|
Grex > Agora56 > #105: State: Wal-Mart must carry emergency contraception | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 526 responses total. |
johnnie
|
|
response 337 of 526:
| 
Mar 3 14:34 UTC 2006 |
Office space will be available. I wonder if, say, NARAL would be
allowed to rent space at market rates?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 338 of 526:
|
Mar 3 15:10 UTC 2006 |
Fair Housing makes it illegal to discriminate in leasing residential
space, but I'm not aware of an equivalent act regarding the leasing
of office space. However, the businesses located within that office
space would presuambly be legally required to hire people without regard
to religion (and all the other stuff on which employers are not allowed
to discriminate) and to avoid creating a hostile workplace in which
people with the "wrong" religious beliefs might be (or feel)
marginalized.
|
slynne
|
|
response 339 of 526:
|
Mar 3 15:30 UTC 2006 |
There are all kinds of laws that folks in that place will have to
respect. Is the ACLU actually against this place or are they concerned
that people's constitutional rights might be violated? Residential
covenants have been around a long time and as far as I know, the ACLU
isnt against those unless they violate a person's constitutional
rights. Some residential covenants can be pretty restrictive and still
be legal.
|
edina
|
|
response 340 of 526:
|
Mar 3 16:02 UTC 2006 |
I always find it kind of funny - if someone is creating an environment where
they don't want certain things, why would someone want to live there simply
to prove a point? No one is going to change Tom Monoghan's mind. They
aren't. Why do people insist upon getting in the faces of those they disagree
with, screaming how wrong the other person is? If you think Monoghan is
wrong, don't live there.
|
richard
|
|
response 341 of 526:
|
Mar 3 16:04 UTC 2006 |
nharmon said:
"Oh, I also wanted to add that nothing Richard has said yet shows that a
private citizen, on his/her own property, is required to grant every
other citizen all of their rights on said private citizen's property. "
nharmon, even on a private citizen's private property, he cannot enslave
any other citizen. you can't own a restaurant and serve only white
people, or require that your customers all be christians, or require that
they only say certain things. This is a free country and you must respect
the rights of all citizens at all times.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 342 of 526:
|
Mar 3 16:27 UTC 2006 |
>you can't own a restaurant and...require that your customers...only say
>certain things.
Sure you can. Discriminating on the basis of race and religion is a big
no-no, of course, but if, say, you're a Yankees fan, you could kick
somebody out for wearing a Mets t-shirt, or for praising the Mets aloud.
-----
If the residential part of town is structured as a homeowner's
association, all manner of otherwise-unconstitutional rules could likely
be enacted. While I doubt they could forbid non-Catholics from buying a
house, they could forbid them from putting any sort of non-Catholic
displays in their front yard. No idea whether they could require every
yard to have a Caholic shrine or somesuch. They might be able to
prevent a non-Catholic church from being built in town, but they
probably couldn't prevent someone from holding private non-Catholic
services in their home (but they could likely restrict the number of
visitors allowed at one time).
Shopping malls have a lot of power to restrict free speech and other
rights (you can be kicked out for wearing a t-shirt that mall management
objects to, for example, and you can't collect signatures on a petition
without prior approval). If the commercial district is given the same
leeway, it's likely the town fathers could keep out all sorts of
behavior and general riff-raff.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 343 of 526:
|
Mar 3 16:34 UTC 2006 |
Richard, what about private country clubs that deny membership to women?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 344 of 526:
|
Mar 3 18:35 UTC 2006 |
Re #335: Jep says "The ACLU, of course, is opposed to the Ave Maria
community", but I haven't been able to find any statement of opposition
endorsed by the ACLU - at least, not yet.
All the Exec Dir of the ACLU is alleged to have said is that "If they
attempt to do what he apparently wants to do, the people of Naples and
Collier County, Florida, are in for a whole series of legal and
constitutional problems and a lot of litigation indefinitely into the
future," Simon said nothing about ACLU pursuing such litigation.
Of course, they may well get involved if any US citizens living in the
community sue because they feel they are not accorded their Constitutional
rights
|
richard
|
|
response 345 of 526:
|
Mar 3 20:12 UTC 2006 |
jep said:
"The ACLU, of course, is opposed to the Ave Maria community because Tom
Monaghan is Catholic and conservative. If the same concept was startedby
any group of reliable Democratic voters (say, if Jerry Brown startedup
something based on the ideas of Timothy Leary), they'd be defending it.
Why do you say that when you know the ACLU has willingly defended Rush
Limbaugh, the KKK, and any other number of right wingers in the past.
Sheesh.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 346 of 526:
|
Mar 3 20:15 UTC 2006 |
jep has this "thing" about the ACLU. Facts don't appear to matter.
|
jep
|
|
response 347 of 526:
|
Mar 3 20:36 UTC 2006 |
From the article in the Ann Arbor News: http://tinyurl.com/o87lk
---
"If they attempt to do what he apparently wants to do, the people of
Naples and Collier County, Fla., are in for a whole series of legal and
constitutional problems and a lot of litigation indefinitely into the
future,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil
Liberties Union of Florida.
