Jump to content

Anijen

Contributor
  • Content Count

    2,646
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Anijen

  1. Sorry just getting back from a much needed vacation abroad and just saw this today. NO, no, no, none of this "you first" stuff. You made the claim of pre-Columbian languages, now you back it up. This is an official CFR. As for my resources: New York Anthropology Depart New York Archaeology Association South Dakota Bureau of Indian Affairs Chief Left Hand Tribal Law College University of New Mexico Anthropology Dept. Brian Stubbs Ancient American Language Expert see this article here
  2. Same here, I liked him, I did not know he became a critic.
  3. A few answers on standing: First I am discussing standing at a federal issue not standing for state courts. The state courts have almost unlimited power to hear a case, a federal court is limited in their jurisdiction. I. The plaintiff must have enough of a challenge that a favorable decision may be redressed. This means that the plaintiff is likely to recover from the defendant. 2. The plaintiff needs to have suffered an actual injury. This means harm has occurred. if harm has not happened yet then it is not ripe. if it has already happened but has been resolved then it is moot. In cases of mootness, if the injury can happen again but gets resolved before it comes to trial then there is an exception to mootness and can be heard (e.g. abortion, but pregnancy and birth happened before it came to trial). Note: organizations (i.e. the Sierra Club) also may be plaintiffs if the injury has a direct connection with their members. 3. The injury must be directly related connection to the case. This simply means the issue brought before the court is raised because of the harm caused. Other Concerns Mentioned: 1. Calm, has mentioned propaganda and agenda. To me agenda is really not as important as a person who has been harmed no matter if he is gay, African-American, Muslim, Christian (including LDS). Even if ADF's agenda has focus on Christian clients (which they do), IMO it is a client who feels he/she has been harmed and do not have the financial or other means to have their side heard. 2. Action initiated for legislation is acceptable. Homer Plessy intentionally provoked litigation by refusing to go to the "colored section." It was one of the Supreme Courts worse ruling ever (see Plessy v. Ferguson), and it was eventually overturned. The Masterpiece case, the plaintiffs actively sought out a Christian baker who would refuse to bake their wedding cake. Even though I side with the defendant on this case, I am not opposed to the plaintiffs trying to find ways to get their voice heard. When I have written on this case in the past I have stated that the plaintiffs looked for bakers who would refuse them not because I thought provoking legislation is bad, but to show other purpose. 3. Robert F. Smith mentioned the ADF is lax and unprofessional. Just an FYI, the ADF is a respected legal organization within legal circles even if you dont like them. FYI, the ADF, has won 80% of their cases, over 55 at the Supreme Court. Although fairly new (established 1994) they are considered a legitimate and powerful legal source. Their website says they have: over 3,300 allied attorneys 300+ allied organizations have did over 1,000,000 pro-bono hours (that is over $215 million in fees that clients did not have to pay) trained over 2,100 attorneys have over $50 million in case funding Yes, the ACLU, is also a great organization and have been around for almost 100 years. I think legal advocacy organizations are a pretty good thing. I might not agree with some of the cases they defend, but I am glad to see there is a way for someone to get legal help, including counsel if they cannot afford it. I have contributed to both the ACLU and ADF. I have also contributed to the Innocence Project. Despite how any of us may feel about the ADF, it should be considered a legitimate legal organization.
  4. Emphasis mine in both quotes.. SMAC wrote: Just a small curious question, I sincerely would like to know; if the paper is a Phd dissertation, (as SMAC mentioned in the OP), does that not mean it was peer reviewed by the Phd holders evaluating that dissertation and I always thought dissertations in their nature is a form of publishing?
  5. Put on your big boy pants. It is alright to call into question the truthfulness of an Apostle, but I cannot question the truthfulness of an anonymous poster claiming he was a perfect missionary, who led the mission in baptisms? I'm tired of posters who rail on the Church and its leaders and posters who defend them.
  6. Oh, but it is okay for you to question the candor of Elder Ballard? CFR on your grand missionary achievements. show me a mission news letter, or a companion or mission president we can interview and if it turns out you were the perfect missionary as you claim, I will issue an apology.
