Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see see where those words have any bearing to your claim. She wasn't requesting the sermons for her personal amusement or enlightenment. It was to approve or disapprove of their speech inside the church in regards to this lawsuit.
Are you familiar with the term "discovery"? When there is a legal action, both plaintiff and defendant have the right to review relevant information and documentation.
It has nothing to do with approving or disapproving, it is a fact finding process.
From the legal dictionary on law.com:
discovery
n. the entire efforts of a party to a lawsuit and his/her/its attorneys to obtain information before trial through demands for production of documents, depositions of parties and potential witnesses, written interrogatories (questions and answers written under oath), written requests for admissions of fact, examination of the scene and the petitions and motions employed to enforce discovery rights. The theory of broad rights of discovery is that all parties will go to trial with as much knowledge as possible and that neither party should be able to keep secrets from the other (except for constitutional protection against self-incrimination). Often much of the fight between the two sides in a suit takes place during the discovery period.
Ummmmmm. Do you have ANY idea what "The Onion" is?
I get this feeling that was sarcasm after the comment about using an "opinion" source. I could be taking it out of context but I'm pretty sure that's the case.
I get this feeling that was sarcasm after the comment about using an "opinion" source. I could be taking it out of context but I'm pretty sure that's the case.
I still have a right to believe what I want, and I should still have that right to voice that belief without being venomized by the left. Thanks for NOTHING.
Dude, if you can't comprehend the statement "I'm a big fan of the First Amendment" that's on you.
You want to complain? Then do it. Take to the streets. That right was given to you in the Bill of Rights. But don't whine if people don't like what you have to say. You feel venomized? Really? When you're sitting in comfort and posting on the internet? Americans have been bashed in the head and hit with tear gas while using the First Amendment. And worse. NOBODY get a pass from criticism. You're not special, so buck up. If you can't take having people disagree with you.....that's on you too.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 10-24-2014 at 09:13 PM..
"Please educate yourself" is nothing more than a cheap tactic to look superior. I know how the legal system works. That has nothing to do with my point that this new law is unfair to people who already had an established business.
I get it that it is the law. Are you simply incapable of discussing this topic without retreating to "it's the law, it's the law!"? This is also a democracy, and we the people have the right to protest unjust laws and complain to our representatives in government.
Actually we are a Federal Republic, huge difference. Where did you go to school?
And yet you have people like transgenders who constantly keep switching out their sexual orientation. Doesn't sound innate to me.
Even for you that is a crass misrepresentation of reality. Such people feel they were born the "wrong" sex. They wish to change from one to the other. They do not "constantly switch" at all. Are you so desperate to be offended by such people that you have to invent things for them to disgust yourself even more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
No I think the law should have never been created in the first place. Sexual orientation is a farce.
How so? I assume your sexual orientation is "heterosexual"? Is that a farce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Absolutely horrific things, but what does that have to do with the claim that gays are presently struggling against a level of discrimination that is exactly the same as the civil rights era?
As I pointed out in another one of my many posts that you simply ignored, it is not that they are facing the same levels of discrimination, but they are facing the same _Arguments_ That were used to justify that discrimination.
There are genuine parallels to be drawn there, despite you attempting to invalidating them by showing the results of it are not the same.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
