Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? sigh

Siddar · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:

Really is that all you can come up with?

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

Siddar_sl said:
Really is that all you can come up with?

The fact that you don't realize the Supremes refusing to hear a case where your side lost and appealed to them is, in fact, a statement by the Supreme court as to where they are falling on the issue is pretty telling.

Its not "all I can come up with"

Its all "I need to come up with" when you're playing so blitheringly obtuse with the issue.

We typically interpret the Supremes refusing to hear or overturn a lower court decision as the Supreme's indicating they agree with that decision.

That's how the system works.

The better question you should be asking is "Is this the best argumentIcan come up with?" because so far, your case has fallen far short of being made.

Siddar · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
The fact that you don't realize the Supremes refusing to hear a case where your side lost and appealed to them is, in fact, a statement by the Supreme court as to where they are falling on the issue is pretty telling.

Its not "all I can come up with"

Its all "I need to come up with" when you're playing so blitheringly obtuse with the issue.

We typically interpret the Supremes refusing to hear or overturn a lower court decision as the Supreme's indicating they agree with that decision.

That's how the system works.

The better question you should be asking is "Is this the best argumentIcan come up with?" because so far, your case has fallen far short of being made.

So you just really don't understand how constitution and supreme court work at all do you?

radditsu · Apr 3, 2015

Siddar_sl said:
So you just really don't understand how constitution and supreme court work at all do you?

Lol

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

Siddar_sl said:
So you just really don't understand how constitution and supreme court work at all do you?

Is that the best you got?

Your side lost the New Mexico case and the Supremes refused to hear her appeal, meaning they didn't find any fault with the decision

Deal with it.

khalid · Apr 3, 2015

Holy shit, grasping at straws doesn't even cover it. When you start citing court cases THAT YOUR SIDE LOST in an attempt to bolster your side, it probably is a sign that you should step out of the debate.

Siddar · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
The people of Indiana have a right to alter their laws so long as they are consistent with the existing federal statutes.

Siddar_sl said:
Did you miss the link about the wedding photographer and supreme court refusing the case because it was a state law issue?

Ok you dumb fucks me bringing up that case was in regards to this statement by hodj. Pointing out the new mexico case based upon state law not federal law.

Please stop making idiots of yourselves.

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

Says others should stop making idiots of themselves.

Has spent the entire day making an idiot of himself.

Do I need to post the Bill O'Reilly video again, or can we just pretend I did and get on to laughing at Siddar's obstinant refusal to recognize he's done here?

khalid · Apr 3, 2015

If the states already have something handled, that means the feds don't have to step in brosef. Now if you can find a case where your side WON in a state court and the supreme court failed to take it up, come back to us k?

I'd tell ya to stop making an idiot of yourself, but it is really too late for that.

Palum · Apr 3, 2015

How about we reframe this debate to give context.

DESPITE many religious persons' insufferable attitudes, hilarious hypocrisy and idiotic belief in random books full of incredible, nonsensical and irrational events, I would still have to serve/sell items to them. And that's for theirbelief, which for most people basically amounts to 'they like being part of a group and dislike critical thinking'.

So when your retarded ass comes into the hospital claiming Jesus will save you, the Doctor doesn't just say 'wow, really? sweet deal' and moves onto the next patient. Or when you break bread thanking God for the fabulous food, the chef doesn't just come out and dump tomato bisque all over your head. Or when you say your religion prevents you from baking a cake for a gay man, that gay man can't turn around and decline to photograph your event because of your religious beliefs.

Sebudai · Apr 3, 2015

Please don't blow up any buildings while you try to come to terms with the fact that yes, the government does indeed compel you to abide by fair business practices by threat of force.

It's true that freedom is dead and bald eagles everywhere are sobbing their eyes out, but please try not to Timothy McVeigh us.

Siddar · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
Says others should stop making idiots of themselves.

Has spent the entire day making an idiot of himself.

Do I need to post the Bill O'Reilly video again, or can we just pretend I did and get on to laughing at Siddar's obstinant refusal to recognize he's done here?

Nice try at avoiding issue and post a zero content post.

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

Siddar getting salty.

Its okay bro.

You win some, you lose some.

Tide goes in
Tide goes out

Siddar · Apr 3, 2015

Palum_sl said:
How about we reframe this debate to give context.

DESPITE many religious persons' insufferable attitudes, hilarious hypocrisy and idiotic belief in random books full of incredible, nonsensical and irrational events, I would still have to serve/sell items to them. And that's for theirbelief, which for most people basically amounts to 'they like being part of a group and dislike critical thinking'.

So when your retarded ass comes into the hospital claiming Jesus will save you, the Doctor doesn't just say 'wow, really? sweet deal' and moves onto the next patient. Or when you break bread thanking God for the fabulous food, the chef doesn't just come out and dump tomato bisque all over your head. Or when you say your religion prevents you from baking a cake for a gay man, that gay man can't turn around and decline to photograph your event because of your religious beliefs.

Naw if you don't want to sell to them I'm fine with that on a legal level. That doesn't mean I support you bigotry on a personal level just your right to be one.

Oh and stop making the stupid hodj hospital argument that no one in this thread has ever supported.

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

Its not that I support your desire to lynch black people, its just that I support your right to.

Libertarian logic.

Siddar · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
Its not that I support your desire to lynch black people, its just that I support your right to.

Libertarian logic.

No like your hospital analogy just plain wrong. No libertarian supports that.

Furry · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
Slavery is okay, as long as I hold the whip

hodj logic

AngryGerbil · Apr 3, 2015

Sebudai_sl said:
Please don't blow up any buildings while you try to come to terms with the fact that yes, the government does indeed compel you to abide by fair business practices by threat of force.

It's true that freedom is dead and bald eagles everywhere are sobbing their eyes out, but please try not to Timothy McVeigh us.

srsly

hodj · Apr 3, 2015

Furry_sl said:
hodj logic

Not allowing businesses to discriminate is not and never will be analogous to slavery. Facile and pathetic doublethink arguments are facile and pathetic

Siddar_sl said:
No like your hospital analogy just plain wrong. No libertarian supports that.

Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. First recognized and studied in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek "??? ?????? ???????" or eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics),[1] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate.

The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms:

Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air.
Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos.
There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.
The first example above argues that the denial of the assertion would have a ridiculous result; it would go against the evidence of our senses. The second argues denial of the assertion would be untenable; unpleasant or unworkable for society. The third is a mathematical proof by contradiction, arguing that the denial of the premise would result in a logical contradiction (there is a "smallest" number and yet there is a number smaller than it).

Simas_sl · Apr 3, 2015

hodj_sl said:
Is that the best you got?

Your side lost the New Mexico case and the Supremes refused to hear her appeal, meaning they didn't find any fault with the decision

Deal with it.

The Supreme Court refusing to hear a case does not mean they did not find any fault with the decision. That's a pretty common misconception. Follow the link for a few excerpts from SCOTUS decisions saying as much.

The Buck Stops Here: Denial of Cert

SCOTUS_sl said:
Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.

The one thing that can be said with certainty about the Court's denial of Maryland's petition in this case is that it does not remotely imply approval or disapproval of what was said by the Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? *sigh*

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Vox Populi Jihadi

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Silver Knight of the Realm

Vox Populi Jihadi

Unelected Mod

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Vox Populi Jihadi

Unelected Mod

what Suineg set it to

Ssraeszha Raider

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Vox Populi Jihadi

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

Vox Populi Jihadi

Bronze Baronet of the Realm

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

Poet Warrior

Vox Populi Jihadi

shitlord

Indiana...Religious Freedom eh? sigh