  7. Divorce is a misunderstood thing. In the past it was available to all by a writ, but those were a bit pricey so poorer couples would just leave each other (like you mentioned). However, divorce has always been a requirement here in the U.S.. That is one reason in the past that some alleged marriages were tainted with the rumor of scandal because the thought that a previous marriage a divorce was not achieved prior to their current marriage.. Today, if a couple is in a common law marriage they still would have to get a divorce. There is no such thing as a common law divorce. see here for a Brief History of Divorce
  8. Is it okay to allow posters to question the truthfulness of an Apostle of the Lord? If so, can we question the truthfulness of a poster with a history of angst against the church?
  9. IMO, I think you are lying and you take every opportunity to lie in wait to deceive.
  10. I'm sure the Holy Ghost had some credit too.
  11. Yes, in some circumstances, such as to those who are underage, (if I sold alcohol, or to those who have ebola, etc.) you get the picture. I think some people only see what they want to see. I think you are one of those persons. This is what I see, from my perspective; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has hurt and/or offended you in the past, it appears to me you cannot get past that. Additionally, you are gay man with a strong desire to change the LDs members views because if we simply cannot see it your way, well, then we must be bigoted and homophobic. I know you feel private businesses should not discriminate for any reason, but from my point of view you must believe it is alright when a govt entity discriminates. It is obvious to me that Phillips was exercising his constitutional right to the freedom of religion. Phillips said he would have sold them other items, including cakes, just not a wedding cake. Now, as a businessman myself, I would have baked the cake, but the Court is not going by my beliefs, your beliefs, but by Phillips beliefs. When the state of Colorado ordered random warrantless searches of Phillips business records, fined him an unproportionately amount of money (compared to the charge), AND ordered Phillips and all his employees to undergo therapy they were the people showing discrimination when they [Colorado] violated Phillips constitutional right of believing how he wishes. Bottomline, I think it is wrong to force a person how to believe, even if that belief is prejudicial. I just answered this, see above. The government was the discriminator. Yes I do. The Little Rock Nine, the young girl who was following a black girl to school yelling obscenities and racial slurs has come out and apologized and said she was raised to hate blacks and it was through education that she had come to find how wrong she was. https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/field/image/LittleRockNine_0925_0.jpg Stop it already. I never implied I do not want to talk about George Wallace at all and I am not ignoring anything. Please, be cognizant of your wording, you do not have the power to know what I think. Please clean up the tone and be more respectful. Wow, what a jump. I do not want, nor have I ever implied that my plan is to eliminate accommodation or civil rights laws. No, elimination of them would not work. I am saying discriminatory statutes are being weaponized to force people how to think, that is what I feel is wrong.
  12. What, r u shere? That was my source of credibility. Also, let's keep it cordial guys, please?
  13. I love both of you guys (oops, did I just assume your genders? Sorry). Exercise some control you got this. I'll try to reign in Longview when he goes off topic as well.
  14. Hi Calm, I would not be comfortable telling ANY age. The scenario you speak of is real. With every single pregnancy (every single one), the life of the mother is always in jeopardy. There is not a single mother that I know who would not trade their child's illness for the mother's health. I know of so many after tragic accidents have said; "I wish God took me and saved my child." Did you know, every doctor can say to the mom that their life is at risk during pregnancy or during birth? All I'm saying is that medicine has advanced so much in this area that it is very rare and there have been cases where mothers have been told by their doctors that they could die and their child will definitely die (not just "probably"), but those mothers carried and have had completely healthy children and both mom and child lived. Religious viewpoint: IMO, the unborn child is not an object or should be treated as such (not saying you treat or feel that way). The unborn child is a life. A life without a voice, with no say in the decision, she or he cannot vote, nonetheless a son or daughter of God. Legal viewpoint: It is against the law for me to intentionally drive my car with or without passengers in a reckless dangerous manner. But it is my car, no one can tell me how to drive my car. I cannot intentionally endanger myself or my passengers just because I own the car. Public viewpoint: Because I own the car, I can intentionally drive in a manner which would kill me or my passengers. MY bad. I thought I was answering Calm's post. Now that I see it is that "bigger blowhard" Nehor... JK My answer does not change depending on who posted.
