trump the traitor

The models are not very accurate and the Paris Accord would had done little to change the climate.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...faulty-models/ Originally Posted by centexguy

The Paris Accord would have continued the research into determining whether or not man has impacted the global warming that is a fact, and if true, what can be done about it. To simply deny the possibility that the 2 are linked is wrong. There is no downside to continuing the investigation of global warming. And one hell of an upside if man is found to be guilty and something can be done about it.

I respect his right to protest. I think the sad thing is he doesn't use it it to help his brothers and sisters in the black community where it really counts. I'm a huge Dallas Cowboy fan and I think that football players do a lot of good in our communities. And that is where it starts -- in the community.
What is going to happen is - fans won't buy tickets - revenue drops - owners freak out - and nothing gets changed. And that is really very sad. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Suppose for a second that you are a Dallas Cowboy season ticket holder and Zeke Elliot does not stand for the national anthem. What would your reaction be? Walk out of the stadium? I doubt many hardcore fans will let a player's actions impact their rooting for the team.

The players are breaking no laws. Is this worse than people protesting the Vietnam War back in the 60s and 70s? Soldiers fighting and dying in Vietnam and people back in the U.S. have the audacity to protest? I stand during the national anthem. If someone else decides to not do so, I don't let their decision impact my life. THAT is what this country is all about. FREEDOM to do what you believe is correct.

So a bakery that won't sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because of the baker's religious beliefs is ok? According to what you wrote - this country is about freedom -freedom of religion - and the baker truly believes he is right - than go ahead and not sell the cake - how does that work?

Suppose for a second that you are a Dallas Cowboy season ticket holder and Zeke Elliot does not stand for the national anthem. What would your reaction be? Walk out of the stadium? I doubt many hardcore fans will let a player's actions impact their rooting for the team.

The players are breaking no laws. Is this worse than people protesting the Vietnam War back in the 60s and 70s? Soldiers fighting and dying in Vietnam and people back in the U.S. have the audacity to protest? I stand during the national anthem. If someone else decides to not do so, I don't let their decision impact my life. THAT is what this country is all about. FREEDOM to do what you believe is correct. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I'm sick and tired of politics. Political discussions are the last thing I want to think about while reading this website or thinking about sex. Just my .02

The Pittsburg Steelers have the right idea. Apparently there's no rule that says the teams have to be on the field during the anthem. Let them throw their little temper tantrums in the locker room. Nobody wants to see that shit anyway.

I'm sick and tired of politics. Political discussions are the last thing I want to think about while reading this website or thinking about sex. Just my .02 Originally Posted by Puck88

Then you're in the wrong forum, pal.

Federal Judicial Center = agency in the executive branch
Court of Federal Claims = courts in the executive branch
federal judges = judges in the executive branch

Duh obviously we call those things that because federal means executive branch. You learn something new everyday. And here I thought they were federal because it's called the Federal government of the United States. And all three co-equal branches are federal. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Ok, millsy. Federal Courts are obviously part of the judiciary. They are the venue for litigating issues of federal law, not state law (unless the two conflict). We call them "federal" in order to distinguish them from state courts.

With a few minor exceptions, nearly all federal agencies are part of the executive branch. The EEOC is a federal agency whose head is appointed by the POTUS. It enforces civil rights law, which governs the hiring/firing decisions of all employers in the country.

So when you say the "the executive should not interfere in the hiring/firing of private companies" - are you calling for us to rescind the Civil Rights Act (enacted in 1964 thanks to Republican support) and abolish the EEOC?

That's kinda racist, isn't it?

So a bakery that won't sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because of the baker's religious beliefs is ok? According to what you wrote - this country is about freedom -freedom of religion - and the baker truly believes he is right - than go ahead and not sell the cake - how does that work? Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Totally different cases. Players standing or kneeling during the national anthem does not impact other people's rights. You and I may not like it, but no law has been broken by them.

If a person walks into an establishment and the owner refuses to sell his product to that person because of the color of his skin, his religious preference, his sexual orientation, etc., then that is against the law.

https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bake...st-gay-couple/

Ok, I'm really curious about this. And yes, I know the legalities. But what I'm saying is --according to what you said in your post above - FREEDOM to do what YOU think is correct. So in this case - the baker is doing what HE thinks is correct according to his beliefs. He is excercising his freedom of religion right. We may not think it's right but he does - and he is expressing that right under the constitution which gives us freedom of religion. And in his religion he follows the the Bible -not man's law.
In either case it will be interesting to see when it goes to the Supreme Court.

