NYC: Mosques 100, Wal-Marts 0.

[Michael Hardner]

Once again, nobody is saying "No Synagogues" or "No Mosques." You really kicked the hell outta that strawman though. Much like the litany of others you've stated.

Sorry - I responded to your assertion that nobody (i.e. "you") asserted that that nobody *suggested* otherwise. You did, though. That is, suggest. That is, otherwise.

You calling me on a strawman is like the strawman calling the strawman straw !

Edited August 17, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[dre]

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Clearly youre completely pain free then.

[GostHacked]

His point is wrong. When you have two pieces of private property, both zoned according to thier buyers needs, one doesn't get preferential treatment over the other.

A place of worship is not treated the same as a business in terms of property rights. That is just a simple fact Shady. If you have legal documentation stating me wrong, I'd love to see it.

A church is a place of worship and in the majority of cases they give something back to the community, people give willingly to the church to support its efforts and those efforts are felt in the immediate community.

A place of business is for itself and like Wal-Mart will risk the local economy to get maximum profit while taking from the community and not giving back anything.

One giveth, and one taketh.

Clarification.

They may not be treated different when it comes to property rights, but those who are making a stink about the Wal-Mart will be more effective at getting it banned.

I guess this has little to do with actual property rights.

Edited August 17, 2010 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

It still treats its employees better than Muslims treat woman, homosexuals, and non-believers.

Holy Crap ! All I can say is "boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooing" (i.e. stretchy sound, such as happens when you attach a slinky to a door knob and walk away with the other end)

Cities ban, and restrict lots of things. It doesn't mean you can just take something liberals hate, and then equate the two. If you're trying to draw a parallel, please start with things that are at least vaguely comparable.

[dre]

A place of worship is not treated the same as a business in terms of property rights. That is just a simple fact Shady. If you have legal documentation stating me wrong, I'd love to see it.

A church is a place of worship and in the majority of cases they give something back to the community, people give willingly to the church to support its efforts and those efforts are felt in the immediate community.

A place of business is for itself and like Wal-Mart will risk the local economy to get maximum profit while taking from the community and not giving back anything.

One giveth, and one taketh.

A US walmart basically IS a place of worship. In any case though... terrible thread. This POS is actually taking up hard drive space somewhere

[Michael Hardner]

Holy shit...

Is this seriously what passes for a thread here?

I'm seriously wondering.

How else are Wal Mart and a world religion similar or different ?

1. Wal Mart Greeter VS John the Baptist

2. Golden Rule VS Low Prices

3. Lots of Parking VS Limited Room in Heaven

etc.

[Shady]

It would be idiotic for the POTUS or mayor of NYC to speak out against unions to support Wal-Mart.

Not to support Wal-Mart. To support it's right to build a store. It's been given permission by the city to build, just as the mosque has been given permission by the city.

[Ratio]

So far Mayor Bloomberg and President Obama have been silent. But I'm sure they'll address this issue any day now.

From what I've been reading and hearing, property rights are paramount. And they're applied to everyone equally, regardless of race, religion, etc. Unless of course you're Wal-Mart. In which case you're given the opportunity for ZERO locations in the city of New York, population 8.4 million.

If you're keeping score at home. New York City: Mosques 100. Wal-Marts 0.

*Edit*

There are currently 30 mosques in Manhattan, and 100 in the entire city.

what are you angry that the US is finally taking steps to foster integration and togetherness?

sthu shady...

[dre]

Im actually really impressed that New York is trying to keep slave mart out. I wish my local authorities had done the same thing.

[Shady]

what are you angry that the US is finally taking steps to foster integration and togetherness?

Yes, the 100 mosques already in New York didn't foster enough so-called togetherness.

[Sir Bandelot]

Today for lunch I had some pistachios... nice.

[dre]

Today for lunch I had some pistachios... nice.

Pretty lucky... Im heating up a boring ass can of soup :angry:

[Guest American Woman]

Not to support Wal-Mart. To support it's right to build a store. It's been given permission by the city to build, just as the mosque has been given permission by the city.

And the union has the right to protest it.

Businesses and freedom of religion are two very different things. The right for the mosque to be built on that property is a given. No such right exists for corporations.

