them less contemplative. I guess if that is "galling ", then count me in. One can read of the "intolerance" practiced on many college campuses to shut down any discussion other than what "I" agree with and see where the intolerance of free and open discussion is quite evident. Oh, give me my "safe space"!
Misguided, but all too typical, California ruling (formulated by mostly Democrat state legislators)
This is what this case was about and that is the reason for the "narrow ruling". As the majority stated, more will be decided in the courts as time goes on. This was a victory for this artist, and the State of Colorado should pay reparations for the damage their bigoted and based actions caused this business owner. So, I disagree. This was a victory for the cake artist and his conscience and for the abuse of citizens by biased governmental adjudication bodies which acted like a fascists (forcing their governmental power inappropriately upon individual citizens).
The victory in this case is twofold: A person who did not dicriminate against gays in general, was vindicated in his objection to affirming a behavioral practice he did not agree with. Furthermore, he sold cakes to LGBT folks that did not "celebrate" the practice. He also declined to do custom cakes for folks who overtly deamaned gay people, or certain Halloween cakes, or white supremacist groups. So, his objection to using his art to support behavior that he objected to, as a matter of religious conscience was affirmed. Secondly, it showed the abuse of certain religious tenants by governmental entities which happens more often in the last 20 years. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission would probably have censored George Washington's innaguaral speech. This bigoted, biased, and overtly antagonistic body, towards people of faith, should be disciplined for their behavior and point of view as far as jurisprudence.
That is another discussion.
A nonsequiteur to the discussion. You miss the point.
If it wasn't for the Republicans it would never have passed. You only tell half the story here. More Democrats voted against it than Republicans. Bt just in case anybody is reading, here is the actual count by House and Senate. So, my point isn't Southern or Northern (remember more Northern Congressional delegates voted AGAINST the 14th amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 Which party supported the 14th Amendment? The 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to freed slaves. 94% of Republicans supported this while no Democrats did. The 15th Amendment, which gave the right to vote to all native born had 100% of Republican support and no Democrat.Sep 3, 2016
Yes, Clinton's and Obama's tact were SO SUCCESSFUL - NOT!
Especially for the mentally ill - agreed! I support universal background checks, and checking into those persons who have behavioral/mental issues. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE GUNS! The shooting in Florida was not really about guns, but about a failure of the system to stop this nutcase from having a gun. However, with knife attacks lately, should we outlaw knives? Should we also outlaw trucks? What about dynamite? There was a man, at the turn of the 20th century and in objection to property taxes, used a truck full of dynamite to blow up a Michigan school and kill about 45 people: teachers and children? http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/18/bath_school_bombing_remembering_the_deadliest_school_massacre_in_american.html Maybe we should outlaw fists, so the people like MS13 cannot beat someone to death. Why not baseball bats; they can kill you? The point is that a personal sense of the value of individual life is the best safeguard to the abuse of any type of weapon or act of aggression with any tool. If I really value your life, I will not beat you to death for your Nike tennis shoes.
This artist was "targeted" by the pro-gay agenda. You are right, they could have bought a cake somewhere else, but that was not the plan. For all of your words, Jesus still condemned the behavior, but not the person. Read again the account my friend. THAT is the POINT!
Jesus would not hate anyone. The fact, implied, is that the cake artist "hates" the customer. This is a red herring argument and misses the point completely. It wasn't the customers he "hated" or objected to, it was the behavior and being asked, not just to serve a cake, which he did freely to all customers, it was that he was being compelled to "promote" behavior whic he found morally objectionable. This is the crux of the matter. Did Jesus "hate" the adulteress who was being threatened - no! However, he did object to the behavior and found it morally objectionable. This classic case of stereotyping everyone who finds a moral objection based on conscience (like Eric Liddell at the 1924 olympics) a popular ploy to smear and besmirch everyone who does not agree with the populist agenda.
