Jump to content

Anijen

Contributor
  • Content Count

    2,622
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,357 Excellent

About Anijen

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants
  • Birthday 01/01/1868

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    never

Recent Profile Visitors

4,218 profile views
  1. I do not think the Church is dishonest, even "somewhat dishonest," as you posted. I have only heard of one type of soliciting donations, that was for Friends Of Scouting, in which, I admit, I never did like to hear over the pulpit. Although I don't claim to be an expert in what the Church asks for in soliciting donations. Recently, the instruction in conducting Sacrament meetings is to no longer bring up secular topics, they can be brought up but should not be done so in sacrament meetings.
  2. In real courtroom life judges will almost always go by the sentencing guidelines for first timers. Here, your response to Jeanie is 100% correct. If he was not LDS, but was a first time charge, the judge would have went by sentencing procedures and probably would have got the same. For some reason Jeanie posts "...if this had not been a mormon?" implying it would have been worse. I have greater faith in Utah judges and do not accept their sentencing are harsher or milder if the criminal is LDS or not.
  3. Justo be clear Mr. Phillips is not targeting gays or anyone. He will bake for anybody. What he is doing is refusing to bake items that he objects to on religious reasons. He will not bake a cake that insults gays. e.g. anti-gay message He will bake them any item that does not go against his religious beliefs, yes to cakes, no to SSM wedding cakes because his religious beliefs does not support SSM. Yes to childrens birthday cakes, no to halloween cakes. Yes to cookies brownies, cakes for family values, no to satanism, pro-Hitler, anti-jewish, or SSM. As we can see it is his religious beliefs not the sexual identity of his customer. He will sell to a gay man a cake, but not a cake that goes against his religious beliefs.
  4. I am in complete agreement. I have not seen Unplanned. I am immensely pro-life and do not subscribe, for any reason, a choice for abortion. As far as legal advocacy for the unborn, I would like to see the fetus legally called a "human" before he/she is born. Currently, legally the baby is not considered a human until the baby is born.
  5. I never said the court has power to introduce laws, i said introduce words i.e. penumbra and privacy. The Court did not invent these words, but they did introduce them in their opinions. Which in effect creates court law another term for it is judicial activism. Furthermore, when the courts use words this way it is literally called "magic words" as so I learned in law school. Another term for this is called dictum.
  6. Agreed, the word privacy is not in the Constitution, but does it need to be? Can we not already see that in the plain language, e.g. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects..." In the Griswold case the penumbra was used as a right to choose to have children or not (selling of birth control was one of the issues). In Griswold, that right to choose to have children took effect even if the mother was already pregnant. Q: How is the that choice (to have children) made after pregnancy? A: by abortion. Thus we see that penumbra was not only a shadow to introduce words not there or really needed, but also to introduce laws revolving around those now introduced words.
  7. I know very well the legal lines of public events and copyright laws. There are no laws setting it up at a theatre and playing it, (royalties may be generated). They cannot say only liberals may play and listen to the music, but conservatives cannot. As the Genie would say; "there is a lot of gray area there." Kind of like the Biker whos leather jacket he bought and wore in court said "[$%#@] the draft" Was allowed to wear that in a public place. Time, place, and manner restrictions are there, yes, but there are no laws disallowing a fighter to play Eye of the Tiger before his fight in the Rose Garden, Born in the USA at a park before fireworks or a candidate playing Proud to be an American at his rally. Sure the creator of the song can sue him, but really all the damages he would get are royalties or nominal at best.
  8. That is funny, but where does this lead? Someone paid for that album, are they required to write the creator and ask for permission to play it at a celebration, a birthday party, a slumber party? I mean when did creative control after the purchase come. There are already royalties such as radio stations pay to playing a song on the air, but they do not need permission just in case one of their listening audience is, heaven forbid a conservative.
  9. I agree with USU78. He has the talent to express more succinctly than I can. He knows what he is talking about, for example it was the Griswold case that started all this "penumbra" nonsense (penumbra means a shadow casted by a large object such as the earth onto the moon). Since the words the Cheif Justice were looking for that he needed for his judgment were not in the Constitution, he had to say those words were implied by the "penumbra" off of the 4th 5th and other Amendments. Then once the Griswold decision was out other cases used that as precedent. To Daniel, I understand you have been arguing straight from the case opinion, but that is still, IMO, not reliable. Not reliable, because Washington Supreme Court in its history has shown incredibly bias in favor of almost every liberal case they see, (as do the notorious 9th circuit). I would suggest to be more objective link the entire arguments that both sides made to the court and not the decision. That way we can see through both lenses (objectivity).