Totally different cases. Players standing or kneeling during the national anthem does not impact other people's rights. You and I may not like it, but no law has been broken by them.

If a person walks into an establishment and the owner refuses to sell his product to that person because of the color of his skin, his religious preference, his sexual orientation, etc., then that is against the law.

https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bake...st-gay-couple/ Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Ok, I'm really curious about this. And yes, I know the legalities. But what I'm saying is --according to what you said in your post above - FREEDOM to do what YOU think is correct. So in this case - the baker is doing what HE thinks is correct according to his beliefs. He is excercising his freedom of religion right. We may not think it's right but he does - and he is expressing that right under the constitution which gives us freedom of religion. And in his religion he follows the the Bible -not man's law.
In either case it will be interesting to see when it goes to the Supreme Court. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

It’s not a freedom to do what you think is correct. They have a right under the constitution to protest. The baker has the freedom of religion but he can’t deny people their freedoms because he wants to. It’s illegal and immoral to deny people because of their sexuality.

As for your he follows the Bible not man’s law, that’s when people get into trouble. Because if this man voted for Trump, i question his belief in the Bible. You know the whole bear no false witnesses, coveting another man’s wife and not committing adultery things are part of the Ten Commandments and well Trump has broken those. So he can puts religion over law when it’s convenient.

Y'all still here arguing about Ole Squirrelwig Le Pussygrab???

It will be interesting. The DOJ came down on the side of the baker. His cakes are a form of expression and he can't be compelled to use his talents for something he does not believe in. Now it's in the supreme courts lap.

When I did wedding planning I did 3 gay weddings. My weddings were over the top - 5 cakes,tons of flowers,ect - used alot of vendors and they were all happy to take my client's money. Never had a problem or an issue with my clients being gay. The vendors never brought politics or personal beliefs in our transactions. Nor did they display anything that was political in nature - they stuck to their business. And it worked out great.

I din't mention Trump but I don't think he's all that religious in the first place.

It’s not a freedom to do what you think is correct. They have a right under the constitution to protest. The baker has the freedom of religion but he can’t deny people their freedoms because he wants to. It’s illegal and immoral to deny people because of their sexuality.

As for your he follows the Bible not man’s law, that’s when people get into trouble. Because if this man voted for Trump, i question his belief in the Bible. You know the whole bear no false witnesses, coveting another man’s wife and not committing adultery things are part of the Ten Commandments and well Trump has broken those. So he can puts religion over law when it’s convenient. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

It will be interesting. The DOJ came down on the side of the baker. His cakes are a form of expression and he can't be compelled to use his talents for something he does not believe in. Now it's in the supreme courts lap.

When I did wedding planning I did 3 gay weddings. My weddings were over the top - 5 cakes,tons of flowers,ect - used alot of vendors and they were all happy to take my client's money. Never had a problem or an issue with my clients being gay. The vendors never brought politics or personal beliefs in our transactions. Nor did they display anything that was political in nature - they stuck to their business. And it worked out great.

I din't mention Trump but I don't think he's all that religious in the first place. Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

And that’s the thing if he were in a place with a higher LBGT population, I would wager that he would swallow his pride and not have that stance. He wouldn’t make money otherwise.

I mentioned Trump to show the issue with people who try to use religion to not do things. Because it only breeds hypocrisy.

I mentioned Trump to show the issue with people who try to use religion to not do things. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Because millsy isn't religious, he can't fathom the possibility of anyone else having genuine religious convictions. To him religion is just something people use as an excuse "to not do things."

Remember the Little Sisters of the Poor? The good nuns don't believe in contraception. It's against their genuine religious convictions. So what did Obama do? He tried to cram it down their throats! And millsy thinks that's ok.

The... executive branch shouldn't interfere in the hiring/firing of private companies. Originally Posted by Austin Dude

Hey millsy, tell us again how you want to repeal the Civil Rights Act, abolish the EEOC, and scrap affirmative action.

Let's get the executive branch OUT of the business of interfering in the hiring/firing of private companies!