Justice Alito warns of dangers to free speech, religious liberty in Federalist Society address

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  suz  •  2 weeks ago  •  109 comments

By:    By Brie Stimson

Justice Alito warns of dangers to free speech, religious liberty in Federalist Society address
“In certain quarters religious liberty has fast become a disfavored right,” Alito said

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Religious  liberty and  free speech are among Americans' personal freedoms potentially imperiled along with government overreach during the coronavirus  pandemic,  Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito warned Thursday.

“Tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply,” Alito added in a virtual keynote speech to a conference of the conservative Federalist Society , in which he referenced the current state of discourse in the nation's law schools and the “broader academic community.”

Many recent law school graduates claim they face “harassment” and “retaliation” for any views that depart “from law school orthodoxy,” Alito said.

“In certain quarters religious liberty has fast become a disfavored right,” he said. “For many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom. It’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated even when there’s no evidence that anybody has been harmed.”

He cited the Supreme Court cases of the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Roman Catholic nuns who were exempted from a requirement to provide birth control coverage to employees and Colorado baker who was allowed to refuse service to a gay couple for their wedding.

No employees with the Little Sisters of the Poor asked for birth control coverage and the gay couple was given a free cake by another shop and had celebrity chefs jump to their defense, he said.

“The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs,” he added, saying Christians deserve the same protections as the any of the religious minority groups in cases over which has presided throughout the years.

When Alito, 70, a nominee of former President George W. Bush who was confirmed by the Senate in 2006, touched on the pandemic, he said it has “resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty” and whatever people believe about the coronavirus restrictions, the U.S. can’t allow the restrictions to stand after the pandemic has passed.

He also said that houses of worship have been treated unfairly compared to other businesses during the pandemic, like in the case of casinos in Nevada.

“Nevada was unable to provide any justification for treating casinos more favorably than other houses of worship,” he said, referring to a recent Supreme Court case. The court still deferred to the governor who favored the state’s biggest industry, he said.  

“Religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right,” he warned, adding concerns about free speech and the Second Amendment.

He said there was “hostility” toward “unfashionable views” before the pandemic but said that free speech on campuses and at some corporations is now in danger.

“You can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” Alito said. “Until very recently that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry.”

“Judges dedicated to the rule of law have a clear duty” he added, saying they can’t “compromise principle or rationalize any departure from what they are obligated to do.”

He said he’s confident the court won’t do that in the years ahead.

He finally mentioned the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s belief in originalism, the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution based on its “public meaning at the time of its adoption.”

“The Covid crisis has highlighted constitutional fault lines” he said, but stressed in his 15 years on the court good work has been done to protect freedom of speech and religious liberty and “the structure of government created by the Constitution.”

He closed by saying that standing up for the Constitution and freedom is work that lies ahead for all Americans.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Suz
1  seeder  Suz    2 weeks ago
“Tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply,”
 
 
 
devangelical
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Suz @1    2 weeks ago

the only religious liberty radical republicans are concerned about is how the tax exempt money laundering operations by some wacko xtianity cults will continue to benefit them.

 
 
 
Suz
1.1.1  seeder  Suz  replied to  devangelical @1.1    2 weeks ago
the only religious liberty radical republicans are concerned about is how the tax exempt money laundering operations by some wacko xtianity cults will continue to benefit them.

Is that what you get from the article?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Suz @1    2 weeks ago

Sadly, I think it's been that way for a while now. Everyone seems to think that their POV is the only POV. Many issues are shades of gray and not black and white. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.3  r.t..b...  replied to  Suz @1    2 weeks ago

As are the opposing views of those who have suffered real discrimination. 

 
 
 
Suz
1.3.1  seeder  Suz  replied to  r.t..b... @1.3    2 weeks ago
As are the opposing views of those who have suffered real discrimination. 

Real discrimination.  Hmm.  Maybe that's part  of the problem.  Your interpretation of discrimination.

I think you are missing the point.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.3.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Suz @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

Please do tell how any interpretation of discrimination enables a religiously based opinion, from a SCOTUS justice no less, to diminish any sense of injustice suffered. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Suz @1    2 weeks ago
“Tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply,”

Tolerate: verb - allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

Tolerance does not mean free from ridicule or derision. Just like how many religious conservatives have ridiculed those they consider "sinners" for centuries, "tolerating" religious conservatives does not mean letting them voice their opinion free of any criticism.

There are still 29 States where it's legal to refuse to rent to law abiding tax paying American citizens simply because they're gay.

It was legal in those same States to fire employees for being gay or transgender. It wasn't until last year that the SCOTUS ruled that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination and harassment in the workplace based on sexual orientation and transgender status.

