1 - 10 Next
A reporter in India? Gawker? A music producer? My God! The persecution this young man has endured! Thank you for reporting on the REAL victim in Boston and not wasting time talking about those people mourning the dead or suffering from their horrendous injuries. This young man was called names by three people no one has ever heard of!!!! What has our country (and India) come to? Please don't report any suspicious behavior, as Ms. Malkin suggests! You might be called names on Twitter too!!!
She broke the law. She is receiving the consequences for breaking the law. If she is objecting on religious grounds, then why is she now whining about the consequences she should be willing to deal with as part of her objection? Also, if she is so religious, why does she serve homosexuals at all? Why does she serve people who have had abortions? Who are divorced? If her religious beliefs are so strong, why is she only against gay marriage? Plus, if we start saying that the law does not apply based on religious beliefs, then shouldn't sharia law be recognized in our society? Is that where we should start taking our legal system? Only obey the laws you think apply to you?
That is one part of the amendment referring to anti-discrimination policies, policies which mirror most anti-discrimination policies. This does not mean that homosexuals are actively seeking this coverage nor intend to.99% of the amendment has nothing to do with homosexuals at all. This article strongly indicates that the amendments entire purpose is to offer this type of insurance to homosexuals. That is an extreme falsehood. To use it as an introduction to a rant about abortion is just pandering and preying on conservative fears about homosexiuals to sell a lie. If Shapiro wanted to write about the trial of the doctor in the abortion clinic,, he should have done that. The lead in regarding the amendment is ridiculous and self-serving
That has nothing to do with the amendment mentioned in this article.
In response to:

Liberals Go Crazy For The Mentally Ill

KevNC Wrote: Apr 11, 2013 10:29 AM
So, the counterproposal to the ineffective proposed gun control laws is to push for equally ineffective laws that would arbitrarily institutionalize people for mental illness? Treatment is not mentioned in this brilliant plan, just locking potentially millions of people away for an indeterminate amount of time at taxpayer expense. I only wish that this was satirical or hyperbole. Sadly, she is actually pushing this nonsense as a plan to resolve this situation.
She violated a law that is very clear in its wording. She needs to accept the consequences that come with taking a stance, not play the victim. Also, if she is objecting on religious grounds, then why does she feel it is ok to sell to homosexuals under other circumstances? The Bible doesn't say that only same-sex marriage is wrong. She can't claim her religious beliefs are being violated if she is being selectively religious. She violated the law, and now she needs to face the consequences for that.
Perhaps reading the proposed amendment might be useful. It is not about homosexuals. The amendment is about what procedures will be reimbursed through insurance. Sexual orientation is only briefly mentioned in the list of groups of individuals who cannot be discriminated against under the law. To write an article stating that the amendment's purpose it to provide insurance coverage for infertility treatment for same sex couples is a flat out lie and a pathetic and illogical lead in to a rant about abortion. It took me less than 5 minutes to look up the amendment and find out the facts involved. How sad that so many posters simply bought this garbage on face value without checking any facts for themselves.
Would that have made it ok for him to show pictures of a gun? What about when it's a student who actually does have a problem? Should the teachers ignore all possible threats to spare the feelings of the morons who ignore the rules of the school and common sense?
So you think that a picture of a bb gun is on the same level as one of the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement? Also, at no point did I suggest that the kid was sympathetic with school shooters. However, it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to understand that showing off your new gun purchase in school is going to raise eyebrows and questions. If the school doesn't ask and children die, who will you blame then? The student should have known better and so should the parents. I would like other information than an already secondhand story from the father that he received 5 days after the fact before I pass judgement on what the teacher might have said. Not too much to ask.
Dedicated camera? What are you talking about? Policy wise, if the teacher thought he was a security risk he would not have returned the camera and would have been required by law to report the student. The teacher doesn't have the authority to determine that the student is not a threat. Also, asking two questions is hardly grilling the kid. I do teach. Students at my school, like most schools, are not permitted to bring cameras to school. In the current political atmosphere, the student and the parent should know better than to show off pictures of a gun, even a bb gun, at a school. Taking 5 days to tell his parents shows how completely unthreatened and unaffected the kid was by this.
1 - 10 Next