---
But I guess I shouldn't read too much into that, such as an ACLU
position against the community, or that they'd ever participate in such
a lawsuit.
|
richard
|
|
response 348 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:00 UTC 2006 |
re #335 I view it as a threat because one "private catholic town" could become
ten thousand "private catholic towns" It would be rich right wingers try to
buy their way around the Constitutional separation of church and state. You
have to draw a line somewhere.
|
richard
|
|
response 349 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:04 UTC 2006 |
There used to be and still are towns in Utah entirely owned by the Mormon
church. There was time in the 19th century that people in those towns
practiced polygamy, because it was endorsed by the church and the church owned
the town. But then Utah wanted to become a state. Congress told them, if
you want to be a state, you cannot have the mormon church superimposing its
rules over the laws of the land. You are either a part of this country or
you are not. If you want to become a state, you MUST make polygamy illegal.
So they did. But I suppose JEP thinks they should have been allowed to
continue being openly polygamous in these "private church owned" towns?
|
edina
|
|
response 350 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:11 UTC 2006 |
Wow Richard. There you go again. You know, the more you rant and rave and
obfuscate, the more seriously I look at Jep (who I know, like and personally
disagree with quiet a bit) and the less seriously I look at you (who I don't
know, I somewhat like, and I agree with nearly 85% of the time).
Look, take this as friendly advice. Learn to argue without throwing shit in
the fan. All you are doing is getting it on yourself.
Oh, and the Church of LDS doesn't endorse polygamy by any stretch of the
imagination at this time.
|
richard
|
|
response 351 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:14 UTC 2006 |
edina read my post again, I didn't say they endorse polygamy, I said there
was a time IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY when they did, or some sects of the
church did.
I thought it was a good analogy, not throwing shit on the fan.
Monaghan's town is only acceptable to jep because he's not threatened by it.
But if it was some other faith he felt threatened by, if Al Queda was setting
up a private town here and not some conservative catholic millionaire,
wouldn't it be different?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 352 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:17 UTC 2006 |
The *actual* point of the events explained #349 is that Congress had to make
the Church of LDS sign the agreement; "Congress made them sign a deal
eliminating X to become a state" doesn't imply that "X would have been/is
unconstitutional", but if anything the opposite.
|
edina
|
|
response 353 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:19 UTC 2006 |
Richard, you remind me of the defense counsel in the case I'm on. The defense
cousel who is losing.
|
richard
|
|
response 354 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:23 UTC 2006 |
Monaghan doesn't want to live in the United States. He wants his own kingdom
where he can make his own laws. Is he any different than the Rev. Jim Jones
and his cult back in the 70's? The only difference is Jones didn't have
enough money to buy his own town in Florida so he went to Guyana to form
"Jonestown"
|
jep
|
|
response 355 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:26 UTC 2006 |
re resp:349: I see. Richard, suppose your al'Qaeda example was the
only group capable of preventing a Nazi genetic engineering group from
resurrecting Hitler. Suppose no one else even knew about this Nazi
group, because al'Qaeda has a technique for developing mind rays that
give them that kind of information. No one would believe them...
because the PRESIDENT might secretly be a Nazi genetic engineer HIMSELF!
So that means you're in favor of Nazi Hitler resurrectionists, right?
Because you hate Jews, because when were a little boy someone told you
a story about how someone attacked a family, and the person in the
story thought Jews were really cool.
It all proves you're a secret Nazi.
Right?
(Yes, you really are just as preposterous with some of this garbage you
make up.)
|
jep
|
|
response 356 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:28 UTC 2006 |
I think there may be some differences between Tom Monaghan and Reverend
Jim Jones of Kool-aid fame.
|
edina
|
|
response 357 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:30 UTC 2006 |
John stop - he's on a roll.
|
richard
|
|
response 358 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:33 UTC 2006 |
re #355 huh?
re #356 Both Monaghan and Jones wanted to form their own towns so their
"followers" could follow laws dictated by their personal beliefs, and not
dictated by the laws of the United States. Today its a good catholic who
wants to set up a "private town", tomorrow it will be the next Jim Jones. In
these things you want to prevent them before they start, because once
precedent is set, it becomes that much harder to stop the wrong guy from being
the next guy to try the same thing.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 359 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:33 UTC 2006 |
You weren't much better making up that bit about "The ACLU, of course, is
opposed to the Ave Maria community because Tom Monaghan is Catholic and
conservative." You seem to read minds as well as Richard did on the
filibuster issue. Of course I'll feel differently if you can show a quote
from the ACLU stating they oppose Monaghan's plans because he's a
conservative Catholic, though I doubt you can.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 360 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:34 UTC 2006 |
<richard snuck in ahead of my response to jep>
|
richard
|
|
response 361 of 526:
|
Mar 3 21:39 UTC 2006 |
re #359 and actually I know a conservative catholic aclu lawyer. heck I even
know a republican aclu lawyer. its the same guy. dpc (dave cahill) here on
grex is an aclu lawyer too, and I would hardly call him a liberal.
|