From what I can see, no one is discriminating against Christians or religious conservatives, they're simply ridiculing the opinions expressed by religious conservatives who think they should still have the right to discriminate against those they have labeled "sinners".

Can any religious conservative here explain in detail how they personally have been discriminated against or "silenced"? Who has been denied the right to worship any way they want?

I've heard lots of whining and crying from religious conservatives claiming they're being denied the right to discriminate against others and been ridiculed and laughed at for expressing their belief that they have some religious right to discriminate, but none so far have presented any evidence of they themselves being discriminated against.

So really, religious conservatives and their odious opinions are being tolerated, the only ones pushing for intolerance are those who continue to try and take away the newly won gay and transgender rights.

So when they say "tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply", when was America MORE tolerant than now? It would seem like tolerance was almost extinct for much of our history and only now are we reaching broadly supported tolerance. And perhaps that's why some pine for the 1950's when tolerance was a dirty word and they had the white Christian patriarchy which was large and in charge. Those folk are now upset because their intolerance is no longer socially acceptable, so they whine and cry and claim "reverse" intolerance because the majority are no longer validating their racist and hateful discriminatory religious ideology. And when this fact is pointed out they only scream louder trying to claim that those pointing out their intolerance should be the ones accused of intolerance. They are infuriated at anyone who would point out the rafter in their eye while they are so busy laughing, ridiculing and discriminating against those they claim have splinters in their own.

 
 
 
MAGA
1.5  MAGA  replied to  Suz @1    2 weeks ago

Thanks for seeding this!  I will seed another worthy seed as you beat me to this one.  Alito is exactly right! 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Suz @1    2 weeks ago

My apologies Suz, I didn't know you posted this one. I have one up with a slightly different take on it. You handled this one well.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2  Split Personality    2 weeks ago

Politics IS the new religion for many, hence the zealousness.

They say things their actual religion would not  condone and go to ridiculous lengths of pretzel logic to convince themselves otherwise.

Sad to watch.

 
 
 
devangelical
2.1  devangelical  replied to  Split Personality @2    2 weeks ago

the examples of religion conjoined with party are certainly plentiful.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @2    2 weeks ago

Well based on the article, Alito can't decide whether a church is a 'house of worship' or 'a business'. He really does have to PICK ONE for his 'argument' to hold water. 

 
 
 
devangelical
2.2.1  devangelical  replied to  Dulay @2.2    2 weeks ago

admitting that their version of religion is a business puts them in a precarious position.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.2  Dulay  replied to  devangelical @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

Especially since 'essential businesses' pay taxes...

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.2.1    2 weeks ago

"admitting that their version of religion is a business puts them in a precarious position."

Too true.  They're con artists.  To them, god is green, and he folds.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3  Ozzwald    2 weeks ago
Religious  liberty and  free speech are among Americans' personal freedoms potentially imperiled along with government overreach during the coronavirus  pandemic,  Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito warned Thursday.

Translation:  If churches cannot allow in worshippers, they can't pass the collection plate.

 
 
 
Suz
3.1  seeder  Suz  replied to  Ozzwald @3    2 weeks ago
Translation:  If churches cannot allow in worshippers, they can't pass the collection plate.

That's true of many places.  Not just 'worshippers'.   Not a good argument.

 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Suz @3.1    2 weeks ago

There are other ways to support a house of worship. For instance, Jews are not allowed to handle money on the sabbath, so what they do is have donations made directly to the synagogues. It is an alternative to the passing of the plate. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Suz @3.1    2 weeks ago
That's true of many places.  Not just 'worshippers'.

Not denying that.

Not a good argument.

Other places do not have the political power to change the laws.  Religion does.

 
 
 
Suz
3.1.3  seeder  Suz  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.2    2 weeks ago
Other places do not have the political power to change the laws.  Religion does

What do you mean by Other places? 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Suz @3.1.3    2 weeks ago

What do you mean by Other places? 

You said:

That's true of many places.

Those places.

 
 
 
Dulay
4  Dulay    2 weeks ago
“You can’t say that marriage is a union between one man and one woman,” Alito said. “Until very recently that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry.”

Actually, I don't just consider it bigotry, I consider it an expression of religious animus that shouldn't have any bearing anyone's rights. 

 
 
 
Suz
4.1  seeder  Suz  replied to  Dulay @4    2 weeks ago
Actually, I don't just consider it bigotry, I consider it an expression of religious animus that shouldn't have any bearing anyone's rights. 

You're deliberately missing the point.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Suz @4.1    2 weeks ago

How so? Be specific. 

 
 
 
Suz
4.1.2  seeder  Suz  replied to  Suz @4.1    2 weeks ago

Explain?  Fair enough.