  15. CFR This is probably easy to look up, but since you made the statement I'll let you do the work. Just an FYI, before Roe, abortion was legal in 4 states. The day after Roe it became legal in all 50 states. It is hard for me to believe there are less abortions now than before Roe. As per the rest of your post, you are starting to be political, please keep it in line with the topic. I agree with this statement
  16. He did not just decide after His prayer, it was decided a long long time ago. Pregnant mothers are not God and their abortion has no salvational power. It is a ridiculous comparison. You are comparing the killing of an unborn child to a saving ordinance. I do not see a link between the difficult choice of abortion to the not difficult choice of doing temple work.
  17. I believe once pregnant the mother has a duty to take care of herself and take care of the baby inside her. Refusing treatment is simply killing the baby, an abortion without the doctor. It is a right that I do not agree with.
  18. Yes. Choices of life or death is not a decision I want to make. Just to be clear, these cases are so very rare these days and in many of those cases, the mother and child lived healthy lives despite what their doctors told them. There have been many, many, many, many medical advances that can avert the harm to the baby. Chemotherapy has not been proven to kill a fetus, and in many cases there are more instances in these cases the baby (and mother) lived healthy lifes after the chemo. see here. Almost every abortion in the US these days are done for convenience. I know there are very rare and very few occurrences of what you are talking about.
  19. It does not matter what others think what I should submit to. I refuse to have others think they know what is best for me. I refuse to think we, the already born and living, can think for the unborn and decide what the unborn baby would submit to being killed for. The better question; Do we think that what we do or do not do is for the unborns best interest? Are we so callused that we now are able to think for the unborn baby.
  20. In the beginning (couldn't resist), discrimination statutes (I'll use DA short for discrimination acts) were designed to protect government (local, state, and federal) employees from their employers [the govt]. Then DA's evolved into protecting applicants applying to govt jobs. (e.g. Americans with Disabilities Act). Then allowed state schools to discriminate in who they accept and decline for diversity purposes. Then allows govt agencies (e.g. fire and police) to discriminate against white applicants to reverse past bad hiring practices. Later, DA's went from government to private business, here, making it illegal for private business with over 15 employees from any type of discrimination. Although I agree with all of the above, once it started telling private companies how they hire started the slow creep from protection from the government to interference with private citizens livelihood. Here, I am still ok, but starting to get worried about where the government camel is putting his head into the tent, then head and foot, etc.. Now no business no matter how small is exempt from DAs. Now don't get me wrong, I do not like discrimination either, of any kind. Then, gay rights started (I have no problem with this either). Is being gay a born condition or a choice, or both? Now, if it is a choice, then for those doing the choosing it is a mental manifestation to live a certain lifestyle. I am still ok with all this. Who one chooses to be attracted to is nunofmybiz. Then, at some time, the gay movement has effectively been weaponized as a way to fire CEO's etc and shame those who do not accept such lifestyles. Every CEO, baker, florist, etc., has done so for their religious beliefs, namely they do not accept homosexuality and/or believe marriage is between a man and a woman. So when the baker gets fined, bankrupted, ordered to group therapy for declining a single service that made him feel like he was condoning even advocating a lifestyle that went against his religious beliefs, is that not a violation of his First Amendment right (1) religious beliefs and (2) compelled speech (here, in the symbolic speech of forced to make a wedding cake for a SSM couple). I believe this mission-creep will grow to private citizens not just private businesses and then finally to govt compelling SSM into religious church services. Moreover, when the Colorado court ordered the baker and his employees to attend mandatory group therapy is that not compelling one how to think? A really long answer, sorry, I do not possess many of the posters talent for succinctness. Oh and just an FYI, I would have baked the cake, but I am an obvious bigoted and disgusting capitalist. I am opposed to ALL abortion. Thus, I avoid those "qualifiers" you speak of. I agree. Although I still believe marriage is for a man and a woman, I believe without legal recognition, SSM