There is nothing wrong with including Nativity Scenes... just as long as Herbivore Dinosaurs are included with the Carnivores. The scene below simply isn't inclusive.
She couldn't be "fired". She needed to be removed from office. Prosecuted? Cute, she was the elected Government Official who violated her oath to faithfully execute the law, but she is the victim because she was held accountable for her actions.
HAW! Lets string some copper wire around Debs and Gompers and keep saying the above and we'll get adequate green energy to power Terre Haute, Indiana.
That is so poorly expressed, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I get it. The bounds of such groups are mostly shifting and subjective, conveniently so for those wishing to change behaviors via litigation.
You sure of that?
You say that like it's a law of nature and not a policy choice. The governor of Florida has been firing local elected officials; I don't see why the governor of Kentucky couldn't. Plus there's no good reason for County Clerk to be an elective office in the first place rather than generic civil service -- it's not supposed to be a policy-making job.
By that standard, a criminal who's convicted based on planted heroin, suppression of exculpatory evidence and a confession extracted by torture isn't a victim, just "held accountable" for his actions.
Sorry, for the benefit of the abstraction-challenged, I'll rephrase.
Wait, what? The Canadian Taliban are gay?!? As far as I can see, the doctrine that groups high on the progressive stack have a human right to not have progressives' opinions about them disagreed with is a doctrine not restricted to those of any sexual preference in particular, and I bet about 90% of the theocrats punishing dissent in Canada are straight.
About the OP? Absolutely.
While I agree with what you're saying I don't see the relevance. How are you showing there is faith involved in this situation, other than in the mayor's refusal?
Ordering the display of the 10 commandments clearly is unconstitutional and thus an illegal order and should be refused.
I don't think the law requires pride flags at a certain time of the year per se, but rather that the decision was made to display them and the mayor refused.
link
As far as I'm aware, she had to be impeached by the Legislature. That'd be state law, not law of nature.
Not exactly certain how that is relevant. She'd go from an elected government official acting against the law to a hired elected government elected official acting against the law.
Analogies don't work by simply alleging them. In fact, your analogy isn't even coherent. Davis was the Government and was persecuting two citizens based on her personal beliefs.
And the Canadian Supreme Court ruled as such. But I applaud the depth of your knowledge about Alberta Human Rights Panel decisions dating back 16 years ago.
In the mayor's refusal?!? What faith is involved in that?!?
You don't know? How is it possible that you don't know?
No. What's your point? There wasn't an "other event" celebrating Straight Month either, with or without a special flag. What McQuaker said about flags is equally true of celebratory events themselves. So how the heck is a government not celebrating any sexual orientation at all supposed to be discriminatory?
Before we get into what I do or don't understand, we need to clear something up: the "You" and the "you" in that paragraph don't appear to have the same referent. In this analogy of yours, who is the referent of "you"? Who is the Nazi-like defendant claiming that he or she doesn't discriminate against LGT... people anymore so everything is now okay? Whom is the sentence to celebrate Pride Month and fly a Pride flag the Nuremburg-like well-deserved punishment for previous acts of discrimination by?
Indeed so. If the Model Train Club is holding a special celebration, and asks the city to sponsor it and contribute, and the city council votes not to deploy taxpayer-supplied funds for that purpose, when is that grounds for progressives to infer that model train hobbyists are being discriminated against?
To be fair, I think the thing they were found responsible for was more along the lines of what they were/are: bigoted assholes who would, given the opportunity, return to causing harm; and who seek a path of action towards that opportunity.
And having a constitutional prohibition against having an established religion is a good thing, yes? Don't you think fining a teacher for refusing to display the Ten Commandments would be inappropriate and oppressive and theocratic and reprehensible even in a country whose constitution permits it? I was making an ethical judgment, not a legal one.
The status quo doesn't need to be told it's ok to be that way. And there's no celebration involved in flying a flag. It's just a "you're welcome". And in refusing to fly the flag the mayor is saying "you are not welcome."
Of course it is a thing. It is the national flag. Straight people were not being put in jail or discriminated against in the country because they were straight. It was their flag that was being flown in Ottawa and the provincial capitals.