You're stating your contempt for religion.  I recognize you have the right to feel as you do, but those who want to attend their chosen place of worship have the right to do so without being subjected to ridicule. 

I am saying your contempt for religion has nothing to do with the rights of those who wish to gather and be together.

Did I make that clear as mud, Dulay?  I tend to do that sometimes.  :-)

 
 
 
Suz
4.1.3  seeder  Suz  replied to  Dulay @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

I also wanted to say that where I live, I still have the option to attend Mass on-line. 

Most of the Catholic churches here are quite reserved.  It is perfect for someone like me. 

People still make their small contribution to each parish if they so choose.  No one is forced.  No one. is ridiculed.

I know I am the exception to the rule, but I still recognize that others need that connection to others especially if they're seniors without family.

 
 
 
Suz
4.1.4  seeder  Suz  replied to  Suz @4.1.3    2 weeks ago
I know I am the exception to the rule, but I still recognize that others need that connection to others especially if they're seniors without family.

That should be 'people' need others.   Not others need others. ((bummer))

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Suz @4.1.2    2 weeks ago
Explain?  Fair enough. You're stating your contempt for religion.

What part of my comment lead you to the unfounded conclusion that I have contempt for religion Suz. 

  I recognize you have the right to feel as you do, 

Now if you could only recognize that you have no clue how I feel. 

but those who want to attend their chosen place of worship have the right to do so without being subjected to ridicule.

Perhaps you should review what I commented on. It has nothing to do with attending anything OR ridiculing anyone for doing so. 

I am saying your contempt for religion has nothing to do with the rights of those who wish to gather and be together.

So your reply to me is based on your false assumption. 

Did I make that clear as mud, Dulay?  I tend to do that sometimes.

You made it clear to me that you post unfounded kneejerk assumptions. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Suz @4.1.2    2 weeks ago
those who want to attend their chosen place of worship have the right to do so without being subjected to ridicule. 

Well, actually ridicule is protected free speech, and no one is preventing anyone from worshiping wherever they want.

No religious conservative is being stopped from getting married to whoever they want, none are being prevented from worshiping where they want, none are being prevented from worshiping how they want. The issue seems to be that religious conservatives don't like being ridiculed like they used to do to lots of different minorities like gays, unwed mothers, non-Christians or interracial couples. For a long time Christians have been free to demonize and ridicule those folk and now, when the derision and ridicule is turned back on them they scream their rights are somehow being taken away.

(Alito) said there was “hostility” toward “unfashionable views”

So the religious right are still free to be hostile towards those they have labeled "sinners", but they can no longer expect that their hostility will be met without consequence or expect the secular government around them to condone and enable their hostility as it had in the past.

“Religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right,” he warned, adding concerns about free speech and the Second Amendment.

Bullshit. No one has had their religious liberty infringed upon. No one has been silenced by the government for voicing their religious opinion. Some commercial platforms have decided to allow or deny certain types of speech, but that is their right as a private company that gets to decide what its platform is used for. If you don't like their rules then go build your own soapbox to preach from, no one is preventing that.

your contempt for religion has nothing to do with the rights of those who wish to gather and be together

Just like religious conservatives contempt for gay marriage should have nothing to do with the rights of those who wish to gather and be together. The only difference is that gay people aren't trying to stop straight Christians from getting married.

 
 
 
Suz
4.1.7  seeder  Suz  replied to  Dulay @4.1.5    2 weeks ago

"You made it clear to me that you post unfounded kneejerk assumptions."

Thank you. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

What I see from the religious right is they don't like being called on their bigotry towards those different from them, ie, gays and transgenders. And they all lost their minds when gay marriage was legalized. So when some religious right person gets pissed off at me because I question the validity of their argument that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as others, I am asking an honest question. This is a nation founded on secular law, not biblically based law no matter what they think. There's nothing in the constitution about marriage, for crying out loud, anyway.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.8    2 weeks ago
What I see from the religious right is they don't like being called on their bigotry towards those different from them, ie, gays and transgenders.

It's funny because they've always been the first to point and declare "Sinner! Sinner!" but when called out for their bigotry they look around and respond "What? Me? You think I'm prejudiced? Screw you! I'm a Christian! You're prejudiced, not me...".

 
 
 
MAGA
4.1.10  MAGA  replied to  Suz @4.1    2 weeks ago

Totally and willfully 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Dulay @4    2 weeks ago

Well said and in agreement with everything our Constitution promises...that is if one holds to the separation of church and state.

The first amendment also guarantees the opportunity to voice one’s dissent, but the two issues are in no way mutually inclusive. 

