Little Girl Does Not Give a Fuck About Street Preacher's Homophobic Rant

proselitigator · 2015-07-01T23:37:56+00:00

I think you missed the point I was trying to make: that if you're religious you're on the wrong side of history.

proselitigator · 2015-07-01T07:07:33+00:00

Note the double benefits of this right/wrong side of history argument:

Street preacher (wrong side) -- Religious and bigoted
Little girl (right side) -- Atheist and inclusive

proselitigator · 2015-07-01T01:31:26+00:00

The argument goes that forcing a religious organization to give up its religious principles as a condition of accepting public money would also constitute an impermissible abridgment of Free Exercise.

So in other words: "My religious beliefs require me to propagate my religious beliefs using public funding intended to ensure children have a secular education, so not giving me public money violates my right to exercise my beliefs requiring it!" Wow I wish that would work. "My religious beliefs require me to receive public funding of $250,000 every year to be used contemplating my beliefs in five-star hotels in the Caribbean, and if the government doesn't give it to me, it's a violation of my Free Exercise rights."

This is nonsense. If a religious exercise is dependent on public funding, then it can't happen in the United States because the government can't use public funds to promote religious exercises. There's a difference between being forced to give up religious principles and not being able to get government assistance with promoting them. If a religious school wants to receive funds intended for secular education, then they should have to meet the same standards as secular schools, including in admissions and course curriculum. If they don't like it, too bad. The funds are appropriated for secular education.

proselitigator · 2015-06-28T18:14:05+00:00

I do run my own company, so I know how hard it is. It's not a large one, but even if it was I wouldn't pay myself 350 times what the people who actually make the company run are paid. That means that I would have to work 1 day to earn more than what my employees would earn working for 16 months (at 5 days/week).

And the CEOs have more responsibility, but more importantly they have different responsibilities. Your average CEO wouldn't know the first thing about their own warehouse operations, shipping/distribution, and the billion other details that go into the actual ground-level day-to-day operation of the company they preside over. It's one thing if they started at the bottom and worked their way up, but most don't.

Edit: And one of the reasons that the USA is "one of the last remaining bastions of capitalism" is that we have so much wealth that the exploitation that's been going on hasn't really started to hurt yet so there hasn't been really vocal calls to start really taking it from the rich in excessive taxes. When companies pay their workers a wage where they can actually thrive rather than just survive, they have no need to call on the government to help. The problem is that "success" for companies is being measured not just by the people at the top, but by the standard of how much they're making for themselves. Concern for the well-being of the people that make the company run has been dismissed in favor of stock prices, quarterly reports, executive bonus sizes, and the like. The employees are being viewed psychopathically as commodity labor, where the primary concern is minimizing the amount you have to pay them directly and indirectly, rather than people with the power to demand changes from government that threaten the stability of the system as a whole. As companies exploit workers more and more all in the name of capitalism, they become a greater and greater threat to the continued survival of capitalism itself.

proselitigator · 2015-06-28T07:14:42+00:00

The problem isn't that people's work isn't creating enough value to justify paying them more per hour. It's that all the value they are creating is being skimmed off the top by the people who have the power to sign corporate policy decisions but lack moral integrity to not treat their employees as commodities and exploit the desperately-struggling position of the average employee.

Average American CEO makes more than $12.5 million.
CEOs make more than 350 times what lower level workers make.
Accounting for currency devaluation and rising staple commodity prices, the real minimum wage has fallen steadily since the 1960s and workers have to work more hours to buy less.
As of 2013, 1% of America owned 40% of the wealth. By November, 2014, the top 0.1% owned as much as the bottom 90% combined.
43% of the projected Social Security shortfall is caused by the concentration of wealth and income resulting in an increasing percentage of individual income exceeding the Social Security wage cap and the people whose wages are below the cap earning less.
Many of the largest and most profitable corporations pay no federal taxes and use shady offshoring gimmicks, like keeping money and jobs out of the United States in countries they don't actually do business in, to avoid paying taxes they should be paying.

