- Sep 16, 2014
- United States
That's not the actual argumentThe difference between the covid mandates and MMR mandates is one stops viruses from circulating and the other doesn't. If something is only helping me, why should I be forced to get it?
Because you're hilariously bad at risk assessment? Soda pop didn't kill 6.5 million people over the last two years, leaving survivors with a wide variety of neurological and physical side effects.Are you gonna force people not the drink pop (which causes far more death and medical issues than covid could ever cause)? There's a reason why haven't had pop in over 20 years.
Lmao, what does this even mean?Even abortion has more people it's affecting than the covid vaccine.
I didn't realize the prisoners were free to leave. It might not be chattel slavery as practiced in the US, but it's definitely slaveryAnd the difference between having prisoners work and owning people is massive.
I mean, the government would have to recognize the religion. The faith-based hospitals would have to recognize the religion. The insurance companies would have to recognize the religion. Oh, and you'd have to convince people that they had to convert to a religion, leaving their old one behind.Gay people could just make their own church and have marriage if the government didn't recognize marriage and the normal churches wouldn't marry them so how would they be unequal in that scenario? The could do exactly what straight people could then. You actually have to be disadvantaged in some way to not be equal.
Putting aside the fact that the Declaration of Independence *is not a legal document*, it wasn't. Meaning that every state set their own rules. And guess what fucking happened. Weird how the Constitution didn't do anything to prevent rampant inequalities for centuriesWhere is that written in the Declaration or Constitution?
Yes, I'm sure the activists of the time just never thought about that.It still has to be argued, I really don't understand how you don't understand this. If you were told you can't say something and didn't use the 1st amendment as your defense, then that's on you.
They used the 14th amendment, numbnuts. How were the arguments so bad that 4 justices rejected them on purely legal grounds?BECAUSE OF THE ARGUMENTS...
Wait, but those are the cities you claim black people are fleeing fromMost people live in very populated areas (I wanna say it's like 80% without re-looking it up) and those people aren't very racist at all. Maybe the majority of the land of the US is racist but not most of the people.
It's either a right that can be given federally or not. And the Supreme Court said it's not. Which would make a federal law irrelevantAGAIN, YOU DON'T GET IT, IT'S THE FUCKING ARGUMENTS!!! Roe wasn't argued well at all, they didn't use the 14th amendment for example, they didn't do what RGB said should've been argued. The manner in which Roe was argued, it wasn't the federal government's right to give. If you argue it like RGB wanted, then it might be.
Yes, you seem to claim that a whole other person has the right to use somebody else's body without consent, permanently changing and in many cases damaging it.You're just ignoring the fact that there's a whole other body present in the abortion debate. If it was just women having a right to do with their body what they want, it wouldn't be a thing that is argued now here in the US and literally the rest of the world.