couples were limited to other benefits that hetero-couples received. Therefore, I agree with the legalization of SSM because it is right and fair for those couples to receive all benefits offered to them. (e.g., in the past a gay couples were declined health-care, probate of wills, insurance claims, etc., that married hetero-couples received). Two-points; (1) the issue is not how you personally define religious expression or how you practice your religious beliefs but how the Baker viewed his religious practices and beliefs. I do not believe in sacrificing chickens, or doing Voodoo or Santeria, but the Supreme Court does not take my personal beliefs, but will consider the chicken sacrificers beliefs in determining whether his/her religious beliefs were violated. Nehore, sorry for outing your chicken sacrificing practices... JK. (2) the SSM couple was reverse forum shopping, instead of looking for a friendly court to file their lawsuit (they already had that), they looked for a friendly baker who would decline their cake. I find their motives a tiny-bit suspect under those conditions, IOW their motives were for litigation, but the Bakers were because of his religious beliefs. Remember, he was not discriminating against the SSM couple, he offered them other bakery items he would sell them, just not the wedding cake (because his religious beliefs did not condone SSM) I too, am a Libertarian. Legal-viewpoint: in tort law, contrary to what I heard in Utah as a teen, it is not illegal to keep going when we see an accident. We are not legally inclined to help, at all, even if we were first to see it. (The exception is if we caused the accident or had a legal duty, i.e. a parent/child). Michael Phelps could watch a stranger swimming in a pool, get cramps and drown and he would not be liable if he sat and watched. A doctor does not have a legal duty to help a stranger who is choking (he has a professional ethical duty, but he could not be liable in a civil suit). But, these discrimination statutes will force a religious baker to break his religious beliefs and serve and make a wedding cake symbolizing the union of two men. Now, there have been court cases where discrimination is allowed such as an African American turning down the business of a klansman. Asians having to score higher on entrance exams, etc. My point, govt allows discrimination in what they feel is appropriate (right or wrong), but if the Baker felt it inappropriate it didn't matter, thus, what they want us to think, and when we do not comply we get fined, ordered therapy, allowed no warrant searches into our business records, etc.
  21. I had a law professor say I was a racist if I did not agree with his viewpoint (IDK, if that qualifies as a legal viewpoint).
  22. I 100% completely agree. I like your points on respecting life. We definitely need to honor, respect, value, and reverence life and I realize there is a lot of work needed, specifically in those areas you mentioned. What do you mean; "when done voluntarily..."? I certainly hope someone or govt entity is forcing abortions upon women. Again I 100% agree. I agree. We need to improve racial relations. I think the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were a good start on implementing some protections. I am thankful for the civil-rights movements. From slavery to now, I like to think we are getting better, albeit slowly. It takes time to change a mind-set to rid prejudicial mores, but over time I like to think we are improving. I do see some threats. I see the threats through the state punishments upon the bakers. e.g. random searches through his business receipts to check if he was complying (violation of the 4th Amendment). Court ordered therapy for him and his employees (compelling to think the way the state govt finds appropriate). $135,000 in fines evenmore in legal costs this in many cases caused bankrupted small businesses. I'm not worthy! I'm in complete agreement here. Thank you very much
  23. You word your statements carefully, setting up a strawman, then implying my support of it. Shameful, stop the ad-hominem attack (please) and address the issue of religious, public, or legal viewpoints. No, you are definitely NOT understanding. My view on discrimination is it is ugly, sinful a putrid stench. As a business owner, (of four franchises), I have never turned down a customer and I know (I have some customers who are gay). What I am trying to point out is; we should have the liberty to think for ourselves and not have the government telling us how to think. If someone else has bigoted thoughts (not me) we should give every opportunity to educate him, but not do his thinking for him. Yes, discrimination is bad, but so is legislating it, which is simply compelling us how to think. Furthermore, if we do NOT think in the manner the government wants us to, they then throw us in prison. I do not and never have supported any of George Wallace's segregationist, Jim Crow, views.