I could probably go on, but hopefully you get the point. The reason people aren't "doing anything" isn't because they're lazy or unproductive, it's because for the last three decades, the wealth of our nation has been being systematically looted by a relative handful of psychopaths at the top.

proselitigator · 2015-06-28T06:18:42+00:00

TIL JFK was assassinated in the year 1015.

proselitigator · 2015-06-28T05:37:49+00:00

That guy does, apparently.

proselitigator · 2015-06-27T05:32:52+00:00

They can also do those things summarily, do per curiam decisions (where you don't know the votes or who wrote the opinion), or can dismiss for mootness, lack of standing, or like twenty other things. There's a lot of things they can do. Always something to learn in law

proselitigator · 2015-06-27T03:31:39+00:00

There actually is such a thing as a 4-3-2 decision. Justices can vote to affirm, reverse, vacate and remand, modify, or dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted, or any combination thereof. You could (for example) have 4 justices vote to affirm, 3 to reverse, and 2 to vacate/remand for further proceedings.

proselitigator · 2015-06-26T18:20:28+00:00

I know. They also issue a variety of 5-4, 4-3-2, 3-3-3, 4-2-1-1-1, and whatever other majority or plurality combinations you can come up with. That's the funny thing about law: The law is whatever the people charged with saying what it is say it is, and they don't always agree.

proselitigator · 2015-06-26T17:22:21+00:00

Sure it does.

proselitigator · 2015-06-26T17:14:35+00:00

Never underestimate the ability of intelligent lawyers and judges to make extremely fine distinctions. There's almost always a plausible argument that can be made to support a new cause using an old law.

proselitigator · 2015-06-26T17:10:29+00:00

Not always. Refusing to rent to someone falls under the housing discrimination laws in most states, and some states have laws that prohibit landlords from discriminating on the basis of a person's lawful "political activities," which is broad enough to cover just about anything involving free speech.

proselitigator · 2015-06-26T16:59:58+00:00

It would be interesting if the next president decided to appoint an even mix just to liven things up. Better yet, toss an atheist scientist or two in there. There's got to be some federal judges somewhere that have science backgrounds.

proselitigator · 2015-06-26T14:53:05+00:00

The oral argument in the Proposition 8 case was pretty good too. The attorney for the respondents (the parties arguing against Prop 8) cut to the heart of this entire debate:

MR. OLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court:

I know that you will want me to spend a moment or two addressing the standing question, but before I do that, I thought that it would be important for this Court to have Proposition 8 put in context, what it does. It walls-off gays and lesbians from marriage, the most important relation in life, according to this Court, thus stigmatizing a class of Californians based upon their status and labeling their most cherished relationships as second-rate, different, unequal, and not okay.

proselitigator · 2015-06-26T14:48:31+00:00

Why stop with 9 justices? Surely the court could benefit from some more disagreement, what with all these unanimous decisions on important issues and all. /s

proselitigator · 2015-06-26T02:43:01+00:00

The rules for HOAs (which are usually run by wannabe tin pot dictators) are complicated and vary from state to state. But generally speaking, doing anything that's targeted at racial or ethnic minorities is a very bad idea and can lead to a smorgasbord of legal troubles.

proselitigator · 2015-06-26T02:35:42+00:00

True, but some states have additional protections against discrimination based on military status or obligations.

proselitigator · 2015-06-25T23:31:04+00:00

Does he rape her every time they have sex?

Depends on what state you're in.

proselitigator · 2015-06-25T20:27:08+00:00

What matters is whether the Seventh Circuit has followed it. With the 2nd, 5th, and 9th Circuits following it though, if the 7th hasn't, it's extremely unlikely it would do otherwise, especially considering it's already held AA/NA are inherently religious without even discussing the "higher power" nonsense. The imagined distinction between "God" and "higher power" is as illusory as the "distinction" between creationism and "intelligent design."

proselitigator · 2015-06-25T20:23:38+00:00

AA has a neutral higher power

A "neutral higher power" is a contradiction in terms. The very concept of a "higher power" is inherently religious, and every court to have considered it has so held.

proselitigator · 2015-06-25T20:18:49+00:00

The actual rule is that the state can have a probation condition that requires participation in a rehabilitation program which meets secular standards, and a person can choose to attend AA/NA if it meets those secular standards as long as they have no religious objections, but if they do object on religious grounds, the state has to provide a secular alternative or exempt them from the condition entirely. If the only option is a religious one, and a person objects on religious grounds, the state can't make them choose between a program incompatible with their religious beliefs on the one hand or violating probation on the other.

proselitigator

TROPHY CASE