Where is the ACLU on the current Mueller Investigation?
It seems to me, the ACLU is missing in action...
They claim to be the defender of freedom and individual rights and work against abuses of power by our government...sounds good until you examine just what they do.
They target religious institutions and defend criminals...Here is one story...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government … -is-alive/FYI - breitbart is a radical nazi white nationalist propaganda sight, not a legitimate source of news or commentary. Pig Pile Steve Bannon, racist white supremacist and past senior adviser to short timer Trump was once the chief.
Can you possibly imagine nazis in the white house? With Bannon gone and perhaps going to prison, there are at least 2 remaining and that's unthinkable.Your opinion of Breitbart is so far out in space as to put it in the category of space junk . Nazi's ? Really .........suggestion ,listen to them instead of Rachel Madcow for an hour and you'll get a reality intervention .
Maybe .Rachel Madow is a nice person but no down the middle commentator. She is as left as they come but in a more moderate and calm voice.
Breitbart is a right wing website. It was better when Andrew Breitbart ran it, too bad he passed away before his time.
The question about the ACLU is a valid one.
Care to comment on that?Why are you dragging superb investigative reporter Rachel Maddow into your equation? I exposed white nationalist breitbart garbage because someone was trying to 'cite' it as a legitimate source which everyone knows it's not unless fake phony propaganda is a preference.
The ACLU steps in when they deem it's necessary, and it is unnecessary to interrupt the most in-depth Earth shattering essential criminal investigation of the most corrupt and crooked Russian puppet president running amok with impunity. Mr. Trump is the number one threat to the world right now as many military experts and Americans assert and the Mueller investigation must unearth the conspiracy, obstruction, abuses and constitutional violations to hopefully salvage whats left of the United States.In your dreams Jake. We will see very shortly if you are right or the rest of us sane people are right.
The ACLU has a long history of anti Christian and Anti American actions...
No need to disect where they are coing from. They are biased as hell.
Just pointing out their hypocrisy."For almost 100 years, the ACLU has worked to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States." - ACLU mission statement
Defending the Constitution doesn't sound anti-American or anti-Christian to me.Like all liberal things, the ACLU is steeped deeply in hypocrisy. Where were they when the Christian bakers were attacked for not baking a cake for a gay wedding? This is just one example and there are MANY of them. A truth of life is "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
https://www.dailysignal.com/2015/03/30/ … s-liberty/Where were they when the Christian bakers were attacked for not baking a cake for a gay wedding?
The same place they were while defending the rights of black folks to eat at a public lunch counter. If you want to be considered a "public accommodation" you will have to operate as such. From that prospective liberalism/progressism is spot on.......It's obvious you struggle to grasp the concept of freedom of religion. Your responses provew it. Should you have a desire to remain on topic you may want to realize racial prejudice and religious freedom are two different things. Again, why do Muslims get a free pass of this issue? Again, Liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent...as always.
It's obvious you struggle to grasp the concept of freedom of religion. Your responses provew it. Should you have a desire to remain on topic you may want to realize racial prejudice and religious freedom are two different things. Again, why do Muslims get a free pass of this issue? Again, Liberalism generates the exact opposite of its stated intent...as always.
------------------------------------------------
Let's not get our drawers in a pinch, Mike.
There is religious prejudice, Mike, and in public thoroughfare, it is just as much unjustified. I tell the right wing to keep its religious fervor and subsequent bigotry at home or in their churches.
I DONT give anyone a free pass, what applies to Christians, apply to Jews, Muslims, what have you.
A judge ruled against the bakery, not the ACLU.
Personally, I think anyone who has a business on private property should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose. But not on public property.
Regardless, Colorado state law prohibits public places including businesses from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
If you don't like the ruling, blame the Colorado state legislature and not the ACLU.A [i]judge{/i] ruled against the bakery, not the ACLU. Personally, I think anyone who has a business on private property should be able to refuse service to anyone they choose. But not on public propert
I disagree here, most public accommodations are probably owned privately. The only place that can truly be private would be my residence or my Aunt Mabel's. If you consider yourself 'open to the public' and subject to municipal ordinances, state laws pertaining to the particular business type and how it is to be run, you cannot discriminate.I actually started to write a response to your other comment a few minutes ago asking your opinion about what I said, but then I deleted it. I'm not surprised you disagree. From Black's Law Dictionary:
Private property is "The ownership of tangible and intangible goods by an individual who has exclusive rights over it."
If I own the land and building that has my business, what "exclusive rights" do I have when I'm being forced to serve any and all people who walk onto my property?
Also, there is an important difference to me between someone who refuses service based on religious beliefs and someone who refuses service because the customer is gay, black or white.
