Fuckers

Posted: August 5, 2014 by Marner in Conservative Hypocrisy, Conservative Shenanigans, Politics
Tags:

That’s really all you can say about these people. Just go read it.

(h/t Balloon Juice)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. mitchethekid says:

    If this doesn’t chop the head off the snake, well I give up. The party of troop support, xenophobia and christianism my ass. What self- serving hypocritical motherfuckers.

    • 02casper says:

      My wife and I sent dozens of care packages to the troops over the years. That someone would collect money for something like that and then use it for their own gains is despicable.

  2. rustybrown2012 says:

    Off topic, but more religious bigotry on display in this country:

    ”The debate over officials praying in government meetings has raged in the past few years, but one restaurant claims to be supporting the religious rights of individuals, by offering a discount for praying in public. While many find the move a positive thing, others say it’s religious discrimination, and that the practice should be stopped.”

    http://www.inquisitr.com/1385544/restaurants-praying-in-public-discount-returns-praise-ire-religious-freedom-or-discrimination/

    This practice is a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act and should be stopped. Society has rightly judged that such discrimination is wrong in any area of public commerce. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how slippery this slope is. Is this discount bestowed upon Muslims who pray to Mecca in the restaurant? How about Satanists? Should other advantages be conferred to the faithful in more impactful areas, like mortgages and car dealerships? No.

    • Marner says:

      I have to disagree. As long as the owner offers the same discount to anyone who conducts any type of prayer, I don’t believe it qualifies as discrimination. If he only made the offer for Christian prayers, then yes, he would be discriminating against other religions.

      Business owners can offer discounts to groups, as long as they don’t discriminate against others within that group. Bars can offer to let women in without a cover charge, but they can’t only waive the cover for specific types of women. Businesses can provide discounts to military, but they can’t differentiate between the services. Seniors get discounts that aren’t available to people under a certain age.

      As long as he offers the discounts to all religions, including Satanists, I believe he’ll be operating within the law. I also believe that if you went in and prayed to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he would have little choice but to honor the discount.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        That’s not what the law says. What about the non-religious? This clearly discriminates against them, and by definition, on religious grounds. That is clearly against the law. The good people at the Freedom From Religion Foundation are on the case. From their website:

        “The federal Civil Rights Act accords all citizens “the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation . . . without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.” As a place of “public accommodation,” Mary’s Gourmet Diner may not lawfully offer a discount only to customers who pray.

        Even if the practice were inclusive of customers who engaged in prayer to all types of gods (e.g., Allah, Zeus, Satan), the “promotional practice favors religious customers, and denies customers who do not pray and nonbelievers the right to ‘full and equal’ enjoyment of Mary’s Gourmet Diner,” wrote Cavell.

        “Any promotions must be available to all customers regardless of religious preference or practice on a non-discriminatory basis.”

        https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/21097-ffrf-paying-customers-better-for-business-than-praying#sthash.9cxqQtWN.dpuf”

        The law unambiguous in this case. The restaurant is plainly discriminating in favor of religious people.

      • Marner says:

        Just to be clear, I’m not supporting this owner’s actions, but I believe they could be legal. I’m sure the Freedom From Religion Foundation will make their argument, and they may eventually prevail, but then again, they may not.

        If we take the example of “Ladies Night” at bars, court rulings have fallen on both sides of the issue, primarily due to differences in state laws. If the owner can say that he was trying to encourage patronage by religious people, but not discourage patronage by the non-religious, then I think he may prevail in the courts. Of course it will depend on the local and state laws that he falls under.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        You’re confusing statutes. We’re not talking about state laws in this case, we’re only talking about being in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act, which Mary’s Gourmet Diner clearly is. The owner’s intent is entirely irrelevant in this case. Please read the pertinent passage from that law which I posted above and explain to me how Mary’s is not breaking it.

      • Marner says:

        Rusty,

        I understand the difference between local, state, and federal laws. My opinion means about as much as a mouse fart, but discriminating in favor of increasing the number of women who frequent your establishment and discriminating in favor of increasing the number of religious patrons is exactly the same. They are both protected classes with neither one being above the other.

        You have to deal with the local and state laws and courts before you get it to a federal case.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Marner,

        Sorry, but you most certainly are conflating statutes. This case pertains to a particular federal law, and you’re citing unrelated examples decided under various state laws. I guess I’ll just repeat my last post, since that’s the meat of the issue and you’ve not addressed it:

        “We’re not talking about state laws in this case, we’re only talking about being in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act, which Mary’s Gourmet Diner clearly is. The owner’s intent is entirely irrelevant in this case. Please read the pertinent passage from that law which I posted above and explain to me how Mary’s is not breaking it.”