 
 
 
Suz
4.2.1  seeder  Suz  replied to  r.t..b... @4.2    2 weeks ago
Well said and in agreement with everything our Constitution promises...that is if one holds to the separation of church and state.

Most of us do agree with the separation of church and state.  So, how do you convince a state leader to do the same?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Suz @4.2.1    2 weeks ago
So, how do you convince a state leader to do the same?

You vote for the candidate that openly expresses their desire to keep Church and State separate.

Sadly, there are some in America who intentionally vote for the candidate that expressly rejects the constitutionally mandated separation because they deeply desire their religion to be "spread" aka "forced" on everyone around them because they believe their way of life, their faith, their culture and ideology is superior to others.

 
 
 
Gordy327
4.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Suz @4.2.1    2 weeks ago

Vote them out of office.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @4    2 weeks ago
I consider it an expression of religious animus

How so? Be specific. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.1  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3    2 weeks ago

The argument:

that marriage is a union between one man and one woman

Is based purely on religion animus, i.e. an attitude based on a religious belief. 

Of course, over the decades of court cases, that 'attitude' altered because it started out as 

A man and A woman

But once polygamists' tried to get into the game they added the "ONE" thingy. Of course, that's isn't supported by scripture but I digress.

So the argument began with a man and a woman and cuz god said so. When THAT didn't work, it became ONE man and ONE woman because of history. Of course, they didn't want to acknowledge that the history was based on religion but the law has a way of getting to the crux of the issue...

 “Until very recently that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now it’s considered bigotry.”

There are many of issues for which the same can be said. Slavery, coverture, suffrage and interracial marriage to name a few and ALL of which were argued FOR, at least in part, based on religious mandates/beliefs. It seems that Justice Alito and others are desperate to ignore that fact. 

 
 
 
Suz
4.3.2  seeder  Suz  replied to  Dulay @4.3.1    2 weeks ago

Yes, everything you say I get.  However, most of us, including my own sweet self, remember the days Justice Alito refers to, so I do understand  and appreciate his meaning.  I have lived it.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.3  Dulay  replied to  Suz @4.3.2    2 weeks ago

What 'days' are you claiming Alito is referring to ? 

 
 
 
Sunshine
5  Sunshine    2 weeks ago
He also said that houses of worship have been treated unfairly compared to other businesses during the pandemic, like in the case of casinos in Nevada. “Nevada was unable to provide any justification for treating casinos more favorably than other houses of worship,” he said, referring to a recent Supreme Court case. The court still deferred to the governor who favored the state’s biggest industry, he said.  

Examples like this is the reason that many do not take the pandemic serious.  If those who are setting the safety rules/protocols for the state are blantantly disregarding the rules for favored exceptions, it is hard to take them serious.

I guess we can take the risk of more covid cases and deaths to play the slots but forbid those who want to exercise their religious rights at church.  Seems the state has restricted religious liberty without cause.

 
 
 
MUVA
5.1  MUVA  replied to  Sunshine @5    2 weeks ago

Not to mention the people calling for lock downs haven’t missed a pay check most are on SS or have state or federal  government or city government pay checks that never stop.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
5.1.1  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  MUVA @5.1    2 weeks ago
Not to mention the people calling for lock downs haven’t missed a pay check most are on SS...

Yeah... that's pretty apparent. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @5.1    2 weeks ago
"Not to mention the people calling for lock downs haven’t missed a pay check most are on SS or have state or federal  government or city government pay checks that never stop."

You know this how?

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @5.1.1    2 weeks ago
"Not to mention the people calling for lock downs haven’t missed a pay check most are on SS..."
"Yeah... that's pretty apparent." HOW SO?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5    2 weeks ago

Are churches businesses?

Are casinos 'other houses of worship'? 

Alito is confused. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @5.2    2 weeks ago
Alito is confused. 

Where is the confusion?

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5.2.1    2 weeks ago

Try to answer my questions based on Alito's comment and you'll see. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.2.3  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @5.2.2    2 weeks ago

I think you are the one confused not a Supreme Court Justice.

 
 
 
Suz
5.2.4  seeder  Suz  replied to  Dulay @5.2    2 weeks ago

Justice Alito confused?    Yeah, right.   I think 'educated' and 'enlightened' better explains his views.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.5  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5.2.3    2 weeks ago

Any thinking person that tried answer my questions would think differently. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Suz @5.2.4    2 weeks ago

So you agree with Alito that casinos are 'houses of worship? 

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.2.7  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @5.2.5    2 weeks ago

He didn't say casino's are houses of worship...he said "other houses of worships". 

But regardless how one chooses to understand it, Nevada could not give reason as to why a casino should be considered essential and a house of worship would not. 

Any thinking person that tried answer my questions would think differently. 