  10. Sometimes even beyond the example you have shown. For example Presidential candidates and Presidents have been asked (or by threat of being sued) to not even play certain music because the creator of that music (not even being at the event) disagrees with the politics.
  11. Calm, I think Daniel and others, are not quiet grasping the law, or perhaps only seeing what they want to see in the law. Let me try to help. When the Supreme Court looks at First Amendment issues regarding speech they will first separate the speech into if the violation of the government regulation is based on content or if the violated regulation is based on conduct. 2) Conduct-based restrictions, the conduct can be regulated by content-neutral time, place, and manner. This means the government has the power to regulate conduct associated with speech, the breadth of this power depends on whether the forum involved is a public forum, a designated public forum, a limited public forum, or a non-public forum. Time: This is why certain words or movies can only be shown at certain times to the public. Place: Also why you can have a protest at a park or a cemetery, but you cannot go on to a military base and protest. Manner: is the mode of communication, (i.e. flag burning). The main issues we all await from the Supreme Court, which we did not see in Arlene's or in Masterpiece, is the issue of compelled speech, or specifically compelled conduct by the government upon a private citizen who declares that compelled speech/conduct violates their First Amendment rights. I hope this gets solved soon, SCOTUS can't delay for ever.
  12. Here is what the SCOTUS remand and the subsequent Washington Supreme Court decision means in a nutshell: We must remember that SCOTUS remanded this case because it was very similar to the Masterpiece decision and they did not want to waste such time in rehashing the same type arguments. The main reason SCOTUS decided in favor of Phillips in Masterpiece is because the Colorado Commission acted with "hostility" in their judgement against Mr. Phillips, his employees, and his bakery. Thus, SCOTUS remanded back to the Washington court to consider the Masterpiece reasoning [hostility against Phillips] if that reasoning occurred in the Arleneā€™s Flowers case. Here, Washington Supreme Court's recent decision has adjudicated that the issue of "hostility" was not a factor in their case. You may agree or disagree. Obviously Arlene's Flowers will disagree and appeal it back to SCOTUS. This does not mean the Supreme Court will accept or decline (certiorari) to rehear the case, (I have no idea if it will get accepted). Generally, remanded cases are less likely to be reheard by the Supreme Court. However, if the case does get another chance, I assume one of the central issue that will be argued will be defining the "hostility" issue. The Court will look to see if Washington court system's judgment and punishment were hostile, such as: Were fines against Arlene's excessive? Was mandatory retraining for employees ordered? Were mandatory unannounced searches of business records allowed? Was derogatory language used in the opinion against Arlene's used. In the SCOTUS Masterpiece decision the above punishments and language was the hostility issue and that is what they addressed. The Court did not go further and speak on any First Amendment issues (that is why it was called a narrow judgment). The remand was basically the Court saying; before we look at it, did you guys treat it in the same manner as Masterpiece. The remand is not a victory for gay right advocates and it is certainly not a victory for the flower shop. We will be seeing more like this on the state level, eventually the Supreme Court will take a case and address the issue of state discrimination statutes verse First Amendment conflicts..
  13. It is almost impossible to get the tone of sarcasm in words. Evidently my attempt was very poorly worded. Truth being, I never want to be a Bishop, but have been honored to have been considered to be one by my Stake President (I was not eliminated because of a past sin or disciplinary action). The extra conditions to me just seemed a bit, very little bit, of a dbl standard compared to our perfect Saviors ability to remember them no more. I also understand the need for the Church to use caution and the perspective of past victims. I have never been one to really get the hang of the humor thing (especially sarcasm), my apologies.
  14. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. However, evidently, His Church will: Bishop, not likely Temple Worker, nope Faculty at a Church School, ug, not you CES position, in your dreams
  15. Statute of Limitations do not change even if other witnesses come forward. However, with new victims the SofL could be tolled or started fresh depending on the circumstances. Judges, generally will allow continuances, which further delay the trial, but I wouldn't annoy their patience especially if they failed to cooperate with the scheduling order which is a big no no, and could get the lawyer sanctions.
×
×
  • Create New...