My religious beliefs in theory are protected by the First Amendment. I don't see how someone's sexual orientation is more important than my Constitutionally protected right to practice my religion.Greetings, Promisem
I have always found little daylight between my viewpoint and yours on most of these forum topics. This is a great opportunity to observe what might be a fundamental difference between a ‘moderate conservative’ and an unabashed lefty like myself.
I have an issue with the description for ‘private property’ and operating a business on your private land and buildings that can be considered a public accommodation. Let’s say you have a restaurant, you just can’t do what you want in its regard. You’ve got health inspectors for instance; you have to be licensed to operate certain kinds of business enterprises. So, there are stipulations that even owners of private property have to observe. I found it irritating, but I am not allowed to fence the front of my yard living in an urban area the way that I would like, privacy preferred. Who should have the right, but the city ordinances are quite specific. I have to move to the boonies to be able to put what appurtenances on my property that I like. Yes, you own the land and the buildings and normally have the right to control who is allowed on your private property, but if you open a business that is to be open to the public and even if you don’t, your control of that property is not absolute.
You can choose not to operate a public accommodation sort of business, and yes, you can always buy or sell it
As to your last paragraph, I direct you to the idea that by letting the nose of the elephant in the tent, you just as well drag in the rest of the carcass. They use to tell me that the “good book” admonished against the mixing of the races, such was the explanation for separate but equal and the outrage of refusing service to someone, anyone. This was based on religious belief or so they said, who could dispute their perspective here? How many conservatives today would deny equal access and accommodation to Muslims based on their Christian religious conscience? That sort of reasoning can be an excuse to justify virtually any kind of discrimination and exclusion. The Court decision regarding the wedding cake business was the correct one.
-----
My religious beliefs in theory are protected by the First Amendment. I don't see how someone's sexual orientation is more important than my Constitutionally protected right to practice my religion.
-------
The 1964 law requiring equal accommodation was an important piece of legislation as it did not permit people to take their biases and preferences into account when operating as a public accommodation where all have to be served equally, period. I have heard the account of Bessie Smith, the Jazz Great of the 1920s who bled to death in an auto accident in the late 1930's because there was not a "colored hospital' in the vicinity. I do not acknowledge that conservatives would have changed their attitudes without being overwhelmed by the 'gavel'. Without that, what other groups not on the majority's favorite lists would be subject to abuse? Thank God for the courts.
In my opinion, there is no difference; it is all from the same sourceCredence,
The cake debate is a religious one.
It is the same as forcing a Catholic hospital to perform abortions...
Don’t you agree the first amendment trumps all other laws or regulations?
As far as business goes, there are plenty on incidences that are not religious based, for example hooter hires only women waitresses... is that sex discrimination? No. Because their business model is to have pretty waitresses serving food to a mostly male clients.
Same was with Playboy years ago, they hired bunny to serve in their lounges.
There are restaurants that only serve vegetarians for instances...
Why does this gay couple insist on ordering a cake from this bakery when they can choose many others who will make the cake?
You have to wonder what is their agenda?
If I went to a bakery and they don’t want my business for what ever reason, I just walk out and I would not make a federal case out of it.
I have nothing against gay people. Most of them are very good people and just want to live and let live.
It is the few activist that want to force their view on the rest of the 95%... that I am opposed to.
It is not a civil rights issue.
I hope this is clear.Jack,
Do any of these religious institutions (hospitals) receive federal funding?
Freedom of expression does not mean the right to discriminate in a public venue. You can practice your biases, opinions and such at home and at your churches. I am surprised that the Right can never see a difference that is in plain sight of progressive thinkers.
I am a guy, I cannot well meet the qualifications for being a “hooter girl”. But you do have a good point, though, I will give you that. Out of curiosity, I wanted to dig on this issue a little further. So OK, you made your point in a narrow way in addressing this particular argument.
I quote a statement from a Business Insider article:
"Hooters argued BFOQ [bona fide occupational qualification] under essence of the business," David Sherwyn, a law professor at Cornell University's School of Hotel Administration, told Business Insider.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act lets companies discriminate on the basis of "religion, sex, or national origin in those instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a BONA FIDE occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business or enterprise."
So, BONA FIDE means that if I am looking for a surrogate mother, I am of course restricted to women as they are, based on gender, the only ones that can perform the task. The Court lets Hooters off of the hook because as you say their business model is based on the sexual titillation of men, the same with the Playboy Bunny. And least for the majority of men that’s constitutes a BONA FIDE justification to hire women exclusively. Women have similar clubs and the inverse would apply to men, being solely qualified. So, you win that one.
So, let’s not interpret this too broadly, ok?
---------------------------------------------
“There are restaurants that only serve vegetarians for instances...”