So, what do we actually know and not provide conjecture for? One, the DNC and the Clinton campaign, after the, "never Trumper conservatives , who aren't much better", financed a mostly false document, with a foreign person of interest, with proven collusion with Russians, which was used to obtain, without clear disclosure to the FISA court, a warrant to monitor a low level person, who did have some contact with Trump but mostly with his own business interests, and open a monitoring program on an opposition party (and it would be wrong if it were the opposite party). The person who was the object of this monitoring, has NEVER been charged, NEVER been indicted, and roams around free to this day. How is it that an FBI Director begins an exoneration letter, months before the investigation is completed, of the DNC candidate before even finishing questioning witnesses? How is it that the FBI Director, in complete violation of his constitutional charge (to investigate) recommends that no charges be made against a clear violator of explicit law (destruction of evidence under Congressional subpoena which is a Federal crime) which is NOT the role of the FBI (I would fire his out of order BUTT too!) How is it that a clear (Trump or anybody else it might be) hater, changes the verbiage, that Comey regurgitated, from "Grossly Negligent" to "Extremely Careless" based on proven, email and text documented bigoted statements. How is it that all these people escape the purview of a special counsel? Let us quit the innuendo and stick to the facts. I would not put it past the FBI and the "Deep State" of unelected power brokers, to do a piss poor job either.
Thanks for posting the comments the writer alluded to in her article. She hid nothing like many others do.
Well, well, even USA today doesn't necessarily agree with this take. It is amazing the "talking points syndrome" continues with inaccurate reporting. We don't have many real journalists any more; we have opinionists masquerading as journalists.
Yes, like many of the Northern States resisted the passage of the 14th Ammendment.......hmmmmm!
Yes, as most Diests would; no question. As to the "Wall of Separation", his intent (and the backdrop and meaning) was for a government NOT to endorse one particular sect or denomination thus establishing a state sponsored religion like the Church of England. He was also an ardent supporter of the "free exercise thereof" which is increasingly being restricted by the State sponsored religion of atheism and agnosticism. Atheism, in the strictest sense of the word, is a religion in itself with MAN as the object of worship ( I am the sole determinant of right and wrong and I am an end unto myself). Jefferson would never agree with the modern day "tyranny" of imposing government sponsored censorship and imposition of anti- religious values on the "free exercise" of those religious values as we see happening in the courts and government administrative state entities as we see in today's political climate. There is another post in the Hubski newsletter about the "intolerance of the left" ( by a left leaning person) that is appropriate in this setting. In concluding, many focus only on Jefferson for historical context, but forget the other 55 individuals responsible for our founding. It seems we "pick and choose" which ones we want to quote in order to uphold our personal world view instead of taking in the whole body of history and evidence that might be contradict ice to Jefferson's personal beliefs. He, by the way, was an ardent "church goer" which, many times, is completely left out of the narrative . Records of Thomas Jefferson's church-going habits are far from complete. However, evidence does exist of his involvement with and attendance at local churches throughout his life. His accounts record donations to a number of different churches in Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., and in Charlottesville.4 As a young man, Jefferson served as a vestryman in Fredericksville Parish (Albemarle County).5 Margaret Bayard Smith, in her memoir The First Forty Years of Washington Society, recalled: "During the first winter, Mr. Jefferson regularly attended service on the sabbath-day in the humble church. The congregation seldom exceeded 50 or 60, but generally consisted of about a score of hearers. He could have had no motive for this regular attendance, but that of respect for public worship, choice of place or preacher he had not, as this, with the exception of a little Catholic chapel was the only church in the new city. The custom of preaching in the Hall of Representatives had not then been attempted, though after it was established Mr. Jefferson during his whole administration, was a most regular attendant. The seat he chose the first sabbath, and the adjoining one, which his private secretary occupied, were ever afterwards by the courtesy of the congregation, left for him and his secretary."6 Henry S. Randall, who interviewed Jefferson's family members for his three-volume Life of Thomas Jefferson, claimed that Jefferson "attended church with as much regularity as most of the members of the congregation - sometimes going alone on horseback, when his family remained at home."7
We, as males, don't always have the luxury of "stalls", therefore we prefer as much privacy as we can get.
This has NOTHING to do with a Muslim Extremist terrorist. People who hold the view I commented on would have NOTHING to do with killing people, straight, gay or otherwise. It is misleading for you to attempt to equate it as a similar pattern of behavior. Methinks you are the "extremist" here. Decency never killed anyone. So, you equate someone who holds more to the "traditional values" as people who kill, hate, and discriminate? That in itself is a very "biased" and myopic stance. The people who hold to traditional values don't go into nightclubs, straight, gay or otherwise, and start killing people. Again, you have your right to speak (freedom of speech), but remember, that right was ingrained into our codified laws by a bunch of people who held to "traditional values". As far as taking a month off, I work full time and do a lot of other things, so my time on "social media so to speak" is very limited to times when I can. What has that got to do with anything anyway?
