tvc184

  So it is "looks" that is the problem, not the sin. If you can't visually tell that someone is sinning at the moment, I can only presume by your statement that it is okay.    Apparently the people that discriminate based on religion only do so when the appearance is not liked.    I've get it. 

I have no problem with homosexuality being a sin in the Bible. I am just wondering if those that refuse service based on sexual transgressions from the Bible will also ban adulterers, people who have stolen anything, those that have lusted for or coveted anything from someone else, have given false witness, etc. I am assuming that they draw the sin line at one specific issue. ALL SINNERS WELCOME except homosexuals. It sounds a bit like Matthew 7:3 where Jesus spoke of pointing out a speck of sawdust in your neighbor's eye while ignoring the log in yours. Or perhaps it was when in John 8:7 Jesus spoke if the wonan sentenced to death by stoning, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. I think there are a lot of stone holders and sawdust pointers in the crowd that demands strictly adherence to the Bible as a means of rejecting public commerce (discimination) when it comes to one sin but completely ignores the rest. The Klan hides behind the Bible as their claim to their righteous indignation toward blacks. I wonder if that is likewise acceptable discrimination based on their view of the Bible or freedom of religion.

I never knew there was any other barbecue than Patillos until I was about 18 years old. It was the only place that I have ever eaten links until I was maybe 30 years old. 

  Go back and read the context.  :)   You said that it might not happen in SC but would happen in Ferguson.    With that in mind, the facts didn't stop them (in Ferguson) from protesting the first, second or third times (even after the officer was exonerated) so why would the facts in this case (officer already arrested and charged) stop them this time. 

..... and I think this officer needs to get a very good lawyer and try to make the best plea deal he can for the least amount of prison time that he thinks he can swing.

  True, the facts didn't stop them the first time, why should it this time?

People are going to protest and demand that..... wait, he has already been charged.

The officer has been arrested and charged with murder. What is the problem going to be?

    It makes sense to me.

I finally got around to reading the IN law. I can't see the controversy.   It reminds me of "Hands up, don't shoot" and "Romney has not filed an income tax return" which were both found to be outright lies and known to be outright lies when they were stated. It is a political agenda of convenience when no such reality exists. It is like someone saying today, "I demand that we end slavery in the USA now and quit waiting", all the while knowing that it ended 150 years ago. It is nothing but a straw man argument.   The actual law says that the "state" may not enforce any action that may substantially interfere with religion.    It speaks nothing of any protected class under federal law and speaks nothing of individuals or businesses.    The law says that "state action" (the prohibited act that goes against religion) is defined as "implementation or action based on implementation of a state or local law". I cannot contemplate how that is being portrayed as not serving people based on race, religion, national origin, etc.    The relief for a claimed grievance is the business that is being discriminated against (for example the company that does not want to bake a cake because the state forbids it) is to go to court and claim your religious freedom was discriminated against. The way the law looks to me, it is the bakery that has to file for the injunction or other relief. It is not the person that asks the cake to be baked. The law in no way allows individual discrimination by anyone.   Of course that is just the law and has nothing to do with the current political rant that is based on emotion of a claimed law that does not exist.    Back to your regularly scheduled arguments on religion that have nothing to do with this faux discrimination............... 

Billy was out playing golf today at the Garth House fund raiser......... for what that's worth.  :D   I went to a couple of schools with him back in my youth like Intoxilyzer update and Standardized Field Sobriety Tests.... all when he was a DPS trooper. 

    No man, they're just wannabe's. No real harm............... 

Bad crimes can and will happen anywhere at any time. No one is immune including good cities, good families or good schools. People are individuals and they walk among us. Because there are bad people does not mean that a culture in a city, school district, individual school or family is corrupt. 

  His mother was an American, she lived for more than 10 years in this country and at least 5 years after her 14th birthday. That was the law prior to November 1986. After that time, any person born anywhere that has at least one parent that is a US citizen, that person is born as an American.    Cruz being born in 1970 qualifies as being an American at birth because his mother was born an American and lived the required number of years in the USA. 

  Sure, why wouldn't he be?

  Maybe I read the article incorrectly but I thought it said that he was "required" to sign up for it due to a provision in the law. If that is true, rather than show a question on why he is doing it, it is yet another valid reason for him to be against it as it is forcing his hand. 

  Is it the culture of a school? Was Columbine evil because of Klebold and Harris?    Perhaps it could be a bad person(s) amidst a group of good people........... 

    I understand the idea that you don't like what they did, think they were undermining the president, etc.   I can accept that as your honest opinion.     It is the calls of treason and other violations of the law (Logan Act) that makes your position untenable.    Not liking it? Great.   A crime because you don't like it? Not in the least. 

    Ted Cruz  1. Law clerk on US Fourth Circuit 2. Law clerk for Chief Justice William Rehnquist US Supreme Court 3. Private law practice 4. Domestic policy adviser to G. W. Bush 5. Associate Dept. Attorney General US Justice Department 6. Policy planner US Federal Trade Commission 7. Solicitor General, State of Texas (arguing 9 cases before the US Supreme Court) 8. United States senator   Barrack Obama 1. Community organizer 2. State legislator 3. Private law practice 4. United States senator       Yep, almost the same in experience. 

  Well....   He also said that he would make the world love us, he would close Gitmo within his first year, he would never raise taxes on the middle class even by a single penny, we could keep our doctor...........

There is no problem with a third party. The problem is that we would all have to do it and if "we all" thought alike to do such a thing, there would be no point in voting since "we all" woukd be thinking the same way to begin with. Good luck with that premise.

  Yes, the title seems completely bogus and is meant to skew the law's intent. Sensationalism at its finest.   Hard to believe, right? 

  Which has very little or nothing to do with this proposed law. 

  We have a couple of openings for dispatcher and for police officers.  ;)

It really just adds teeth to an existing law of interfering. It does not prohibit recording. It only prohibits people closing in on officers. It is only 25 feet so less than 10 yards. We routinely push people back at least that far anyway whether recording or not. With the new craze of videoing everything, people are getting within arms reach of the police and everyone else and shoving cameras in their faces. That makes for a dangerous situation for the police trying to conduct business.