  24. Public, Religious, and Legal Viewpoints are Similar and Different. I am interested in an amicable dialogue discussing state discrimination statutes that seemingly go head on with a person's right to express his/her religious beliefs. I often thought of the upcoming Court battle between state made discrimination laws against a person's right of religious expression. (Note: In legal opinions, dissents, and in law review journals, when the word Court is capitalized it generally is referring to the United States Supreme Court and when the word court is not capitalized it means any other court under the Supreme Court.) It is generally known that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. This simply means the Constitution is supreme to state made law, there are no exceptions for a state statute to have supremacy over the Constitution. Here, is the wording of the First Amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In this thread I would like to discuss (1) the ramifications of the religious and speech clauses of this amendment when juxtaposed between state made discriminatory statutes and (2) can a state government rightfully force a person to think, speak, and act if it allegedly violates a state statute which may be contrary to the First Amendment? In that context please consider also the following: Sunday Closing Laws: The Court has ruled that states cannot force an establishment to serve its customers on Sunday. This simply means the state cannot force a store to stay open or closed on Sundays. IOW, a state statute would be unconstitutional to force a store owner to serve its customers on Sundays going against the owners religious beliefs. (see Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703 (1985).) Justice Alito recently decided with Justice Kagan saying "Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society." Justice Kagan (an Obama appointee) generally liberal minded in her decisions said that the Court must remain firm on this issue, during a time when free speech is under attack." I for one am happy to see how all the current justices cross political and religious opinions to uphold the freedom of speech. Legal Viewpoint: is based on legal doctrine. Public Viewpoint: is based on current public opinion of a certain topic. Religious Viewpoint: is based on religious beliefs. Regarding legal viewpoint (legal doctrine), which may or may not be contrary to a religious or a public viewpoint. It is nice to see the Court overrule a lower court's decision, when that decision was based from a public viewpoint or one that goes against a religious viewpoint (expression of belief). In other words, to me, it is nice to see a ruling by a judge be based on a legal viewpoint. I will start. Abortion: I am against all abortion, believing it is simply the killing of a human or future human being. If you kill me when I was only a clump of cells or kill me when I am 50 years old, it is still killing me. Religiously, I feel I can argue my beliefs for this stand. I know my viewpoint is even more opposed than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which allows for very few exceptions in very rare situations). Same Sex Marriage: None of my business. I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I am not against the marriage of those of the same sex so that they may have all the legal benefits of a hetrosexual marriage. State Discriminatory Statutes: I think these type of statutes generally are unconstitutional on their face because they compel a person how one should think according to the authors views. I know the intentions are to eliminate discrimination which I am all for. However, I am NOT for the forced obedience to a state law that dictates how one should think. Even if at its worse a person is racist bigot, the government should not be able to punish that bigot for the thoughts he has. Yes, education is good to help eliminate racism or prejudice towards homosexuals. Yes, I believe we should also continue in church to love everyone, but we should not be forced in how to think. Forced Speech (forced to do or forced not to do): I am NOT for compelled speech, which could be literal (e.g. write this, perform this, bake this, arrange that, etc.). It also could be symbolic; (cannot burn the flag or you have to burn the flag. You cannot wear that arm band or you have to wear that arm band, you cannot bake a religious or secular cake, you have to bake a religious or secular cake). You have to conform to the way we think (i.e. no gay discrimination) and at the same time we [the state] is allowed to show hostility to you for your religious beliefs. Just an FYI; I own a franchise (a national carpet cleaning company) that covers five states. I have in the past and currently do and will continue to give service to all of my customers. I have many times given service to known gay customers, married and unmarried. I do not serve my good customers because I am compelled by law, but I serve them because I am a smart businessman and want to continue to have their support. However, I do not think carpet cleaning or all other ancillary services I offer do not go against my religious beliefs. I don't even think carpet cleaning is an artform, although I take great pride in the knowledge, skill, and ability to clean them (message me if you want before and after pics). I would be against my church or my government compelling me to serve gays or I not to give service to gays. I would be against my church and government (be it local, state, or federal) compelling me to think a certain way, even if that way of thinking is good. I like my free-agency to think for myself! I would like to discuss from these viewpoints laws on abortion, same sex marriage, forced cake baking, flower arrangement, and photography for gay couples. Keep in mind, that these discussions must maintain a religious theme and not a political one. Please do NOT get political outside the topic of this thread. I would like it to remain open. It sometimes, it least to me, will appear that one will intentionally go political just to have a thread they disagree with or an argument that is not going their way intentionally shutdown. If that is you just bow out and simply choose not to participate.
  25. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...