Vegas Free-for-All - Suspended Duck Dynasty Dude Unsuspended.

Tutontow

Dec 31, 2013
1:38am

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV

Quote
Originally posted by: Tutontow
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: BobOrme
...He [Phil Robertson] is not a "dope" by any definition of the word...
But he is ignorant. Because when he cites Leviticus to condemn homosexuality, he should also know that it condemns shellfish, bacon, haircuts, blended fabrics, and so on. And it's cool with slavery, human and animal sacrifices, and the death penalty for adultery.

Phil is entitled to his own bigotry, but unless he's ready to criticize Red Lobster and especially their cotton/polyester uniforms, he needs to leave the Bible out of it.

Forkie I am afraid you are wrong on this one. Many beliefs that fell under Mosaic law were tossed out in the New Testament when James took over the church after Jesus's death.

1. Nope, the Mosaic stuff was tossed before Jesus died. The New Covenant, remember?
2. Making a claim and then challenging someone else to look it up is very lame, and below your usual standards.

Let's see if we can agree on this, I have never seen anyone win an argument on religion or politics.

Now in response to you post, I recently brought up the shellfish discussion with my bro in law. He has a doctorate of theology and has been a pastor for 30 plus years. He truly has the bible memorized. I am not so scholarly on the Bible. I am a believer and a Christian but I will say I am way too liberal to go to Baptist churches. I say get them saved and let God deal with them from there. Having said that when it comes to shellfish I won't continue the conversation with you but I will say he quoted enough scripture and verse to convince me shellfish is okay and according to the new testament homosexuality is not. Let me say I believe in salvation through Jesus's death but there are many Christian teachings that I believe are between the individual and God. In closing let me state nobody chooses to be gay. It is the way God made them , just like nobody choses to be straight. I once saw a mother with tears streaming down her face discussing her homosexual son. She said if you knew all of the bigotry and harassment he has endured there is no way he would choose this lifestyle.

On the second part of your post you are the self proclaimed expert on research etc. so I figured it wouldn't be that difficult for you to look it up, but quite frankly why should you bother because your mind is made up just like my mind is made up....nobody has ever won an argument....well you get the idea.

Dan Svatass

Dec 31, 2013
4:48am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jillyf
I said there are a plethora of laws that require us to respect each others' 1st Amendment rights, and punish us if we don't. And I don't need to give examples, because only an IDIOT would say "give me an example."

I don't really have it in me to argue with someone who is so droll. "Stupid"? "Idiot"? "Moron"? Who could battle that? You win.

But could you give me one example of a law in the US directing citizens to "respect" someone else's First Amendment rights. You claim there are hundreds. I claim there are zero.

Thanks!

Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: ChilcootGive one example of a law in the US directing citizens to "respect" someone else's First Amendment rights?

Only a government entity can violate the First Amendment.

Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot
I'm very patient.

The California Constitution protects free-speech rights in privately owned shopping centers—as long as the activity doesn’t interfere with the primary commercial purpose of the mall.
So, a privately owned shopping center [e.g. Pruneyard Shopping Center] in California can be directed to respect someone else's First Amendment rights.

The US Supreme Court has upheld this right because California's Constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the Federal Constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech.

Ref: Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

DonDiego thanks Chilcoot for his patience.

Is a "privately owned shopping center" a "citizen"? I didn't realize that.

I thought only human beings were citizens. I thought that because it's true, that the reason we haven't yet had a President King of Prussia Mall or a Chief Justice South Coast Plaza is that shopping centers aren't citizens.

This gets hard when people show no understanding for what words mean.

I'll say it again, in hopes rephrasing helps: The First Amendment only limits the power of our various federal, state, and local governments. It doesn't limit the powers of citizens. And NOTHING compels me to respect another person's First Amendment rights. I don't have to. I happen to choose to respect them, but I don't have to.

I can be charged with battery if I punch in the mouth someone while they're giving a speech, but that's a law against punching people in the mouth, not a law forcing me to respect their right to speak.