That is not a good example, I don’t expect to be served Filet Mignon at McDonalds. The restaurant cannot discriminate providing service based on whether or not I am vegetarian. I, being a carnivore, simply accept the fact that the only food available is of the vegetarian variety. As long as I am willing to eat what is on the menu, I have a right to be served.
--------------------------------------
Why does this gay couple insist on ordering a cake from this bakery when they can choose many others who will make the cake?
You have to wonder what is their agenda?
Yes, I admit, there was much band standing involved, but this sort of case was going to come along sooner or later. But again, some conservatives have asked me why do I want to be served where I am not wanted? I could always go to another restaurant. But, if you give them all the option, why not have half the restaurants in town take the same tack, if they could get away with it? The horrendous nature of many of these practices did and does make them “federal cases”.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I hope this is clear.
Interesting discourse, but we disagree on many points….
Credence, I remember comments by you in the past that indicated a little more daylight than most between a "moderate conservative" and "unabashed lefty". My mistake.
However, I agree entirely with your second paragraph. (Maybe there is some daylight after all!) All of our rights have limits.
Regarding your fourth paragraph, yes, under my reasoning, a Christian can choose to refuse service to a Muslim NOT because he or she is personally bigoted against Muslims but because the Bible and that person's church has a belief and practice that teaches them to avoid Muslims. Yes, it is discrimination. But it's also a religious belief, and the Constitution supposedly protects freedom of religion.
It comes down to a question of harm. Some years ago, I was refused service in a McDonalds in a black neighborhood because I was white. At first I thought there was a problem with my order, but after 25 minutes it was clear the employees were quickly serving only black customers and not serving whites at all.
Was I harmed? No, but I was upset. They made a choice, and I made mine. I got my money back and walked out.
Regarding your sixth paragraph, that famous example is discrimination with harm and so of course should be illegal.
Any discrimination is morally wrong. But I believe we must balance immoral discrimination against other rights that has some basis in the Constitution.Interesting discourse, but we disagree on many points…. Credence, I remember comments by you in the past that indicated a little more daylight than most between a "moderate conservative" and "unabashed lefty". My mistake.
Promisem, Perhaps....
-------------------------------------------------------------
However, I agree entirely with your second paragraph. (Maybe there is some daylight after all!) All of our rights have limits.
I am glad that we are on the same page regarding this point
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding your fourth paragraph, yes, under my reasoning, a Christian can choose to refuse service to a Muslim NOT because he or she is personally bigoted against Muslims but because the Bible and that person's church has a belief and practice that teaches them to avoid Muslims. Yes, it is discrimination. But it's also a religious belief, and the Constitution supposedly protects freedom of religion.
Promisem, can’t you see how that is so easily abused? If you and your business take that attitude, your business should not be allowed to operate in the public sphere. What does my being Muslim have to do with my ordering a hamburger? Next, they will say they can’t serve you because of the color tie you are wearing. Your rights end where my nose begins. You choose to operate a PUBLIC ACCOMODATION then you by definition cannot pick and choose who you will serve based on superficial aspects of your customers. People with stalwart religious beliefs as you describe should not be in business. Remember the Islam woman that did not want to remove her burka to be photographed for a drivers license? Religion or no religion, if you want to drive a car in the State of Florida, you will have a photo id.
-----------------------------------------------------
It comes down to a question of harm. Some years ago, I was refused service in a McDonalds in a black neighborhood because I was white. At first I thought there was a problem with my order, but after 25 minutes it was clear the employees were quickly serving only black customers and not serving whites at all.
The owner of the MCD is guilty of discrimination and should have been subject to a lawsuit. My attitude about equal accommodation in public facilities is not cherry picked. It applies to EVERYBODY. I would have made a case out of it, if you were with me at the time. Yes, you were harmed, just like not being served at any public accommodation for an inappropriate reason, I consider harmful. They used to reason that being required to sit at the back of the bus was no harm done. But was it really?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding your sixth paragraph, that famous example is discrimination with harm and so of course should be illegal.
All discrimination applied without justified distinctions are harmful, from any number of aspects.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any discrimination is morally wrong. But I believe we must balance immoral discrimination against other rights that has some basis in the Constitution.
When you operate anything in public, it goes without saying that you serve the public. Racists, religious fanatics and such can find any excuse to discriminate. So, in the face of that, what has all the riots, civil rights protests and endless court cases been about? A religious fundamentalist type that owns several rental properties across town, refuses to rent to me because I miscegenate, cohabitate, what have you. He says that it is against his religious beliefs, but maybe it is just because I am black. How would you know and what about fair housing laws?