As I said, I am sure Justice Alito new what he was referring to more than you.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5.2.7    2 weeks ago
He didn't say casino's are houses of worship...he said "other houses of worships".

He said that casinos were being favored over other houses of worship. It's CLEAR English. 

But regardless how one chooses to understand it, Nevada could not give reason as to why a casino should be considered essential and a house of worship would not. 

That's an ironic statement since Alito wrote the dissenting opinion in the Nevada case, which means that the way that the SCOTUS understands it is that Nevada DID give a good enough reason. 

Oh and BTW, the question before the court wasn't about 'being essential', it was about religious freedom and the second case is based on freedom of speech. 

As I said, I am sure Justice Alito new what he was referring to more than you.

I always love when people claim to have said shit they never said until they just said it...

BTW, it's pretty important for Justices to SAY and write cogent statements that 'We the People' understand clearly. 

All in all, Alito's speech is an excellent example of why the SCOTUS needs to have a Code of Conduct. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.2.9  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @5.2.8    2 weeks ago
That's an ironic statement since Alito wrote the dissenting opinion in the Nevada case, which means that the way that the SCOTUS understands it is that Nevada DID give a good enough reason. 

So now you are interpretating what the court understood over Supreme Court Justice Alito.  You do hold yourself in high regard. Watch the entire speech and you will better understand what he is conveying.

Oh and BTW, the question before the court wasn't about 'being essential', 

No one said it was. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5.2.9    2 weeks ago
So now you are interpretating what the court understood over Supreme Court Justice Alito.  

I READ the fucking ruling from the Supreme Court, you should try it.

You do hold yourself in high regard.

YES, when it comes to actually pursuing FACTS and understanding court documents, I DO hold myself in high regard since I WORK at it. 

Watch the entire speech and you will better understand what he is conveying.

I READ Alito's statement in the seed and understand it just fine. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.2.11  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @5.2.10    2 weeks ago
I READ the fucking ruling from the Supreme Court, you should try it.

Well if you had read it, you should of known what he was conveying instead of making a big stink over semantics.

I still suggest you listen to the speech.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5.2.11    2 weeks ago
Well if you had read it, you should of known what he was conveying instead of making a big stink over semantics.

It always cracks me up when NT members try to insist that the meaning of words isn't important. How else are we communicating here? How else is Alito conveying his thoughts in his speech? 

Ridiculous...

I still suggest you listen to the speech.

Again, I read Alito's statement in the seed. If you want to seed the speech, be my guest. I might stop by and read it, or not. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.2.13  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @5.2.12    2 weeks ago

Again making a big deal over semantics.

Why would I seed the speech which is already in the seeded article?  You would ignore that one too because you couldn’t possibly learn something.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5.2.13    2 weeks ago
Again making a big deal over semantics.

Again, trying to insist that the meaning of words doesn't matter. 

Why would I seed the speech which is already in the seeded article?  You would ignore that one too because you couldn’t possibly learn something.

The article doesn't quote the WHOLE speech. My comments are about the content of the ARTICLE. If you want to talk about the WHOLE speech, seed it. Taking over Suz's seed is bad form. 

BTFW, I haven't ignored anything. 

I learned from the speech that Alito has no compunction against expressing his personal political beliefs and his bias about issues that have been before the court and will be again in the future. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.15  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.2.12    2 weeks ago
racks me up when NT members try to insist that the meaning of words isn't important

It always cracks me up when NT members can't argue a substantive point and hyper focus on superficial trivialities. 

IF you actually read the dissent in question, you'd know that he didn't refer to casinos as houses of worship and that has no substantive relationship to his argument.

But congrats, you've made a mountain out of a misspeak during a speech.  But hey, you've derailed the thread, so good on you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.2.15    2 weeks ago
It always cracks me up when NT members can't argue a substantive point and hyper focus on superficial trivialities. 

Another one that thinks that the meaning of word is trivial in a venue where words are used to communicate. 

IF you actually read the dissent in question, you'd know that he didn't refer to casinos as houses of worship and that has no substantive relationship to his argument.

The article QUOTED Alito as saying that in his speech. Try to keep up Sean. 

But congrats, you've made a mountain out of a misspeak during a speech. 

I pointed it out, Suz, Sunshine and YOU made a mountain out of it by not acknowledging that Alito was confused. 

But hey, you've derailed the thread, so good on you. 

Nope. I started this sub-thread Sean.

BTW, how did you like my answer to your last question? 

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.2.17  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @5.2.14    2 weeks ago
If you want to talk about the WHOLE speech, seed it.

The entire speech is in the article.  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Taking over Suz's seed is bad form. 