I can be charged with arson if I burn down a newspaper's printing press, but that's a law against setting fire to stuff, not a law forcing me to respect their right to publish newspapers.

No law, let alone hundreds, forces citizens like me to "respect" the First Amendment rights of another. If I don't wanna, I don't haveta.

Now let the witty namecalling resume!

Don

Dec 31, 2013
6:33am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot
Is a "privately owned shopping center" a "citizen"? I didn't realize that.

Hmm, . . . a simple answer would be to recognize that although a corporation is not a citizen, the owners of the corporation are. And if California requires a corporation to respect someone else's right to free speech on its own property, then the owners, citizens all, are also being required to do so.

But sometimes answers are not simple.

So, . . . the real answer is: "Why, yes, . . . within the Law, the Courts, . . . including the Supreme Court, . . . have recognized and defined the Citizenship of Corporations."

In 1809 Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court described the corporation as an “invisible, intangible, and artificial being” which was “certainly not a citizen.” [See Bank of United States v. Deveaux]

But things change.

The matter of corporate citizenship was first addressed in defining rules for "Diversity Jurisdiction" in civil procedures. A United States District Court, in the federal judiciary, has the power to hear a civil case where the persons that are parties are "diverse" in citizenship, . . . which generally indicates that they are citizens of different states or non-U.S. citizens. Corporations, as legal persons, are also be included. [See US Constitution, Article III, § 2 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332]
The corollary rules had been that individuals are citizens of the State where they reside and corporations are citizens of both the State in which they are incorporated and the State in which they have their principal place of business.

The US Supreme Court clarified the jurisdiction issues in Hertz Corp. v. Friend in 2010, by holding that a corporation has a single principal place of business, the "nerve center" for purposes of diversity jurisdiction and the citizenship of the corporation is defined as the State where the corporation's headquarters is located.

Also recently the Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010 held that as corporate citizens, corporations also possess the right of Freedom of Speech.

Corporations are citizens. QED

DonDiego suggests Chilcoot really should stop living in the 19th Century and keep up with the modern world.

Oh, . . . and by the way, the reason there has not been a President King of Prussia Mall is pr'bly because the Constitution requires the President be a natural-born citizen. DonDiego suggests one not be too surprised if corporations lobby to redefine the term "natural-born citizen" to permit a corporate President someday, . . .or at least a robot President. It is more likely that Justice South Coast Plaza would be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Congress before that though.

Dan Svatass

Dec 31, 2013
8:49am

Block User

I've managed to twist Don Diego to the point where he's now claiming that a shopping mall is a citizen.

Another year ends on a high note!

jillyf

Dec 31, 2013
8:55am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot But could you give me one example of a law in the US directing citizens to "respect" someone else's First Amendment rights. You claim there are hundreds. I claim there are zero.

I'll say it again, in hopes rephrasing helps: The First Amendment only limits the power of our various federal, state, and local governments. It doesn't limit the powers of citizens. And NOTHING compels me to respect another person's First Amendment rights. I don't have to. I happen to choose to respect them, but I don't have to.

I can be charged with battery if I punch in the mouth someone while they're giving a speech, but that's a law against punching people in the mouth, not a law forcing me to respect their right to speak.

I can be charged with arson if I burn down a newspaper's printing press, but that's a law against setting fire to stuff, not a law forcing me to respect their right to publish newspapers.

I wasn't calling you names, I was referencing your level of intelligence, as demonstrated by your inability to think outside a tiny box (which keeps getting tinier).

Of course there is no law "directing citizens to respect," because that's not the way laws are written. Laws are written as such: "any person who… commits a class 3 misdemeanor," etc. And yes, you are required to respect, e.g. the right of peaceable assembly, because if you try to stop a peaceable assembly, and are successful in interfering with the same, you will be prosecuted. You may or may not be prosecuted under a law that references peaceable assembly, but you will definitely be prosecuted for attempting to disband same.

And if you firebomb the newspaper, BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THEIR MESSAGE, come time for your sentencing, you'll find out that you did more than just arson. Likewise, if you punch someone in the face because he quoted the Bible at a town hall meeting, you'll find there's a little bit extra in it for you.