        And what are the state and local laws you allude to that are not being “dealt with” here which would prevent this case from being adjudicated under the federal Civil Rights Act?

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Also, the encourage/discourage rational sometimes used to uphold ‘ladies night’ practices would seem to have little bearing here. The purpose of ladies night is to not only draw ladies into your club, but to draw male patrons who are attracted to the idea of a club full of ladies as well. Win/win. A similar dynamic is obviously not at play here; it’s even reasonable to conclude a roomful of prayer-givers enjoying exclusionary benefits would be a distinct ‘discouragement’ to the secular who are not willing to participate. Sure would be to me. Hence the problem.

      • Marner says:

        Rusty,

        The link I provided references court cases that have ruled both ways.

        The Civil Rights Act also prohibits discrimination based on sex; not just race, color, religion, or national origin. I still contend that the owner has an argument based upon previous rulings upholding the legality of “Ladies Nights”.

        His argument may ultimately fail, but it may prevail. Other groups, such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation will hold opposite views. I’m sure their view of the Hobby Lobby case differed from the Justices’ decision. There are a number of cases that have been decided in recent years that I disagreed with, but again my opinion doesn’t hold any sway.

        No one can say with absolute certainty whether or not this would pass Constitutional muster (and I seriously doubt it would get anywhere near the Supreme Court) unless and until it is ruled upon. Until then, it’s all just competing opinions.

        In my opinion, Hobby Lobby was wrongly decided. In my opinion, this owner should not be allowed to do what he is doing. Even so, he has grounds to make his case.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Of course the courts could decide either way and the opposition can make its case, I’ve never said otherwise, and it’s not like we haven’t seen our share of insane decisions recently. I agree, but it’s beside my point. My original point is that this practice is wrong, discriminatory and against the law as written. I stand by that and think it’s self evident.

        As I’ve pointed out (and you’ve ignored), the rational that has upheld ladies night would be a very hard sell in this case. At ladies night, male patrons join in the fun and have the advantage of increased female attendance. At Mary’s, nonbelievers are discriminated against with no ancillary advantages conferred to them. A better analogy for this case would be a 15% discount for whites, not ladies get in for free.

      • Marner says:

        Rusty,

        The owner could argue that encouraging religious people to come to his business improves the overall atmosphere and makes it a more pleasant place to eat. Regardless, IMHO, if this ever gets to a courtroom, I think still think the owner has a good chance of winning.

        1) According to your link, the owner is not discriminating against a specific religion. As long as he accepts all prayers, whether it be to Jesus, God, Buddha, Satan, or the tree outside, he is not favoring one religion over any other.

        2) By offering a discount to people who pray, he is not discriminating against a protected class. Unless you want to argue that Atheism is a religion (and I won’t), you are not protected under the Civil Rights Act.

        3) The owner can argue that the government has already determined that it is beneficial to society to support religion by providing tax breaks to churches. The owner’s support of religion could be argued to be similarly beneficial.

        The law is far from settled in this case, regardless of the sternly-worded letter sent by the FFRF. They merely provided their interpretation of the law. I read your links, but I’m unable to find where this question has ever been fully tested. Until that happens, I’m not willing to say with absolute certainty that the owner’s actions would not be upheld.

    • “The owner could argue that encouraging religious people to come to his business improves the overall atmosphere and makes it a more pleasant place to eat.”

      The owner could argue that, but there would be a hell of a lot of testimony from atheists claiming otherwise. I’m surprised you bring this up considering I’ve already discussed how the atmosphere at Mary’s could be perceived as hostile and unwelcoming to atheists in my last two posts; did you read them? Strange how rather than address that, you ignore it.

      “2) By offering a discount to people who pray, he is not discriminating against a protected class. Unless you want to argue that Atheism is a religion (and I won’t), you are not protected under the Civil Rights Act.”

      You’re wrong about this. Although atheism is not technically a religion, atheism is increasingly (and correctly) being considered a religion legally when it comes to equal protection cases. We have a right to just as much legal protection from religion that the religious do. Fancy that. From wiki:

      “Atheism in the USA is protected under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005, in a case where a prison inmate was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism, the court ruled this violated the inmate’s rights under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recognized the previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.”

      “The law is far from settled in this case, regardless of the sternly-worded letter sent by the FFRF. They merely provided their interpretation of the law.”

