 | | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: (snip worthy summation) (...) Agreed. Its validity seems to flow rather directly and consequentially from some deeply enshrined and rather important principles concerning the fundamental rights of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Bruce's big joke only gets funnier. Richard Still baldly going... (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Yes, they do. As long as the forsake any governmental affiliation is strictly adhered to. That's tough to do today though. (...) But LUGNET, being completely privately funded, ought to (under the free association clause) be completely within (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) What does membership in a private club have to do with forcing gays out of their own private property? And, just to address your example, the fictional "Todd" may well have to justify his reason, and to a judge, depending on the Terms of (...) (21 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) If I am Todd, isn't that my right? Need I justify my reasons? And to whom? (...) I think the ratio is a lot higher for other reasons. I like this (from their web site): (URL) Fetal Rights> You might suppose that the ACLU might be concerned (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) I'd love to know how "crimes against nature" are defined. I assume fertility treatments, contraception, GM crops, etc are permitted in Dayton? Scott A (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Not the same example. What you want to do is forcibly evict Dave! from Lugnet because he (for the sake of this argument) plays with Brand X, even though he is not doing it on Lugnet. (...) Not doubtful at all - they have defended (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) So I should not be able to form a club that excludes LEGO clone-lovers because I am limiting the freedom of Dave! to becoming a member? (...) Doubtful. But even if they did, on what grounds? (...) It's the big joke-- everybody is intolerant of (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) My "hypothetical" specifically discounted governmental action, which I think we'd all agree needs to affirm and protect the rights of all. JOHN (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Yet another push for thoughtful legislation from Tennessee
|
|
(...) Easily answered: because said bigots are trying to limit the freedom of those that they are bigoted against. If, say, a community that was a majority of Gays attempted to ban Christian fundamentalists from their community ("They aren't wanted (...) (21 years ago, 18-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
