Great Depression of 2016

[rufus]

Speaking of flags and lost causes, I still have my South Viet Namese flag. Occasionally, I see it also displayed in some local shops.

 

[Rosa moschata]

The "government gun" came in because with the cake, it was about refusing to sell to a specific group but continuing to sell for those not of that group. That's discrimination against certain people. With the flag, some sellers have decided to not sell it to anyone, yet the flag is still available from other sellers. That's NOT discrimination against certain people. I agree with you that they're not the same things, but I disagree as to which is OK. The "businesses should be free to decide to whom to sell" argument was the same used against desegregation in the 1960s. If you wish to be on that side of history, by all means it is your choice -- but most of the rest of us have moved past that, and laws are on our side.

 

[wlantry]

Protest all you want about anything you want. Bring a government gun in to it, that I am not ok with.

Eisenhower would have disagreed with you on this point. Here's the evidence:

.


Caption: The "Little Rock Nine" are escorted inside Little Rock Central High School by troops of the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

The "businesses should be free to decide to whom to sell" argument was the same used against desegregation in the 1960s.

Wrong. Segregation was LAW. Government guns forced segregation on business. Government then forced Desegregation on business. I think both are wrong. I think short of actual bodily harm, a business should be able to run as they see fit an reap the free market consequences that come with it.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Eisenhower would have disagreed with you on this point. Here's the evidence:

.


Caption: The "Little Rock Nine" are escorted inside Little Rock Central High School by troops of the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army.

Government, not a private business

Government used a gun to force its self to follow the law.

The government should not be confused with the people.


I have a right to be armed. I spend a lot of time fighting for that right. I thing I should be able to be armed in public an on public "government" property. The Constitution is pretty clear. That Constitution was wrote to restrict the government though. A private business owner should have the right to refuse service to me an refuse to let me be on their property armed if they want. They should have the right to do it cause they dont like green eyes or they dont like disabled people to. Any consequences of those choices being made by private business should be free market an not government guns.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Speaking of flags and lost causes, I still have my South Viet Namese flag. Occasionally, I see it also displayed in some local shops.

My uncle who I was named after fought in that war to earn enough money to be able to come home an get his family out of a orphanage.

 

[MrsBrooke]

Today, the SCOTUS overruled State legislation by men who were VOTED into office by the people for the people.

This sets a dangerous precedent, in my opinion.

Much like the Civil War being about states' sovereign rights (NOT SLAVERY), this also holds states sovereign rights in contention, even though it is wrapped up in a hot-button, emotional issue.

And as for segregation, when it comes to public schools, they are at the mercy of the whims of federal decisions... much like the Little Rock Nine being escorted to PUBLIC school. But a PRIVATE business is not PUBLIC. And Big Brother has no business telling Joe Average who he can and cannot allow as patrons in his own business.

The dissenting opinions regarding the gay marriage case are FASCINATING to read, especially the one by Justice Scalia. That man is MAD about this, and I agree with every word he says.

MrsB

 

[rufus]

Sadly, it seems as if no one wants to get married any more except the gay folks. Most people don't give a dooley about whether or not gay people get married, but they sure don't want to see it in their churches and temples. I suspect we will see some interesting court cases relative to who can and cannot be married in religious situations.

This promises to be interesting.

Can a priest, minister or rabbi refuse to marry a gay couple? Is it like the cake issue? Who has the right to be married in a religious rite in a religious institution?

 

[MrsBrooke]

Sadly, it seems as if no one wants to get married any more except the gay folks. Most people don't give a dooley about whether or not gay people get married, but they sure don't want to see it in their churches and temples. I suspect we will see some interesting court cases relative to who can and cannot be married in religious situations.

This promises to be interesting.

Can a priest, minister or rabbi refuse to marry a gay couple? Is it like the cake issue? Who has the right to be married in a religious rite in a religious institution?

I personally do not give two figs about what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom, regardless of my personal and religious opinions about it (which are pretty staunch, I might add).

On the other hand, when that starts leaking into the streets and being taught to young children in our schools, I have a HUGE problem with it. It's an agenda being pushed, and while LGBTs may be screaming and crying for their "cause," they are missing the forest for the trees when it comes to what it's COSTING this nation in terms of sovereign state rights.

Technically, I believe a church or minister/pastor/etc can refuse to marry anyone on any grounds, regardless of sexual orientation. I will be interested to see if that will hold, or if it will now be ILLEGAL to act according to your own religious beliefs.

MrsB

 

[rufus]

Let's see how this plays out. Personally, I am not a religious person, but if gay lifestyle is immoral, I see that as an issue between the parties involved and God. Who am I to tell God how to run things? Let them make their choices and deal with the consequences if there are any.

My money says the government will pressure religious institutions to compromise their values and accept gay marriage. It comes down to the institutions having tax free status. The government would love to get that tax revenue.