However, since you quote Jefferson, let’s take some stories from the Monticello website on his religious beliefs and life beliefs: https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs
Yes, the letter to the Danbury Baptists is taken way out of context today. It NEVER was made to construct a "censorship of religious expression" in either private or public settings. It's main construct was to say that a governmental body should not show preference (in this case one denomination over another which would dictate a "state sponsored establishment") to one particular body of believers as did the Church of England (and persecuted all who differed or dissented). This was one of the main premises of finding the "New World" and to establish religious freedom (not banning religion in the public sector). This premise is supported by over 150 years of both public displays and case law. So, to use this as an "edict to restrict" public religious expression is would have been anathema to the Founders. The same people who safeguarded those expressions in the First Amendment for both believers and non-believers and to allow other religions to practice in our country were mostly religious people (mainly Christians). There was only one Deist who signed the Declaration and two that contributed to the Constitution. They are: Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence Religious Affiliation # of signers % of signers Episcopalian/Anglican 32 57.1% Congregationalist 13 23.2% Presbyterian 12 21.4% Quaker 2 3.6% Unitarian or Universalist 2 3.6% Catholic 1 1.8% TOTAL 56 100% Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation Charles Carroll Maryland Catholic Samuel Huntington Connecticut Congregationalist Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist William Williams Connecticut Congregationalist Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Congregationalist Lyman Hall Georgia Congregationalist Samuel Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist John Hancock Massachusetts Congregationalist Josiah Bartlett New Hampshire Congregationalist William Whipple New Hampshire Congregationalist William Ellery Rhode Island Congregationalist John Adams Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts Congregationalist; Unitarian George Walton Georgia Episcopalian John Penn North Carolina Episcopalian George Ross Pennsylvania Episcopalian Thomas Heyward Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian Thomas Lynch Jr. South Carolina Episcopalian Arthur Middleton South Carolina Episcopalian Edward Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Episcopalian Richard Henry Lee Virginia Episcopalian George Read Delaware Episcopalian Caesar Rodney Delaware Episcopalian Samuel Chase Maryland Episcopalian William Paca Maryland Episcopalian Thomas Stone Maryland Episcopalian Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian Francis Hopkinson New Jersey Episcopalian Francis Lewis New York Episcopalian Lewis Morris New York Episcopalian William Hooper North Carolina Episcopalian Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian John Morton Pennsylvania Episcopalian Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Episcopalian Carter Braxton Virginia Episcopalian Benjamin Harrison Virginia Episcopalian Thomas Nelson Jr. Virginia Episcopalian George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist) Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist) Button Gwinnett Georgia Episcopalian; Congregationalist James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian Joseph Hewes North Carolina Quaker, Episcopalian George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker, Episcopalian Thomas McKean Delaware Presbyterian Matthew Thornton New Hampshire Presbyterian Abraham Clark New Jersey Presbyterian John Hart New Jersey Presbyterian Richard Stockton New Jersey Presbyterian John Witherspoon New Jersey Presbyterian William Floyd New York Presbyterian Philip Livingston New York Presbyterian James Smith Pennsylvania Presbyterian George Taylor Pennsylvania Presbyterian Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Presbyterian The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s. Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America There were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at which the U.S. Constitution was drafted and signed. All participated in the proceedings which resulted in the Constitution, but only 39 of these delegates were actually signers of the document. From: Robert G. Ferris (editor), Signers of the Constitution: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Constitution, published by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service: Washington, D.C. (revised edition 1976), page 138: Most of the [signers of the Constitution] married and fathered children. Sherman sired the largest family, numbering 15 by two wives... Three (Baldwin, Gilman, and Jenifer) were lifetime bachelors. In terms of religious affiliation, the men mirrored the overwhelmingly Protestant character of American religious life at the time and were members of various denominations. Only two, Carroll and Fitzsimons, were Roman Catholics. Religious Affiliation # of delegates % of delegates Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4% Presbyterian 16 29.1% Congregationalist 8 14.5% Quaker 3 5.5% Catholic 2 3.6% Methodist 2 3.6% Lutheran 2 3.6% Dutch Reformed 2 3.6% TOTAL 55 100% Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian George Read Delaware Episcopalian Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian George Washington Virginia Episcopalian Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist) William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyterian Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist