|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The C of E is the national church of England. It does not express the values xdaunt professes. It does not beleive that Muslims must be kept out of England.
|
On December 05 2017 06:19 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
xdaunt is a lawyer? I weep for The Bar in USA.
You'd be surprised which posters in this thread deserve your tears 
Also lol at this Church of England nonsense, I was baptized in an Ohio Episcopalian church and ushered a lesbian wedding there long before gay marriage became legal 
|
On December 05 2017 06:41 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:27 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 06:01 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 05:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Oh, this is kinda fun: The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so.
This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate. Source Pretty sure someone mentioned that a few pages back but it got buried under this cake thing. I really hope this ends up forcing Republicans to hold a full vote in the Senate again, because Republican leadership might have some trouble getting the on the fence Senators to vote for it again. Especially when they made empty promises in exchange for those votes. On December 05 2017 05:21 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
An AMT for corporations would probably be a good idea (from what I understand an AMT of 20% would still in effect be a tax raise on average) It already exists. It's 20%. That's why it's funny. I thought I read that the current average corporate tax in america is like 17.8 or 18.6%?
|
On December 05 2017 06:31 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 04:18 Introvert wrote:Since Nevuk postted about obstruction here is an interesting piece from NRO. The author has been posted here before.
The smoke is clearing from an explosive Mueller investigation weekend of charges, chattering, and tweets. Before the next aftershock, it might be helpful to make three points about where things stand. In ascending order of importance, they are:
1.) There is a great deal of misinformation in the commentariat about how prosecutors build cases.
2.) For all practical purposes, the collusion probe is over. While the “counterintelligence” cover will continue to be exploited so that no jurisdictional limits are placed on Special Counsel Robert Mueller, this is now an obstruction investigation.
3.) That means it is, as it has always been, an impeachment investigation.
Building a Case
Many analysts are under the misimpression that it is typical for federal prosecutors to accept guilty pleas on minor charges in exchange for cooperation that helps build a case on major charges. From this flawed premise, they reason that Mueller is methodically constructing a major case on Trump by accepting minor guilty pleas from Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos for making false statements, and by indicting Paul Manafort and an associate on charges that have nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election.
That is simply not how it works, strategically or legally.
As I’ve tried to explain a few times now (see here and here), if a prosecutor has an accomplice cooperator who gives the government incriminating information about the major scheme under investigation, he pressures the accomplice to plead guilty to the major scheme, not to an ancillary process crime — and particularly not to false-statements charges.
Strategically, and for public-relations purposes (which are not inconsequential in a high-profile corruption investigation, just ask Ken Starr), a guilty plea to the major scheme under investigation proves that the major scheme really happened — here, some kind of criminal collusion (i.e., conspiracy) in Russia’s espionage operation against the 2016 election. The guilty-plea allocution, in which the accomplice explains to the court what he and others did to carry out the scheme, puts enormous pressure on other accomplices to come forward and cooperate. In a political corruption case, it can drive public officials out of office.
Justice Department policy calls for prosecutors to indict a defendant on the most serious readily provable charge, not to plead out a case on minor charges to obtain cooperation. The federal sentencing guidelines also encourage this. They allow a judge to sentence the defendant below the often harsh guidelines calculation. This can mean a cooperator gets as little as zero jail time or time-served, no matter how serious the charges. This sentencing leniency happens only if the defendant pleads guilty and provides substantial assistance to the government’s investigation. That is what enables the prosecutor to entice an accomplice to cooperate; the prosecutor does not need to entice cooperation by pleading the case out for a song.
The practice of pressuring a guilty plea to the major charges makes the accomplice a formidable witness at trial. The jury will know that he is facing a potential sentence of perhaps decades in prison unless he discloses everything he knows and tells the truth in his testimony. That is what triggers the prosecutor’s obligation to file the motion that allows the court to sentence under the guidelines-recommended sentence.
Trading a plea on minor charges for cooperation is a foolish gambit that badly damages the prosecutor’s case. It suggests that the cooperator must not have disclosed details about the major scheme. Otherwise the prosecutor would have charged him with it. It implies that the prosecutor is so desperate to make a case on a major target that he gave bad actors a pass on serious charges — something experienced prosecutors know that juries hate.
It is even worse to plead accomplices out on false-statements counts. This establishes that the main thing the jury should know about the accomplice is that he is not to be trusted. That is not how you make someone a strong witness. And unlike the accomplice who pleads guilty to the major scheme, an accomplice who pleads guilty to false statements is looking at a maximum sentence of just five years and a more likely sentence of no time even before he has cooperated — not much of an incentive to disclose everything and tell the truth. A good prosecutor does not front-load the benefits of cooperation; he makes the accomplice earn sentencing leniency by full disclosure and testimony.
The pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
Bottom line: If the FBI had a collusion case of some kind, after well over a year of intensive investigation, Flynn and Papadopoulos would have been pressured to plead guilty to very serious charges — and those serious offenses would be reflected in the charges lodged against Manafort. Obviously, the pleas and the indictment have nothing to do with collusion because Mueller has no collusion case.
It’s Now an Obstruction Investigation
...
rest here http://amp.nationalreview.com/article/454311/mueller-strategy-obstruction-justice-investigation-leading-impeachment This makes little sense to me if only because it would seem incredibly weak to go after the President for obstruction when you can't even prove their motivations or intentions behind obstructing the investigation. I can't see them moving forward with an obstruction case unless they can also prove collusion on some level.
The point he makes later is that this is setting the grounds for impeachment, not to actually bring something against the president in court.
|
|
|
On December 05 2017 06:49 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 05 2017 06:27 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 06:01 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 05:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Oh, this is kinda fun: The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so.
This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate. Source Pretty sure someone mentioned that a few pages back but it got buried under this cake thing. I really hope this ends up forcing Republicans to hold a full vote in the Senate again, because Republican leadership might have some trouble getting the on the fence Senators to vote for it again. Especially when they made empty promises in exchange for those votes. An AMT for corporations would probably be a good idea (from what I understand an AMT of 20% would still in effect be a tax raise on average) It already exists. It's 20%. That's why it's funny. I thought I read that the current average corporate tax in america is like 17.8 or 18.6%?
I'm pretty sure this is because there's some things that circumvent the AMT. A quick search found this regarding individuals.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/congratulations-you-owe-the-alternative-minimum-tax-2014-01-14
Planning ahead to avoid or minimize the AMT
Sadly, it’s too late to do much to avoid the AMT for last year. However, there are some things you can do to avoid it for this year and beyond.
Any move that reduces your adjusted gross income (AGI) might help avoid the AMT. AGI is the number at the bottom of page 1 of your Form 1040. It includes all your taxable income items and is reduced by certain deductions such as the ones for alimony paid to an ex-spouse and moving expenses. Lower AGI means a better chance of claiming a bigger AMT exemption which will reduce your AMT exposure. Here are some ways to cut your AGI.
Make a deductible IRA contribution if you qualify. If you qualify for a 2013 deductible contribution but have not yet made it, this is one thing you can still do to lower your 2013 AMT bill. The contribution deadline is 4/15/14.
Contribute the max to your tax-deferred retirement plan at work (typically a 401(k) plan).
Contribute more to your cafeteria benefit plan and health care and dependent-care flexible spending accounts (FSAs) at work. The contributions will lower your taxable salary, which lowers your AGI and your exposure to the AMT.
Prepay deductible business expenses near year-end if you run a business as a sole proprietorship, LLC, partnership, or S corporation. The deductions are “passed through” to you, resulting in lower AGI and less exposure to the AMT. Similarly, postponing the receipt of taxable income until next year will also reduce your exposure.
Consider selling some loser investments held in taxable brokerage firm accounts. You can use the capital losses to offset capital gains, which reduces your AGI and your exposure to the AMT. Any leftover capital losses up to $3,000 are deductible against taxable income from all sources. So your AMT exposure is reduced even further.
Consider deferring securities sales that will produce taxable gains until next year.
|
On December 05 2017 06:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:21 amyamyamy wrote:
Since we are not able to read minds just yet, what would be stopping people from citing bullshit reasons to deny service? Who would be stupid enough to say or write "I wont provide service to you because you believe in x, your skin color is y or your sexual orientation is z"?
I'm fairly certain thid guy has shown evidence that his beliefs are earnestly held, but beyond that, why would you fake an objection like this? Why would he make up this reason instead of something else? It's not like he's trying to dodge the draft.
Slightly off topic: One established trend in this thread is that the religious faithful use religion as an excuse for mean-spirited discrimination, and have no honest claim to their freedom of conscience to act in a holy manner before their God. I really never thought the presumption of evil intent was so necessary to justify their discrimination against people of a different religion than themselves before these issues came up in previous thread.
|
On December 05 2017 06:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:41 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 06:26 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 05:58 Kyadytim wrote:
Different take on this cake thing. Bakers can refuse to write things on cake and that's acceptable because the government can't compel speech. They cannot refuse to sell a cake.
I will note that there is nothing here about the baker being compelled to write pro gay marriage statements on cakes, just that he not allowed to refuse service to gay customers. Comparable would be a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple. A baker cannot do that. They can, however, refuse to write an anti-interracial marriage on cakes despite people requesting it.
Religious freedom isn't even involved in the complaint the tweet Danglars started this line of discussion with. It's government can compel sales, but cannot compel speech. The bakers were allowed to refuse to write anti gay marriage messages, but if those same people had simply asked for cakes, the bakers almost certainly would not have been allowed to refuse. The question arises when the bakers sell cakes to all comers, regardless of race sex or sexual orientation, but their expressive custom service is subject to compelled government speech depending on if the government agrees with the message presented or not. The customers were customers for years and had bought all manner of baked goods, having been long time friends with the owner. This is absolutely not what the issue was. Whether the government agreed with the message is completely irrelevant. Actually, whether government agreed with the message is precisely the point. This becomes very clear if you look at the briefing. It's not though.
Seriously? Why exactly do you think that the free speech clause is implicated here?
|
On December 05 2017 06:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech. In a perfect world, at least five posters here read the actual question the Supreme Court wants answers on, as well as the linked and quoted WSJ briefing on the issue, and doesn’t try to pretend there’s no constitutional question on free speech/exercise looking for resolution here. I go further to say the unequal treatment under the law make it pretty obvious that Colorado picks and chooses who gets rights, but that’s just showing they didn’t enforce the law uniformly to be acting in good faith on one interpretation of the constitution. If they had been neutral in application, the state interest line might have been more compelling (aka Colorado would be legitimately trying to safeguard its public accommodation provisions for all citizens of their state). From the arguments presented, many on the left think only a knucklehead would have granted certiorari to such a clear-cut case. Honestly, I expected a more rational treatment of the underlying matter given an understanding of the legal viewpoints being argued. Scotusblog has the petition for writ of certiorari for anybody interested in why the Supreme Court would hear a case so apparently obviously decided in favor of the commission against the cakeshop.
youve been arguing discrimination, and the quote speaks to freedom of speech. you understand they are not the same? your argument about denying service to people who want an anti-gay cake has absolutely no relevance to this. your paragraph above alleging that colorado picks and chooses who needs to follow the law only further demonstrates your complete lack of understanding to this regard.
i specifically said the courts decision would not be a matter of re litigating the case, but rather with constitutionality and states rights in administering discrimination law.
mind blowing how distorted your interpretation and use of words has been.
|
On December 05 2017 06:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:25 Introvert wrote:On December 05 2017 06:21 amyamyamy wrote:
Since we are not able to read minds just yet, what would be stopping people from citing bullshit reasons to deny service? Who would be stupid enough to say or write "I wont provide service to you because you believe in x, your skin color is y or your sexual orientation is z"?
I'm fairly certain thid guy has shown evidence that his beliefs are earnestly held, but beyond that, why would you fake an objection like this? Why would he make up this reason instead of something else? It's not like he's trying to dodge the draft. Slightly off topic: One established trend in this thread is that the religious faithful use religion as an excuse for mean-spirited discrimination, and have no honest claim to their freedom of conscience to act in a holy manner before their God. I really never thought the presumption of evil intent was so necessary to justify their discrimination against people of a different religion than themselves before these issues came up in previous thread.
Why does intent matter? I don't really see intent as the actual crux of any argument in this thread. Regardless of the intent, if "sincerely held religious beliefs" result in discrimination, they're not worth respecting.
|
In unrelated Supreme Court News, 7 justices allow Trump’s travel ban to go into effect. Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.
|
On December 05 2017 06:57 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:41 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech. In a perfect world, at least five posters here read the actual question the Supreme Court wants answers on, as well as the linked and quoted WSJ briefing on the issue, and doesn’t try to pretend there’s no constitutional question on free speech/exercise looking for resolution here. I go further to say the unequal treatment under the law make it pretty obvious that Colorado picks and chooses who gets rights, but that’s just showing they didn’t enforce the law uniformly to be acting in good faith on one interpretation of the constitution. If they had been neutral in application, the state interest line might have been more compelling (aka Colorado would be legitimately trying to safeguard its public accommodation provisions for all citizens of their state). From the arguments presented, many on the left think only a knucklehead would have granted certiorari to such a clear-cut case. Honestly, I expected a more rational treatment of the underlying matter given an understanding of the legal viewpoints being argued. Scotusblog has the petition for writ of certiorari for anybody interested in why the Supreme Court would hear a case so apparently obviously decided in favor of the commission against the cakeshop. youve been arguing discrimination, and the quote speaks to freedom of speech. you understand they are not the same? your argument about denying service to people who want an anti-gay cake has absolutely no relevance to this. your paragraph above alleging that colorado picks and chooses who needs to follow the law only further demonstrates your complete lack of understanding to this regard. i specifically said the courts decision would not be a matter of re litigating the case, but rather with constitutionality and states rights in administering discrimination law. mind blowing how distorted your interpretation and use of words has been.
Discrimination based on the content of your speech, and legal risk for attendant fines, calls into question your freedom of speech. It isn’t a hard point to make, and I’m surprised you find such reason to protest about it.
|
On December 05 2017 06:52 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:49 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 06:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 05 2017 06:27 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 06:01 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 05:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Oh, this is kinda fun: The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so.
This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate. Source Pretty sure someone mentioned that a few pages back but it got buried under this cake thing. I really hope this ends up forcing Republicans to hold a full vote in the Senate again, because Republican leadership might have some trouble getting the on the fence Senators to vote for it again. Especially when they made empty promises in exchange for those votes. An AMT for corporations would probably be a good idea (from what I understand an AMT of 20% would still in effect be a tax raise on average) It already exists. It's 20%. That's why it's funny. I thought I read that the current average corporate tax in america is like 17.8 or 18.6%? I'm pretty sure this is because there's some things that circumvent the AMT. A quick search found this regarding individuals. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/congratulations-you-owe-the-alternative-minimum-tax-2014-01-14Show nested quote + Planning ahead to avoid or minimize the AMT
Sadly, it’s too late to do much to avoid the AMT for last year. However, there are some things you can do to avoid it for this year and beyond.
Any move that reduces your adjusted gross income (AGI) might help avoid the AMT. AGI is the number at the bottom of page 1 of your Form 1040. It includes all your taxable income items and is reduced by certain deductions such as the ones for alimony paid to an ex-spouse and moving expenses. Lower AGI means a better chance of claiming a bigger AMT exemption which will reduce your AMT exposure. Here are some ways to cut your AGI.
Make a deductible IRA contribution if you qualify. If you qualify for a 2013 deductible contribution but have not yet made it, this is one thing you can still do to lower your 2013 AMT bill. The contribution deadline is 4/15/14.
Contribute the max to your tax-deferred retirement plan at work (typically a 401(k) plan).
Contribute more to your cafeteria benefit plan and health care and dependent-care flexible spending accounts (FSAs) at work. The contributions will lower your taxable salary, which lowers your AGI and your exposure to the AMT.
Prepay deductible business expenses near year-end if you run a business as a sole proprietorship, LLC, partnership, or S corporation. The deductions are “passed through” to you, resulting in lower AGI and less exposure to the AMT. Similarly, postponing the receipt of taxable income until next year will also reduce your exposure.
Consider selling some loser investments held in taxable brokerage firm accounts. You can use the capital losses to offset capital gains, which reduces your AGI and your exposure to the AMT. Any leftover capital losses up to $3,000 are deductible against taxable income from all sources. So your AMT exposure is reduced even further.
Consider deferring securities sales that will produce taxable gains until next year.
Individual taxes are calculated in a very different way from corporate ones. Anyways, a corporation can fiddle with all sorts of deductions, credits, etc. to reduce their tax burden, though they're limited by how much they can get out of by the AMT. Notably, the Republicans also kind of smashed interest deductibility, which is going to make things harder for a lot of companies (especially those with unrated debt). They really have no idea what the hell they're doing.
|
On December 05 2017 07:04 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:52 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 06:49 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 06:41 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 05 2017 06:27 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 06:01 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 05:57 ticklishmusic wrote:Oh, this is kinda fun: The GOP had originally intended to abolish the AMT. But on Friday, with the clock running out — and money running short — Senate Republicans put the AMT back into their bill. Unfortunately for McConnell, they forgot to lower the AMT after doing so.
This is a big problem. The Senate bill brings the normal corporate rate down to 20 percent — while leaving the alternative minimum rate at … 20 percent. The legislation would still allow corporations to claim a wide variety of tax credits and deductions — it just renders all them completely worthless. Companies can either take no deductions, and pay a 20 percent rate — or take lots of deductions … and pay a 20 percent rate. Source Pretty sure someone mentioned that a few pages back but it got buried under this cake thing. I really hope this ends up forcing Republicans to hold a full vote in the Senate again, because Republican leadership might have some trouble getting the on the fence Senators to vote for it again. Especially when they made empty promises in exchange for those votes. An AMT for corporations would probably be a good idea (from what I understand an AMT of 20% would still in effect be a tax raise on average) It already exists. It's 20%. That's why it's funny. I thought I read that the current average corporate tax in america is like 17.8 or 18.6%? I'm pretty sure this is because there's some things that circumvent the AMT. A quick search found this regarding individuals. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/congratulations-you-owe-the-alternative-minimum-tax-2014-01-14 Planning ahead to avoid or minimize the AMT
Sadly, it’s too late to do much to avoid the AMT for last year. However, there are some things you can do to avoid it for this year and beyond.
Any move that reduces your adjusted gross income (AGI) might help avoid the AMT. AGI is the number at the bottom of page 1 of your Form 1040. It includes all your taxable income items and is reduced by certain deductions such as the ones for alimony paid to an ex-spouse and moving expenses. Lower AGI means a better chance of claiming a bigger AMT exemption which will reduce your AMT exposure. Here are some ways to cut your AGI.
Make a deductible IRA contribution if you qualify. If you qualify for a 2013 deductible contribution but have not yet made it, this is one thing you can still do to lower your 2013 AMT bill. The contribution deadline is 4/15/14.
Contribute the max to your tax-deferred retirement plan at work (typically a 401(k) plan).
Contribute more to your cafeteria benefit plan and health care and dependent-care flexible spending accounts (FSAs) at work. The contributions will lower your taxable salary, which lowers your AGI and your exposure to the AMT.
Prepay deductible business expenses near year-end if you run a business as a sole proprietorship, LLC, partnership, or S corporation. The deductions are “passed through” to you, resulting in lower AGI and less exposure to the AMT. Similarly, postponing the receipt of taxable income until next year will also reduce your exposure.
Consider selling some loser investments held in taxable brokerage firm accounts. You can use the capital losses to offset capital gains, which reduces your AGI and your exposure to the AMT. Any leftover capital losses up to $3,000 are deductible against taxable income from all sources. So your AMT exposure is reduced even further.
Consider deferring securities sales that will produce taxable gains until next year.
Individual taxes are calculated in a very different way from corporate ones. Anyways, a corporation can fiddle with all sorts of deductions, credits, etc. to reduce their tax burden, though they're limited by how much they can get out of by the AMT. Notably, the Republicans also kind of smashed interest deductibility, which is going to make things harder for a lot of companies (especially those with unrated debt). They really have no idea what the hell they're doing.
