Jump to content
UnevenEdge

civil liberties question


discolé monade

Recommended Posts

ok. i understand about acess to voter lists for campaign purposes, but, i question the use of this list (inactive) published by the local news paper NOT at the behest of the registars office. 

this local paper is shady, sketchy and ratched af. 

i located an article for louisiana, that a local paper stopped that practice of 20 years ago, because of listing of domestic/sexual crimes victims, 

also, the list that was obtained wasn't vetted. some of the people on there are deceased. 

tl:dr i loathe this local paper and would love to shut them down.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

This feels like such an extraordinarily bad idea that regardless of legality it shouldn't even be considered.

THANK YOU! that's what i'm saying. 

mind you, this is the same owner/editor/writer that will actually right about how dumb his employee is as an editorial

OR how another female employee  had to take 'cop a squat'  out in the woods while working at a 2nd job for this schmuck (they have a janky aution house that the paper employess also work at)

Edited by discolé monade
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

THANK YOU! that's what i'm saying. 

mind you, this is the same owner/editor/writer that will actually right about how dumb his employee is as an editorial

OR how another female employee  had to take 'cop a squat'  out in the woods while working at a 2nd job for this schmuck (they have a janky aution house that the paper employess also work at)

If hes going to complain about women having to squat then people should flood his office with SheWees. Thatd piss him off.

Sounds like a pretty stand up guy. The kind of guy you want right by your side.....as you run from a bear so you can trip him.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, discolé monade said:

so i have another question: how do you feel about prayer,( or as in this case, invocation) before a city or county public meeting?

Better question - are the PEOPLE [ as in anyone in the area ] allowed to chose the 'prayer' ? 

Because around here there's a long list of 'christians' allowed to open meetings and maybe the occasional Native but I think only if that's been vetted first. And there were a couple of knuckledraggers in the recent session who decided to turn their backs during the prayer because they 'didn't like being lectured to when there was serious business to attend'. The 'lecture' was a prayer for tolerance and to be more Christ-like, the 'serious business' of the day were votes targeting transgendered people, books, and pronoun usage. :| 

So, short answer is if you can't abide by the best your so-called faith expects, don't bother insisting on a prayer before you vote your hate. It doesn't absolve you from choosing to be a dick. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, discolé monade said:

so i have another question: how do you feel about prayer,( or as in this case, invocation) before a city or county public meeting?

Republican SCOTUS said it was fine in a 5-4 decision in 2014: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-696

Quote

Does the invocation of prayer at a legislative session violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even in the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers and content?

No. Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the context and jurisprudence surrounding the First Amendment suggested that the Establishment Clause was never meant to prohibit legislative prayer, which created the proper deliberative mood and acknowledged religion's role in society. The content of this prayer does not need to be non-sectarian, because such a requirement would place the courts in the role of arbiters of religious speech, which would involve the government in religion to an extent that is impermissible under the Establishment Clause. The Court thus held that the prayers in question do not violate this tradition and are therefore acceptable under the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy further argued that legislative prayer is primarily for the members of the legislative body, and therefore such prayers do not coerce the public into religious observance. Though the respondents testified that they felt offended by these prayers, Justice Kennedy distinguished between offense and coercion and noted that the former does not violate the Establishment Clause. Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas did not join in this portion of the opinion.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, discolé monade said:

i guess, what i'm asking is, what happened to separation of church and state? 

That only happens in states where they believe in that now.

Source: "But what if we want to put up a statue of the Ten Commandments ONLY?"

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, discolé monade said:

i guess, what i'm asking is, what happened to separation of church and state? 

That only applies if your beliefs aren't the same as 'their' beliefs. 

If you are different or different enough, you aren't allowed to make the rules because it hurts their Zombie Jesus' feelings. 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...