From Merriam Webster (emph. added):

re·spect, transitive verb

: to act in a way which shows that you are aware of (someone's rights, wishes, etc.)

: to treat or deal with (something that is good or valuable) in a proper way

But, I'll just let you get back to your tiny fantasy world, where burning a cross in someone's yard is a mere trespass.

Don

Dec 31, 2013
9:38am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Chilcoot
I've managed to twist Don Diego to the point where he's now claiming that a shopping mall is a citizen.

But DonDiego did not claim that a shopping mall is a citizen; a shopping mall is just some real property. DonDiego did report that numerous US court decisions have granted citizenship to corporations. And, in answer to Chilcoot's original challenge, the State of California does require a corporation-citizen to respect the First Amendment rights of someone else.

Oh, and it's not limited to just the Pruneyard Shopping Center or even "shopping centers" generally. Signs like this are to be found throughout the State of California demonstrating the requirement that the corporation-citizen respect the First Amendment rights of "solicitors" on their property:

Wall-Mart et al don't like it, but it's how The Law works sometimes.

It is a bit queer.

Attorney John T. Mitchell explains the evolution of The Law which led to this "strange" result:
"When corporations were first given “citizenship” for purposes of determining diversity jurisdiction, the point was not to put them on the road to equality with mortal humans, but to have a rule for deciding federal court jurisdiction—a simple housekeeping or administrative rule. That rule had its genesis back in the day when few corporations had a national (or global) reach, and states could (and did) revoke the corporate charter of a misbehaving corporation. Given the modern corporation’s reach today, when even a business set up in the garage can have a 50-state customer base of online purchasers, and corporate executions are practically unheard of, a better rule for diversity jurisdiction might simply be to treat all corporations as citizens of each state in which they do more than de minimis business, and leave the human qualities to us mortals."

Mr. Mitchell doesn't like it; but it's how The Law works sometimes.

Ref: American Bar Association

CONCLUSION:
Corporation-citizens in California are routinely required to recognize the First Amendment rights of citizens on corporate property. QED

Dan Svatass

Dec 31, 2013
4:06pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: jillyf

Quote
Originally posted by: Chilcoot But could you give me one example of a law in the US directing citizens to "respect" someone else's First Amendment rights. You claim there are hundreds. I claim there are zero.

Of course there is no law "directing citizens to respect," because that's not the way laws are written.

Thank you. It's a sign of a good person to admit being wrong.

Quote
Originally posted by: jillyf
I wasn't calling you names . . . .

Wow, really? Gosh, it seemed like you were namecalling. Let's check . . .

Quote
Originally posted by: jillyf
You are a complete moron, with no idea what you are talking about.

. . .

Are you that incredibly stupid?????

. . .

And I don't need to give examples, because only an IDIOT would say "give me an example."

. . .

If the Federal government can't do it, neither can anyone else, idiot.

Gosh, I'm pretty sure that's namecalling.

But what do I know, I still think shopping malls can't become president.

Ah well, Happy New Year!!!

drmilled

Dec 31, 2013
6:47pm

Block User

Is it really "name calling" when someone uses correct descriptive words and adjectives when referring to another person? I think not.

Joebellstaff

Jan 1, 2014
4:15am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: drmilled
Is it really "name calling" when someone uses correct descriptive words and adjectives when referring to another person? I think not.

Then it would be safe to say happy new year to you,dr.milled, you fascist, hate filled, closeted, self-righteous, arrogant, intolerant, anti-American windbag.

Dealer1

Jan 1, 2014
4:26am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Joebellstaff

Quote
Originally posted by: drmilled
Is it really "name calling" when someone uses correct descriptive words and adjectives when referring to another person? I think not.

Then it would be safe to say happy new year to you,dr.milled, you fascist, hate filled, closeted, self-righteous, arrogant, intolerant, anti-American windbag.

«‹8 ›»

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:

Diamond Membership

$3 per month

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Limited Member Rewards Online

Join Now

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now