[talaniman]

What year was that you want us to go back to?

[earl237]

Michelle Bachmann was a nutcase, I'm glad her and Sarah Palin are out of the picture. Any straight people who feel threatened by gay marriage need to get a life and mind their own business.

[cdad]

What year was that you want us to go back to?

Lets start with this year and strip back the layers until we get lean and mean with laws that make sense.

[cdad]

Michelle Bachmann was a nutcase, I'm glad her and Sarah Palin are out of the picture. Any straight people who feel threatened by gay marriage need to get a life and mind their own business.

It is peoples business if they are being forced into a situation by the barrel of a gun or threat of a lawsuit.

[earl237]

It is peoples business if they are being forced into a situation by the barrel of a gun or threat of a lawsuit.

Do you have any examples of anyone being forced by threats of a lawsuit?

[cdad]

Do you have any examples of anyone being forced by threats of a lawsuit?

Have you read through this thread? It has been a central part of the debate.


The woman florist in Washington and the photographer in N.Y.

[earl237]

Even a private business can't refuse to do business based on race, religion or ethnic background, I'm pretty sure the florist would not be allowed to shun an interracial or interfaith marriage so why should sexual orientation still be allowed to get the "back of the bus" treatment?

[cdad]

Even a private business can't refuse to do business based on race, religion or ethnic background, I'm pretty sure the florist would not be allowed to shun an interracial or interfaith marriage so why should sexual orientation still be allowed to get the "back of the bus" treatment?

She didn't, she based it on religious convictions. She had hired gays before and previously sold flowers to these same people on other occasions.

[Tuttyd]

a 'prediction' rather than a 'means to an end platform ' ? I refer you back to the Wiki link : The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands:
Is Wiki wrong in making that statement ? No ;that is always how I've read the manifesto ..

Tom, no-one is interested in this except, perhaps the two of us. So I'll be brief. And yes, it has nothing to do with this thread.

The wiki quote is too brief and ignores the paragraph just above the so called list of demands. The ignored paragraph being:

These measures will be different in different countries.However, in advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable.

Marx is saying that the revolution will take on different characteristics in different countries. The list are possible combinations of factors that are likely to be seen.

Tom, have you actually read chapter 2, or just gone with the wiki interpretation?

Where is progressive taxation discussed in this chapter? Where does it say that progressive taxation is a demand?The chapter is largely devoted to the idea of political revolution before economic revolution. Now, I think Marx is inconsistent in this chapter on this particular issue, but that's a different story. Nonetheless, it is in keeping with his overall "materialist conception of history"

The list represents, 'sign posts' to look out for.

[tomder55]

Oh ;so he was just being a wise soothsayer... he did not see these steps as a move towards his utopia ? I think he did .

I'll quote the 2 chapters above the list and the list

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Love this line " by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable".. and yet the left still champions these remedies.

[talaniman]

His opinion, none of which has anything to do with gay marriage or the bad behavior because of religious convictions. That's the crux of this whole topic, forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction.

[speechlesstx]

Even a private business can't refuse to do business based on race, religion or ethnic background, I'm pretty sure the florist would not be allowed to shun an interracial or interfaith marriage so why should sexual orientation still be allowed to get the "back of the bus" treatment?

Like ex said, no one's rights trump another's so the gay wedding does not trump her religious rights. But that's the rub, the left - including ex based on his own arguments - does believe certain rights trump others, as in forcing pharmacists to sell abortifacients and forcing religious organizations to buy birth control.

This couple isn't harmed by this particular florist not doing the wedding, they have options. The LGBT community and their crusaders don't believe others should have an option, they demand acceptance and accommodation regardless of anyone else's rights. Sorry, my rights are no less important than theirs.

[speechlesstx]

His opinion, none of which has anything to do with gay marriage or the bad behavior because of religious convictions. That's the crux of this whole topic, forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction.

It's not bad behavior to exercise your first amendment rights. It's bad behavior in forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate yours. You've got it bass ackwards.

[talaniman]

You have a right to your convictions and they have a right to seek redress in a court. Explain it to the judge.

[speechlesstx]

You have a right to your convictions and they have a right to seek redress in a court. Explain it to the judge.

So who did you mean was "forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction." The gay couple or the florist?

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

So who did you mean was "forcing some ones convictions on another without respect and demanding respect for that conviction." The gay couple or the florist?

Seems to me that BOTH of them are, but that's because I'm a liberal thinker.. I'm sure you believe that only ONE of the parties are honorable.

Excon

[talaniman]

It was a general statement about religious convictions and blatant discrimination. I mean seems to me the way you handle your convictions is a important as a right to them, and even more so when presented with a people who already feel their rights are denied. Maybe they are a bit sensitive, and maybe the other side of it is not enough sensitivity.

Their has to be a balance in the empathy and respect of all our rights, and hollering gay people have none, or only those you say they have doesn't garner respect, as black people resented being told to go to the back of the bus.

Bottom line you cannot holler your rights without respecting the rights of others in my opinion.

[tomder55]

I never holler

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:Seems to me that BOTH of them are, but that's because I'm a liberal thinker.. I'm sure you believe that only ONE of the parties are honorable.

excon

The florist gave referrals and was gracious about it, what more do you want? The AG is being an a$$ for suing someone for exercising their religious rights.

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

The florist gave referrals and was gracious about it, what more do you want? The AG is being an a$$ for suing someone for exercising their religious rights.

I KNEW you'd think only one party was honorable.. I suppose you think the gay couple should have just taken their seat in the back of the bus... I mean they should have just taken the referrals and kept QUIET...

My friend, graciousness has NOTHING to do with rights.. The law does.

What if I was VERY gracious with a black patron in my restaurant, and offered him an excellent meal in the kitchen? Or what if I went out of my way, being gracious, of course, and made a reservation for him at one of the black restaurants down the street? Would that be cool with you?

Excon