I'm looking forward to starting my pass through business titled "i don't want tax pls" (tm). (Whenever they cave and give the passthrough exemptions)
|
On December 05 2017 06:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:28 doomdonker wrote:On December 05 2017 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech. I love how freedom of remigion is so sacred when it’s about being a homophobic biggoted (christian) c..., but let’s ban all muslims to enter the country because muslims are the new jews. Consistency, people. xDaunt is supportive of nationalism so he’s being consistent here. Cut through the crap and he’s basically saying Western (rather baptist because most Church of England diocese I’ve been a part of have zilch relation to the shit I hear in Ohio) values much be kept sacred and that means keeping the muslims and their value beliefs out. Can’t see how it isn’t racist but apparently the only way to be racist anymore is to wear a white hood and a flaming cross. Even then, apparently that isn’t enough considering they consistently deflect Trump’s racism with something from they believe to be from the left. There, fixed that for you. No need to be so limiting.
Oh ok, so please admit it had nothing to do with freedom of religion or being accepting and respectful of different faiths, as the founding fathers wished. It’s more about being a biggoted jerk towards both gays and muslims while pretending in bad faith that you are defending discriminations against the formers because you care about freedom of cult even though double standards!, it’s only about people who ain’t brown.
Geez, you guys are like batman villains. So predictable you become boring. « I wonder what xDaunt/Danglar view is on that issue... What’s the best way to be a complete a-hole about it? Oh here we go! Nailed it. » I’ve never read either of you posting anything that made me think « that’s the opinion of a good/generous/compassionate/tolerant person ». I mean can you be a bit less consistent to keep the suspens?
|
On December 05 2017 06:58 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:54 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 06:25 Introvert wrote:On December 05 2017 06:21 amyamyamy wrote:
Since we are not able to read minds just yet, what would be stopping people from citing bullshit reasons to deny service? Who would be stupid enough to say or write "I wont provide service to you because you believe in x, your skin color is y or your sexual orientation is z"?
I'm fairly certain thid guy has shown evidence that his beliefs are earnestly held, but beyond that, why would you fake an objection like this? Why would he make up this reason instead of something else? It's not like he's trying to dodge the draft. Slightly off topic: One established trend in this thread is that the religious faithful use religion as an excuse for mean-spirited discrimination, and have no honest claim to their freedom of conscience to act in a holy manner before their God. I really never thought the presumption of evil intent was so necessary to justify their discrimination against people of a different religion than themselves before these issues came up in previous thread. Why does intent matter? I don't really see intent as the actual crux of any argument in this thread. Regardless of the intent, if "sincerely held religious beliefs" result in discrimination, they're not worth respecting.
I never said it was a crux for any argument in this thread, just that it’s an observable phenomenon across its length. You can helpfully add if you so choose: Are these religious objectors sincere in their hopes of practicing their religion to be pleasing to their God, or is it always or mostly used to just conceal discrimination brought on by malice? I’m observing that the weights of freedom of conscience are casually dismissed, like they’re never a solid viewpoint to weigh other considerations against. You’ve just proven that aspect of the point once again.
|
On December 05 2017 07:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 06:28 doomdonker wrote:On December 05 2017 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech. I love how freedom of remigion is so sacred when it’s about being a homophobic biggoted (christian) c..., but let’s ban all muslims to enter the country because muslims are the new jews. Consistency, people. xDaunt is supportive of nationalism so he’s being consistent here. Cut through the crap and he’s basically saying Western (rather baptist because most Church of England diocese I’ve been a part of have zilch relation to the shit I hear in Ohio) values much be kept sacred and that means keeping the muslims and their value beliefs out. Can’t see how it isn’t racist but apparently the only way to be racist anymore is to wear a white hood and a flaming cross. Even then, apparently that isn’t enough considering they consistently deflect Trump’s racism with something from they believe to be from the left. There, fixed that for you. No need to be so limiting. Oh ok, so please admit it had nothing to do with freedom of religion or being accepting and respectful of different faiths, as the founding fathers wished. It’s more about being a biggoted jerk towards both gays and muslims while pretending in bad faith that you are defending discriminations against the formers because you care about freedom of cult even though double standards!, it’s only about people who ain’t brown. Geez, you guys are like batman villains. So predictable you become boring. « I wonder what xDaunt/Danglar view is on that issue... What’s the best way to be a complete a-hole about it? Oh here we go! Nailed it. »
I’m comforted to know the depth of your understanding of opposite views in politics is that they’re motivated by being assholes.