Yes it is, an apology would be appreciated.

I learned from the speech that Alito has no compunction against expressing his personal political beliefs and his bias about issues that have been before the court and will be again in the future. 

I look forward to you quoting him from the seeded speech to support this.

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5.2.17    2 weeks ago
The entire speech is in the article.

A VIDEO of the speech is in the article. Why post bullshit? 

Yes it is, an apology would be appreciated.

You're having a hard enough time holding your own Sunshine, you really shouldn't try to speak for Suz. 

I look forward to you quoting him from the seeded speech to support this.

I already have. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.2.19  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @5.2.18    2 weeks ago
A VIDEO of the speech is in the article. Why post bullshit?

Now you are not making any sense, first you want the entire speech to comment on and then you claim it is bullshit so why post it.  

Again you seem to be the one confused.

You're having a hard enough time holding your own Sunshine, you really shouldn't try to speak for Suz. 

Not speaking for her, it is my suggestion.  If she has a problem with my post, she can talk to me directly.  She doesn't need you running interference and speaking for her.

I already have. 

Nothing, as expected.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.2.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @5.2.16    2 weeks ago
ne that thinks that the meaning of word is trivial in a venue where words are used to communicate.

Try again. Context matters. 

le QUOTED Alito as saying that in his speech. Try to keep up Sean. 

You are the one who's behind.  Why don't your read what I wrote again, and if you need help understanding the meaning of a word, I'll be  happy to help because this a venue where words are used to communicate, and you seem to be struggling in your comprehension.

uz, Sunshine and YOU made a mountain out of it by not acknowledging that Alito was confused.

Sure. he was confused in the same way Obama was when he referenced 57 states. 

do you really feel good about making this ridiculous argument? Sad. 

 
 
 
MAGA
5.2.21  MAGA  replied to  Dulay @5.2.6    2 weeks ago

Well we did have a religious gathering at a casino a few months ago and the governor tried to treat the event at the casino as if it were at a church to limit it to 10 people instead of 50% capacity allowed at a casino.  That proved the double standard the governor tries to enforce and the point Alito made about religious liberty becoming a 2nd class right.  

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @5.2.19    2 weeks ago
Now you are not making any sense, first you want the entire speech to comment on and then you claim it is bullshit so why post it.  
Again you seem to be the one confused.

Nope. YOU are the one who keeps insisting that only by watching the full speech can garner what Alito was 'conveying'. I have said more than once that my comments are based on the content of the quotes in the seed. JUST STOP. 

Not speaking for her, it is my suggestion. 

You didn't make a suggestion, you made a statement.

If she has a problem with my post, she can talk to me directly.  She doesn't need you running interference and speaking for her.

I stated my own opinion. 

Nothing, as expected.

I can point you to the comment, I can't understand it for you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
5.2.23  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @5.2.21    2 weeks ago

Alito didn't say a damn thing about California churches Xx. 

 
 
 
JBB
5.2.24  JBB  replied to  Dulay @5.2.22    2 weeks ago

Alito sits on a court stacked with young conservative Catholics, a few Jews and zero persons on no faith. The President Elect is famously a practicing Catholic. Religion is not under attack in America. What is under attack is the principle that everyone is equal under the law. Alito plainly does not believe we are!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.3  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @5    2 weeks ago
This country needs to depoliticize and learn tolerance if it's going to thrive.  There's no viable long term path forward when citizens are afraid to speak for fear of losing their livelihood.  It's okay for people to believe different things, they shouldn't have to fear losing their job because of them. 

A casino is not an essential business. It should be shut down if everything else is shut down.

 
 
 
Sunshine
5.3.1  Sunshine  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @5.3    2 weeks ago

That is not my comment.

And I agree, a casino is not an essential business.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
5.3.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sunshine @5.3.1    2 weeks ago

Sorry about the comment confusion. That is actually Sean's quote from 6

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Alito nails probably the dominate theme in American public life this century, the closing of the American mind.  The left, over the last 50 some years, has done a complete 180, from the free speech movement at Berkley to their current embrace of using violence to shut down dissenting views on campus. They've collectively deiced the correct morals for America, and through their positions controlling large corporations, universities, the media, entertainment  etc.. they rigidly enforce them. 

This country needs to depoliticize and learn tolerance if it's going to thrive.  There's no viable long term path forward when citizens are afraid to speak for fear of losing their livelihood.  It's okay for people to believe different things, they shouldn't have to fear losing their job because of them. 

 
 
 
MUVA
6.1  MUVA  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago

You have hit the nail on the head it has become apparent that some the left not only want speech curtailed they want to punish their political rivals and damage their family’s and businesses.The remedy is tuff when you have a news media in the bag for a political party.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  MUVA @6.1    2 weeks ago
The remedy is tuff when you have a news media in the bag for a political party.