      Are you kidding? They provided more than just their interpretation of the law, they provided the actual words of the law:

      “(All citizens shall be accorded) the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation . . . without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin.”

      Considering atheists are a legally protected class, I’ll ask you a third time to explain exactly how Mary’s is not breaking this law.

      • mitchethekid says:

        The easy solution to this. No religion in the public square. Period.

      • Marner says:

        Jesus, Rusty, chill out. I have no intention of defending the owner or his potential arguments, because, once again, I don’t agree with them. I think they are wrong, but I won’t just dismiss them out of hand. Stop asking me to argue their case when I don’t agree with their arguments.

        As to precedent, I think we’ve all seen just how far that goes these days. I personally don’t believe Atheism is equivalent to a religion, but my opinions have been wrong before.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        Marner,

        I’m chill as can be, just confused. For someone who claims he has no intention of defending the owners potential arguments, you sure seem to be doing a heckuva lotta defending and presenting of potential arguments.

        I wasn’t asking you to argue their case. Here’s what happened. I said this was discrimination and cited the law it was breaking. You disagreed. I asked you to explain the basis of your disagreement (not the same as asking you to argue the restaurants case) and you didn’t. You’ve also ignored several other pertinent points I’ve brought up, and now that I’ve shown that atheists are a legally protected class in cases like this (their rights in relation to other religious groups), you say that’s not your “personal belief”. Frankly, I don’t know what in blazes you’re trying to argue. You start out saying you disagree, but when I press you on that you equivocate and get defensive. Strange, if you didn’t want to explain your disagreement, why did you post it in the first place? If your main argument is “when and if this gets to court, a judge like Scalia may rule in favor of the restaurant”, I say no shit. thats obvious.

      • rustybrown2012 says:

        “The easy solution to this. No religion in the public square. Period.”

        I don’t agree. Religion is fine in the public square as long as it’s not imposed on others and the religious are not getting preferential treatment from public accommodations.

      • mitchethekid says:

        That’s what I mean. You said it better. 😦

      • mitchethekid says:

        After over a yr of not posting on B4V, I finally had it. This I directed to Amazona.
        ‘I pass two high schools and a college every day on my way to work.” Really? So what. Do you channel knowledge by osmosis? Is this a snide put down because of the jealousy you feel towards academia or an audition to star in a Holiday Inn ad. And please, enough with being the chief of the grammar police. This tired old tactic of yours is boring. By verbal slight of hand, you try to undermine the content of what someone is saying by diverting attention and focusing on incorrect spelling. It’s pathetic. It’s offensive and hostile and being dismissive with no consideration is a sign of weakness. You lack the power of a hand waving medieval queen so quit the try out.
        For years you have claimed to be in the ranching business. Most ranchers live on their acreage. Perhaps you are an exception. Maybe a Clive Bundy light. And it’s always interesting that you happen to have so many friends that just happen to be involved in the subject matter discussed on this blog.
        I don’t think you have a “job” nor do I think you own and operate a ranch. You don’t have the time because for the past 10 yrs you have chimed in on this blog practically hourly. Unless you have a superhuman ability to focus and multi-task. I think you suffer from delusions of intellectual superiority, project, are extraordinarily critical of others whom you have a compulsion to pass judgement over and are generally mean, nasty and lonely. You have a well honed talent for repelling others because you in fact are repulsive. And you want to share. How nice. Your venomous sarcasm drips like the acid flowing in the veins of Alien.
        If you could face why you hate yourself so much, why you feel so inadequate and compensate for this misery by being a witch, you just might find some happiness. I doubt you have any friends and when you pass away, no one will come to your funeral. Eleanor Rigby was a lonely and forgotten soul. You lack one. Which explains everything about you.

  3. thank god someone else responded- she is the dumbest person i have ever met. She cites nothing which would fail any exam. I had it. I am not even that liberal. She thinks she can get away with murder because she has a bunch of parrots

  4. she reminds me of some of my friends who never got into Ivy league school and spent years bashing the ivy league’s and calling it crap.Even though they went to great schools such as Florida or Swathmore. Honestly, who cares what college someone goes to anymore as long as they go to college and it is not a fake school such as University of Phoenix and all these weird online schools that you can get MBAs from(got some weird applicants lately from their). When i say something, i always cite my source or i make sure what i say cannot really be refuted. That is what you learn in college and by junior year of high school. I digress, she is an awful woman who has a bunch of parrots who will listen to her and she does not need to be held to a higher standard

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s