I’m more of the opinion that admitting there are other views with rational reasons for holding them is key in America today. You sound like you’re very tolerant of other views, but then are shocked to discover there exist other views, and break out the pejoratives to deal with the conflict.
|
On December 05 2017 07:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 07:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2017 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 06:28 doomdonker wrote:On December 05 2017 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech. I love how freedom of remigion is so sacred when it’s about being a homophobic biggoted (christian) c..., but let’s ban all muslims to enter the country because muslims are the new jews. Consistency, people. xDaunt is supportive of nationalism so he’s being consistent here. Cut through the crap and he’s basically saying Western (rather baptist because most Church of England diocese I’ve been a part of have zilch relation to the shit I hear in Ohio) values much be kept sacred and that means keeping the muslims and their value beliefs out. Can’t see how it isn’t racist but apparently the only way to be racist anymore is to wear a white hood and a flaming cross. Even then, apparently that isn’t enough considering they consistently deflect Trump’s racism with something from they believe to be from the left. There, fixed that for you. No need to be so limiting. Oh ok, so please admit it had nothing to do with freedom of religion or being accepting and respectful of different faiths, as the founding fathers wished. It’s more about being a biggoted jerk towards both gays and muslims while pretending in bad faith that you are defending discriminations against the formers because you care about freedom of cult even though double standards!, it’s only about people who ain’t brown. Geez, you guys are like batman villains. So predictable you become boring. « I wonder what xDaunt/Danglar view is on that issue... What’s the best way to be a complete a-hole about it? Oh here we go! Nailed it. » I’m comforted to know the depth of your understanding of opposite views in politics is that they’re motivated by being assholes. I’m more of the opinion that admitting there are other views with rational reasons for holding them is key in America today. You sound like you’re very tolerant of other views, but then are shocked to discover there exist other views, and break out the pejoratives to deal with the conflict.
Why would you even dignify that shit with a response?
|
On December 05 2017 07:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 07:15 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2017 07:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2017 06:40 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 06:28 doomdonker wrote:On December 05 2017 06:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 05 2017 06:12 xDaunt wrote:You guys need to lay off Danglars. He's the only one who is remotely close to correctly framing the cake shop case. Here's the question that was certified by SCOTUS: Whether applying Colorado’s public-accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Clearly this is about freedom of religion (free exercise) and freedom of speech. I love how freedom of remigion is so sacred when it’s about being a homophobic biggoted (christian) c..., but let’s ban all muslims to enter the country because muslims are the new jews. Consistency, people. xDaunt is supportive of nationalism so he’s being consistent here. Cut through the crap and he’s basically saying Western (rather baptist because most Church of England diocese I’ve been a part of have zilch relation to the shit I hear in Ohio) values much be kept sacred and that means keeping the muslims and their value beliefs out. Can’t see how it isn’t racist but apparently the only way to be racist anymore is to wear a white hood and a flaming cross. Even then, apparently that isn’t enough considering they consistently deflect Trump’s racism with something from they believe to be from the left. There, fixed that for you. No need to be so limiting. Oh ok, so please admit it had nothing to do with freedom of religion or being accepting and respectful of different faiths, as the founding fathers wished. It’s more about being a biggoted jerk towards both gays and muslims while pretending in bad faith that you are defending discriminations against the formers because you care about freedom of cult even though double standards!, it’s only about people who ain’t brown. Geez, you guys are like batman villains. So predictable you become boring. « I wonder what xDaunt/Danglar view is on that issue... What’s the best way to be a complete a-hole about it? Oh here we go! Nailed it. » I’m comforted to know the depth of your understanding of opposite views in politics is that they’re motivated by being assholes. I’m more of the opinion that admitting there are other views with rational reasons for holding them is key in America today. You sound like you’re very tolerant of other views, but then are shocked to discover there exist other views, and break out the pejoratives to deal with the conflict. Why would you even dignify that shit with a response?
Someones got to keep the French person talking about Us politics stereotype entertained.
|
The failure of the right-wingers here to respond to the strongest refutations of their arguments kind of underlines the absurdist nightmare that this thread is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
