Are you kidding? Speaking of last, best hopes, the last, best hope of the Pubbies (over the long term) is to adapt the Gish Gallop to their own purposes and keep the Democrats running all over the place, putting out rhetorical fires.
First of all, he didn’t get a pass. He was demoted from influential insider to someone whose phone calls weren’t returned. He was frozen out of the Obama circle because of his inflammatory rhetoric from the pulpit. Rightly or wrongly, it’s not like there weren’t any consequences.
Second, “God damn America” is not a specific political position. Was it an endorsement of a candidate? Was it an instruction to vote a certain way?
A minister or priest or rabbi or imam or whatever is well within the law when pounding on the pulpit and ranting and raving about how America is going to hell in a handbasket. Wright did just that, from the liberal or left or progressive or whatever you want to call it end of the political spectrum. Pat Robertson and his ilk do the same and more every Sunday, all over the country.
It is? Who’s going to pay for God damn America? If I vote in favor of God damn America, and it passes, what new paperwork will I need to fill out? When will it go into effect? Is anybody exempted from God damn America, or does it cover all Americans.
It’s worth noting that the lawsuit brought by the Christian group is challenging the city’s decision to not count all of the signatures submitted to try to get an anti-anti-discrimination law on the ballot (i.e. they are seeking to put a repeal of the anti discrimination ordinance to a referendum). The city’s response is to seek information to justify why many submitted signatures were invalidated. The city is NOT conducting some sort of investigation challenging the church’s tax exempt status.
Too bad; American libertarianism is its own thing, and is dominated by “Randroids” and the like. And arguing over the international definition of the word “libertarian” won’t change that; the most it might do is convince people that either American libertarianism is something it isn’t, or that non-American libertarianism is something it isn’t. That ship has sailed.
All the time? Claiming that the government will just wither away is pretty utopian.
Arguably; it’s just that what they consider utopia most other people would consider hellish.
You clearly don’t understand how “tax exempt” organizations even work.
If Right Wing Christian Church of the Evil Dead ™ takes in $10 million in collections, and spends $10 million on programs and services, how much tax do they owe? And what does “tax exempt” have to do with it?
well the general principle I’m working off here is that your right to freedom comes to an end when it involves the diminution of someone else’s freedom. so the case you raise involves such an instance. The doc has to act in this case and its appropriate to require it even if it violates his own convictions.
I am not an advocate for untrammeled freedom. such a society is impossible. I am suggesting that a person should be free to do anything s/he chooses as long as it doesn’t compromise someone else in the exercise of their liberty. that is the heart of “liberalism”.
cornopean is being handed the Straight Dope smackdown, but I’d like to emphasize the positive here. 1. The OP expresses his fears but then interacts with the board instead of slinking away. 2. The OP provides citations. The citations don’t say what he thinks they say, but we’re here to fight ignorance.
I haven’t seen you around before cornopean, but welcome to the board.
More generally, if the OP was really clever, he might consider joining the ACLU for a year. He presumably will agree with some of their positions and disagree with others. But as he is concerned with his own civil liberties as he sees them, he might want to see what the preeminent civil rights groups thinks. Basically, although businesses will lose the freedom to discriminate against gays, Christians will retain the freedom not to be discriminated against by businesses. Both will be able to buy wedding cakes.
How many of us would agree with the general principle…that a person should be free to do or speak anything s/he wishes provided it doesn’t compromise someone else’s right to the same?
I agree with all of the above.
So I should be free to break into your house and rob you at gunpoint provided you are free to do the same? And then the next night I should be able to stand on a soapbox in front of your house with a bullhorn and incite the neighbors to burn your house down because you are white/black/brown/Jewish/Muslim, provided that you have the right to incite MY neighbors to burn MY house down? Sounds like a libertarian utopia!
Except that’s not what happened.
The City of Houston demanded that five particular pastors, identified by name, provide copies of all documents and communications relating or referring to certain specified topics, all having to do with the petition drive. The original subpoena never went to “all pastors, etc.” and it was never limited to sermons. See, e.g., the original subpoena for Pastor Steve Riggle (PDF file), which included among other documents “check stubs or check registers reflecting payments to Petition Circulators,” “All training materials prepared for Petition Circulators or anyone else involved in the collection of any signatures for the Petition,” and “All documents, studies, information, communications, or other data relied on in connection with the Petition to check, confirm, or ensure the truthfulness and accuracy of the statements made in the Petition.”
Yes, the original subpoenas were very broad, perhaps too broad, but in a lawsuit over a petition drive, payments to petition circulators and the documents used to prepare the petition would seem to be VERY relevant.
Or cynical megalomaniacal sociopathic manipulators.
But there are plenty of things that even had I the right to do I would not, that others would, and some of those things would take advantage of me. Having the right to do something I have no intention of doing isn’t succor for the enshrining of that same right for those who would use it.
If the exercise of my liberty involves buying a cake, then what right does the baker have to compromise that exercise?
What products and services constitute the exercise of liberty or the diminution of someone else’s freedom? If I can refuse to sell you a cake, can I refuse to sell you flour and sugar and eggs to make your own cake? What about other groceries? What if I’m the only grocery store (or baker) in town?
Where, exactly and precisely, on this slope do you draw the line?
So glad this has turned into yet another ‘let’s bash the libertarians and call them names because the Mods won’t do shit about it’ thread. Not like we have enough of those around here…
in this case, one person’s exercise of their freedom involves the compromise of someone else’s freedom. Hence, the govt should protect the right of both sides to refuse to enter into this transaction.
I wonder if the ACLU came out in defense of the Houston pastors…? I am asking here; I don’t know if they did or not. anyone?
. . . who are PERFECTLY harmless. . .
You have faith in govt; I have faith in individuals pursuing their own self-interest.
Government is YOU. And it’s ME. It’s ALL OF US.
I don’t know about you*, but I kinda like it. It lets us have civilization.
*Actually, I kinda do have an idea about you.
for the few victories you can claim for the govt, there are so many other failures. and don’t forget that Jim Crow, segregation were all govt policies in the first place. yes the govt reversed itself.
I already posted links to the Houston pastors and the pastor couple forced to perform gay marriages. here is another about muslim taxis: Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs - ABC News
thomas sowell notes that the free market was fixing Jim Crow even before the govt started to do so: http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2005/10/27/rosa_parks_and_history/page/full