California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[angelatc]

There is no explicit allowing for "free speech zones", the only thing it has to say is or abridging the freedom of speech. It is not unconstitutional to regulate free speech to the point where it is decided where the speech occurs, you just can't stop it.

Tell it to Giuliani. People are allowed to sell books on the streets of New York, even though he desperately tried to send them back into the bookstores and such, where booksellers belonged.

But the Courts ruled that they are allowed to sell books any damned place they want, with no permits or permission, because the First Amendment protects their right to do that.

Same with artists.

But you think that same law says that I can't wave a sign or wear a t-shirt,on public proerty unless the State tells me I can.

But that's not an abridgement.

<bangs head.>

 

[jmdrake]

No, they didn't. The Government in Nazi Germany did what the churches are doing now, pitting human beings against one another by dividing them into groups ("gays, "jews", "gypsies"). The government could have only done this with the consent of the people. If children are taught from a young age that this is wrong, it cannot happen.

I see that you chose to ignore my reference to communists oppressing gays and instead tried to attack the Nazi argument based on the "church controlling the Nazis" argument. Well here's a link to homosexuality being criminalized in the USSR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Latvia

I guess you'll somehow still find a way to say "the Christians made them do it?"

 

[angelatc]

Hospitals can only operate in the U.S. with the government, because they use the land that belongs to the people. As a registered business, they must comply with the laws of the U.S. What you say would only be true if the U.S. were a completely libertarian country, which it is not.

Are you saying that the hospitals are relying on a federal hospital visitor policy? Because that's laughable.

 

[Tdcci]

Gee I got to visit my uncle in the hospital before he died. We even said a prayer for him. But I'm not his "spouse". And yes he was in intensive care, unconscious and visiting hours were over. This whole "spouse hospital visitation" thing is a red herring wrapped in a straw man. But if someone was really paranoid about that he/she could always designate his/her significant other with power of attorney and get the same hospital decision making rights as a spouse. It's just a matter of filling out the paperwork. But you've got to fill out paperwork to get married too.

Plausible, since you were a direct relative. How about getting a death certificate, recieving life insurance, and social security benefits for your children? Could your uncle's husband do that?

 

[jmdrake]

Tdcci, I've been patiently awaiting a response to my question. Was it overlooked intentionally, or by mistake?

Was your question an intelligent attack on her "logic"? If so then it was overlooked intentionally.

 

[Tdcci]

Are you saying that the hospitals are relying on a federal hospital visitor policy? Because that's laughable.

No, I'm saying that while it is true that hospitals are private they are not immune from the law, be it anti-discrimination law or competition law.

 

[Tdcci]

I see that you chose to ignore my reference to communists oppressing gays and instead tried to attack the Nazi argument based on the "church controlling the Nazis" argument.

I'm not defending the communists?

 

[jmdrake]

Plausible, since you were a direct relative. How about getting a death certificate, recieving life insurance, and social security benefits for your children? Could your uncle's husband do that?

1) A visiting pastor (not his) and church elder went in too. They weren't related.

2) What part of GET A POWER OF ATTORNEY do you NOT understand?

Anyone with power of attorney could do everything you've mentioned and more. In fact you don't even need power of attorney to receive life insurance benefits. You just need to be named as a beneficiary.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm not defending the communists?

No. Just sounding like them with the whole "the state must protect the children from the tyranny of the family" rant. But that wasn't my point. You act like Christians are out to persecute gays. But gays have gotten a much better shake in Christian America than they did in the atheist Soviet Union. You're worried about controlling individual "beliefs". I'm worried about controlling state power.

 

[Tdcci]

2) What part of GET A POWER OF ATTORNEY do you NOT understand?

The "get" part. An attorney is not an acceptable alternative to legalized same-sex marriage.

 

[jmdrake]

lol at all you guys arguing with Tdcci. Tdcci is obviously a joke account. I mean how can you seriously argue with one who rants on about teaching tolerance then turn right around and call Christian parents, unaccountable tyrannies...

