Captdon (05-24-2019)
While the final bill was stripped of language that would have permitted the state to prosecute local officials criminally, it contributes toward the blurring of the line between hate speech and religious expression - or, more exactly in this case, between support for hate speech and religious expression. If a municipality chose not to do business with a company whose owners advocated for organized atheism (pardon the oxymoron), or they were publicly opposed to interracial marriage on religious grounds (yes, those people do exist), or who contributed financial support to Muslim charities, would Texas legislators rush to clamp down on that move, as well? Chick-fil-A's owners continue to support groups and organizations that teach, preach and practice discrimination against LGBQT individuals; that is, of course, their right; but if locally elected representatives of the people choose not to do business with either those organizations or those who support them, the state should not require that they do so.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
T, are you a racist?
Wolf, are you a racist?
Mr D, are you a racist?
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
silvereyes (06-02-2019)
Chris, are you a racist?
I wonder if we'll have any legal positivists left after this thread.
Whoever criticizes capitalism, while approving immigration, whose working class is its first victim, had better shut up. Whoever criticizes immigration, while remaining silent about capitalism, should do the same.
~Alain de Benoist
Chris (05-23-2019)