Again, the hypocrisy of the left is overwhelming. Muslims refuse to bake gay wedding cakes and nobody says a thing. Someone tried to get Muslim bakers to bake a gay wedding cake and it didn't go well. Why is the local government going after them?
https://gloria.tv/video/o6t83fwqnZyn1M7e1SHFtXG2o
For one Rachael Maddow IS way worse than Breitbart as to honest journalism , Listen to Wilkow for an hour , Two when the ACLU "Celebrates " the actions against Trump's atty ; there s something drastically wrong with the perceptions of whats right and wrong with this incident . Three , The ACLU is a public and private funded non -profit , working [supposedly ] for the liberties and protections of all people ........normally against the government powers - This is a turn around on their part or rather a choosing of the corrupted party over another .
Not Good .One difference being breitbart is a garbage site that promotes white nationalist nazi propaganda, trash that our relatives died for in the 1940's to stop, while Rachel fights the good fight of righteousness, shedding light on the extreme dangers of Spanky Trump's unhinged, radical white supremacist goals and desires which is where most conservative congressional accomplices are in lock step with, UNREAL in 2018
Why should the ACLU get involved with Mueller's criminal investigation of Trump and his corrupt family and friends that is destroying the United States day by day hour by hour? Mueller's investigation is by the book and yielding critically vital evidence on several fronts. Blustering cry babies like Sean Hammity and all weirdo stooges at right wing propaganda outlet fox lies channel know this extremely important criminal investigation has already wrapped a tight little noose of justice around Spanky's orange neck and now, the New York branch of the FBI might have tapes and vids confiscated from sloppy Michael Cohen, 'The Fixer', Donny's personal lawyer..
Honestly, what did Mr. Trump expect when he insanely went to war with our entire compliment of law enforcement officers?Maddow needs to have her anxiety issues dealt with quickly , she's the quintessential nut case needing a sanity intervention , but I'm sure she's paid well for her tireless rants , but I had a car once that ended up "tireless" in the city too ! Talk about a journalist left "up on blocks !"
Jake,
Would you feel the same about a future president? You need to think this through. Our laws and justice is suppose to be blind. No matter who it is, they should be applied equally.
If us is good for Trump now, it may be good for a future Obama or Clinton or any Democrat?
Jack - The ACLU picks sides too. Not surprised we haven't heard anything out of them.
- PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago
0I am curious to know what civil liberties have been violated that would warrant the attention of the ACLU?
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
You people aren't getting it , The ACLU always defends people from government but instantly chooses government over Trump ? Like him or not that's unprecedented , but BECAUSE it's Trump hate that's just A -Okay !
- ahorsebackposted 6 years ago0
Guess where the headquarters and so the ideologies of the ACLU are centered and programmed from ? NYC , Where do their loyalties lay as they always swing liberal?
Cuomo , Clinton , De blasio , DNC ................
Related Discussions
- 126
Are gay rights more important than religious rights?
by Claire Evans 9 years ago
Ashers Baking Company in Ireland was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to make a cake for a local gay activist. It was to mark the election of the first openly gay mayor in Northern Ireland, Andrew Muir. They explained it was in conflict with their religious beliefs. I...
- 9
Building the Islamic community center at Ground Zero on private property is a Co
by cindybarrymore 13 years ago
Building the Islamic community center at Ground Zero on private property is a Constitutional Right.Correct? If not, then why? Please support your arguments with facts NOT emotions. Because we all know that more than just Christians died in the 9/11 attacks, correct? If I'm wrong, please tell me so,...
- 70
Build the wall! But don't worry, Mexico...
by IslandBites 5 years ago
SMH 3 days!https://www.gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall?f … M-yBq2Hhnc We The People Will Fund The WallLike a majority of those American citizens who voted to elect President Donald J Trump, we voted for him to Make America Great Again. President Trump’s main campaign promise was to BUILD...
- 66
Does 1st Amendment rights allow the Right to discriminate?
by Credence2 24 months ago
I think that this issue coming up before the Supreme Court is very important and critical relative to our Civil and political rights.Background..https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/politics … index.htmlBefore I go into my tirade as to where I fall on the issue, what are the thoughts of...
- 109
Does claiming religious freedom exempt you from having to obey the law?
by Elizabeth 9 years ago
Does claiming religious freedom exempt you from having to obey the law?Kim Davis, county clerk in Kentucky had now been jailed on charges of contempt of court for refusing, on God's authority, to to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Her appeal was denied by...
- 9
Ron Paul to lead Libertarians when he resigns from Congress.
by Doodlehead 12 years ago
According to Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul has plans to lead the Liberty Caucus Republicanswhen he resigns in December. Lew says Dr. Paul has kept his typical low profileuntil he is out of Congress. What do you think he has planned?