QFT. She also hasn't figured out yet what "abridge" means.

 

[Tdcci]

No. Just sounding like them with the whole "the state must protect the children from the tyranny of the family" rant. But that wasn't my point.

If the state has archaic views about gays, and the family has archaic views about gays, there's no difference in what results, except the state can change through a democratic process, so I'm putting my money on the state.

You act like Christians are out to persecute gays. But gays have gotten a much better shake in Christian America than they did in the atheist Soviet Union.

America is not and was not Christian
The Soviet Union is not and was not Atheist

You're worried about controlling individual "beliefs". I'm worried about controlling state power.

Individual beliefs are fine, it's only when individuals are organized into lynch mobs etc they need to be restrained.

 

[angelatc]

No, they didn't. The Government in Nazi Germany did what the churches are doing now, pitting human beings against one another by dividing them into groups ("gays, "jews", "gypsies"). The government could have only done this with the consent of the people. If children are taught from a young age that this is wrong, it cannot happen.

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ - You're delusional.

One can only dream.

Wow. You'd be willing to gas the Christians. So apparently your Utopia is one where you and your judges get to actually be God, not merely believe in one.

And yet if we were to post something like "gas all the gays," we'd be banned in a New Yrok second from this board.

Why are some forms of hate speech protected, again? Because you say so?

Now I see the irony there. I also see how absurd it is to say that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" with no support from science. Then again, all the church's political positions (abortion and evolution in school comes to mind) defy science.

I'm sure you don't. That's intolerancce for ya. It's only wrong when your enemies do it.

 

[jmdrake]

The "get" part. An attorney is not an acceptable alternative to legalized same-sex marriage.

You have to "get" a marriage license too.

 

[angelatc]

No, I'm saying that while it is true that hospitals are private they are not immune from the law, be it anti-discrimination law or competition law.

ANd I'm saying that you don't need the government. Vote with your wallet.

 

[angelatc]

I'm not defending the communists?

Just for kicks, what part of the Communist Manifesto do you disagree with, and why?

 

[jmdrake]

If the state has archaic views about gays, and the family has archaic views about gays, there's no difference in what results, except the state can change through a democratic process, so I'm putting my money on the state.

Well be glad most Christians do not share your totalitarian views. Otherwise we'd band together and ban your viewpoint.

America is not and was not Christian
The Soviet Union is not and was not Atheist

A) Straw man. I never said America "is or was Christian". That wasn't a part of my argument and you know it.

B) The Soviet Union "is not" (thank God). But it WAS atheist. Denial of God was a requirement for communist party membership and communist party membership was required for full participation in society.

Individual beliefs are fine, it's only when individuals are organized into lynch mobs etc they need to be restrained.

The beliefs don't need to be restrained. Only the lynch mob. The more you try to "restrain" beliefs the more likely it is that you'll have a backlash and CREATE a lynch mob.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/hsx/ - You're delusional.

The government reflects the will of the people.

Wow. You'd be willing to gas the Christians. So apparently your Utopia is one where you and your judges get to actually be God, not merely believe in one.

And yet if we were to post something like "gas all the gays," we'd be banned in a New Yrok second from this board.

No, I wouldn't. That's the difference between myself and the religious, I value human life, and believe that once you're dead, you're dead, so I do not throw death sentences around all willy-nilly. Christianity would be treated as any other mental illness would, in a mental hospital, so once they get out they can be productive members of society. Judges would not be God; they would actually exist.

Why are some forms of hate speech protected, again? Because you say so?

You're looking at it the wrong way. Think of it like this: Some forms of hate speech are not protected by free speech. If they are not considered hate speech, they are free speech.

 

[angelatc]

Individual beliefs are fine, it's only when individuals are organized into lynch mobs etc they need to be restrained.

Heh. So, the Christians are organizing their children into lynch mobs by not sending them to school.


I see.

 

[Tdcci]

Just for kicks, what part of the Communist Manifesto do you disagree with, and why?

I don't know, I haven't read it all.