Like Fox, Breitbart, Gateway, Heritage, Town hall, The Federalist?

/s

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
Fox, Breitbart, Gateway, Heritage, Town hall, The Federalist?

Yeah, they sure equal the reach of CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post and pretty much every other published newspaper, Huffpo,  Vox, Slate, Salon, Politico etc....

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.3  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

...and yet Trump got enough votes that he would have beaten every other candidate

for POTUS in the history of the USA,

except for Joe Biden.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago
This country needs to depoliticize and learn tolerance if it's going to thrive.  There's no viable long term path forward when citizens are afraid to speak for fear of losing their livelihood.  It's okay for people to believe different things, they shouldn't have to fear losing their job because of them. 

While I am all for freedom of speech, once someone puts something out there to the general public ( ie through the internet), then it falls into the public domain. Yes, you are free to say it, but if what you are saying is against, or for example, the rules of employment, then that is on the speaker. 

The big issue here is that it seems that there is a trend to just being offended. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2    2 weeks ago

The big issue as I see it is that people seem to think that with the right to free speech comes an immunity from consequences. Criticism of the content of one person's free speech has an equal right to free speech. 

You have a right to say:

Marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

I have the right to say:

I think that's a bigoted statement based on your religious animus. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
6.2.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2    2 weeks ago
The big issue here is that it seems that there is a trend to just being offended. 

Agreed

 
 
 
Dulay
6.3  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago
This country needs to depoliticize and learn tolerance if it's going to thrive.  There's no viable long term path forward when citizens are afraid to speak for fear of losing their livelihood.  It's okay for people to believe different things, they shouldn't have to fear losing their job because of them. 

Yet the LGBTQ community deal with just that on a daily basis and in all too many cases the 'reason' is based on 'religious liberty'. 

 
 
 
Suz
6.4  seeder  Suz  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago

Well said, Sean. 

 
 
 
Suz
6.5  seeder  Suz  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago

I would also point out what is happening to those who voted for Trump.  They are now being threatened by Socialists and the MSM.  They intend to 'out' those people to make sure they never work again. 

As I see it, those are threats; not free speech.  To suggest they have every intention of harming the public according to a person's vote is a perfect example of how UN-American these people are.    

Once upon a time evil was referred to as McCarthyism but as I see it, the people once plagued by this evil are now supporters of the same disease. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.5.1  Dulay  replied to  Suz @6.5    2 weeks ago
As I see it, those are threats; not free speech.

What is the 'threat' Suz, that they will be quoted accurately? 

 
 
 
Suz
6.5.2  seeder  Suz  replied to  Dulay @6.5.1    2 weeks ago
What is the 'threat' Suz, that they will be quoted accurately? 

The threat to harm others based solely on a person's politics is cause for legitimate concern.

Would you prefer I send you the link?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.5.3  Dulay  replied to  Suz @6.5.2    2 weeks ago
The threat to harm others based solely on a person's politics is cause for legitimate concern.

So you're claiming that quoting a person's statements verbatim is a 'threat to do harm'? What ever happened to personal responsibility? 

Would you prefer I send you the link?

I don't need a link. I am basing my comments on the content of yours. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.5.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Suz @6.5    2 weeks ago
They are now being threatened by Socialists and the MSM.  They intend to 'out' those people to make sure they never work again. 

Where are you getting your information? I haven't heard anything like that not even from the right wing conspiracy theorists on Newstalkers

 
 
 
Suz
6.5.5  seeder  Suz  replied to  Dulay @6.5.3    2 weeks ago
I don't need a link. I am basing my comments on the content of yours.

Then you're in trouble!!  jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

I'm having a very good time talking with you as well as others, so please don't think I'm here for a fight.  Everyone alreadys knows I am horrible at debate so any win you may have will be a no-big-deal win.

I won't look at your win as a loss for me.  

 
 
 
Dulay
6.5.6  Dulay  replied to  Suz @6.5.5    2 weeks ago

You're not much for answering simple questions either I see. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.5.7  Texan1211  replied to  Suz @6.5.2    2 weeks ago
The threat to harm others based solely on a person's politics is cause for legitimate concern.

One would actually have to care for their fellow humans for that to be true.

Some don't care at all--and it is rather obvious.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.5.8  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.5.7    2 weeks ago
One would actually have to care for their fellow humans for that to be true. Some don't care at all--and it is rather obvious.

Gee Tex, I haven't seen you express that compassion for members of 'The Squad' or for "Abuela" in any of the plethora of seeds and threads calling for harm to them. I would have remembered that. Care to express it here and now? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.5.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Suz @6.5    2 weeks ago
n a time evil was referred to as McCarthyism but as I see it, the people once plagued by this evil are now supporters of the same disease. 

Very similar situation. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.5.10  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.5.9    2 weeks ago
Very similar situation. 

Really? I don't remember seeing McCarthy using verbatim quotes as evidence against witnesses. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.5.11  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.5.8    2 weeks ago

I have never expressed that I wanted to see violence directed at those people, so what are you going on about now?

And I really don't care what you have seen or not regarding my posts. It is irrelevant.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.5.12  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.5.11    2 weeks ago
I have never expressed that I wanted to see violence directed at those people, so what are you going on about now?

Funny that YOU are the first one to say a fucking thing about 'violence' Tex. 

And I really don't care what you have seen or not regarding my posts. It is irrelevant.

Yes, I'm sure that is exactly how Trump sycophants will feel when they are called out for their prior statements. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.5.13  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.5.12    2 weeks ago
Funny that YOU are the first one to say a fucking thing about 'violence' Tex. 

You should read more so you won't post such inane crap like THAT.

Look at who brought it up--if you CAN, of course.

Yes, I'm sure that is exactly how Trump sycophants will feel when they are called out for their prior statements. 

Not interested in your analysis of what YOU think of Trump supporters, either.

it is totally irrelevant ALSO.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.5.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @6.5.13    2 weeks ago
Not interested in your analysis of what YOU think of Trump supporters, either. it is totally irrelevant ALSO.

Hit a nerve I see...

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.5.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @6.5.14    2 weeks ago
Hit a nerve I see...

If thinking that helps you get through the day, I say go for it, girl!

LOL!

nerve! 

LOL!

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.6  Split Personality  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 weeks ago

I would just take note that the few thousand assholes in Portland or Berkley do not

and never have represented the 75 million voters who voted for Biden.

This country needs to depoliticize and learn tolerance if it's going to thrive.  There's no viable long term path forward when citizens are afraid to speak for fear of losing their livelihood.  It's okay for people to believe different things, they shouldn't have to fear losing their job because of them.

Total agreement.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.6.1  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @6.6    2 weeks ago

and add that a few thousand people who belong to Qanon or the Prous Boys represent

any of the 71 million who voted for Trump.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7  Dismayed Patriot    2 weeks ago

If a Christian feels they have the right to refuse service to a gay customer, then they should support the rights of other businesses to deny service to Christians.

Treat others as you wish to be treated.

If you think ridiculing gays, Muslims, atheists, unwed mothers, transgender Americans or those of different faiths or cultures is your right, then you are explicitly giving everyone else the right to ridicule you.

Just because, as Alito points out, there is “hostility” toward “unfashionable views” doesn't mean any of those with the now unfashionable views are being discriminated against.

When Christians can show that they've been refused tenancy or been fired from their jobs simply because their landlord or boss found out they were Christian, then they will have something legitimate to bitch about.

Religious liberty is not in "danger of becoming a second-class right", it's just more and more people recognize the hostility towards others that has been long accepted from the religious right is no longer "fashionable" and thus is showing those who continue to ridicule and discriminate against those their faith has deemed "sinners" are truly the ones who have no class. And the more and more people who recognize this, the more the classless religious conservatives scream and rage about how unfair it is that they're now treated like the "sinners" they've long ridiculed and disrespected.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7    2 weeks ago

I have yet to see anyone explain or demonstrate how religious liberty is threatened or even prohibited in any way. Last I checked, everyone is free to believe and worship however they want.

 
 
 
Suz
7.1.2  seeder  Suz  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1    2 weeks ago
Last I checked, everyone is free to believe and worship however they want.

Not without consequences.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Suz @7.1.2    2 weeks ago
Not without consequences.  

What consequences? That would probably depend on the circumstances.

 
 
 
JBB
7.1.4  JBB  replied to  Suz @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

And yet, Samuel Alito, a Catholic, sits on the US Supreme Court and Joseph Biden, also a Catholic, will soon be in the White House. In business or public life it remains very hard for a person not if faith to succeed. Persons of faith run pretty much all of our institutions.

Frankly, I think that your fears are overblown.

Trump loyalists will be replaced by Biden loyalists in the new administration which is their right. Just as it was Trump's right. If those Trump loyalists never do work again then there must be something else at play. I certainly do not see Joe Biden as a villain.

256

 
 
 
bbl-1
8  bbl-1    2 weeks ago

Justice Alito represents the fulcrum of the ideology that has prevented justice, fair play, honesty and social progress in our government and society.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ender
Gsquared
Bob Nelson
arkpdx
MrFrost


54 visitors