[Ratio]

Yes, the 100 mosques already in New York didn't foster enough so-called togetherness.

thats probably because of close minded biggots like you, who just cant stand the fact that epoepl are different. Muslims, like all so called "minorities" enrich the lives of americans and canadians alike, they contribute to our qulaity of life with their values, they bring us economic stability, they are peaceful and hugely appreciative of our democracies, without them, our countries would probably be bankrupted and boring.. no exotic restaurants, no diversity, ... just the same old bland eurotrash racism...

its time you start thanking them, instead of biting the hand that feeds you.

[Shady]

And the union has the right to protest it.

I agree. I've never once stated that they don't. As do people who wish to protest the mosque.

Businesses and freedom of religion are two very different things.

This isn't a case of freedom of religion. When you have two pieces of private property, both zoned according to thier owners needs, one doesn't get preferential treatment over the other.

The right for the mosque to be built on that property is a given.

That's not entirely true. They first needed approval by the city. Once it was determined the property wasn't of historical significance.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Shady

[Guest American Woman]

I agree. I've never once stated that they don't. As do people who wish to protest the mosque.

People have the right to protest the mosque, but they don't have the right to prevent the mosque from being built. Corporations and religious organizations do not have the same rights. There are no rights for corporations written into our laws as there is for religion.

This isn't a case of freedom of religion. When you have two pieces of private property, both zoned according to thier buyers needs, one doesn't get preferential treatment over the other.

Yes, one does. For the reasons already stated. Corporations rights aren't protected by law the way religions are.

That's not entirely true. They first needed approval by the city. Once it was determined the property wasn't of historical significance.

They could have built the mosque there even if the property was of historical significance. They just would have been limited as to what they would have been able to do regarding the original structure; they would have had to make do within the restrictions regarding its landmark status. Being granted landmark status didn't mean the building couldn't be converted entirely over to a mosque. It had nothing to do with their right to have a mosque on that property.

Edited August 17, 2010 by American Woman

[Shady]

People have the right to protest the mosque, but they don't have the right to prevent the mosque from being built.

That's what their protest is intended to do. Which is their right.

Corporations and religious organizations do not have the same rights. There are no rights for corporations written into our laws as there is for religion.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean the right to build a religions monument where ever you wish. It has never meant that. People of faith aren't granted extra rights in the constitution. Their buildings aren't provided extra rights compared to a non-believers building. There's a seperation of church and state, and an equal protection clause for a reason.

And tax exemption isn't a right, its a priviledge.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Shady

[GostHacked]

That's what their protest is intended to do. Which is their right.

Freedom of religion doesn't mean the right to build a religions monument where ever you wish. It has never meant that. People of faith aren't granted extra rights in the constitution. Their buildings aren't provided extra rights compared to a non-believers building. There's a seperation of church and state, and an equal protection clause for a reason.

And tax exemption isn't a right, its a priviledge.

Yer gonna LOVE this one Shady.

http://i.imgur.com/8iRwp.jpg

Edited August 17, 2010 by GostHacked

[Guest TrueMetis]

Yer gonna LOVE this one Shady.

http://i.imgur.com/8iRwp.jpg

[BubberMiley]

Wow. Everybody seems to be in agreement. They have the right to build their mosque, people have the right to protest their building the mosque, and being considerate is a virtue. Amazing such agreement can withstand multiple threads and hundreds of pages without being boring.

Wait, nevermind.

Now, about that tax exemption status for churches, there's got to be some debate on that one. Talk about an archaic law from the 17th century.

Edited August 18, 2010 by BubberMiley

[Sir Bandelot]

Pretty lucky... Im heating up a boring ass can of soup :angry:

I like soup. You should try making your own, do you ever do that? It's easy. I got some pretty good recipes that I can share, vegetarian soups that are all real tasty. Of course, you could always add some meat, if you like.

Sweet Potato/ Red Lentil

Cauliflower

Brocolli

Potato Onion

Green lentil with veggie dogs

Red pepper & tomato with little shell pastas... my favorite

Remember you are what you eat

Edited August 18, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[BubberMiley]

I don;t mind the George t-shirts at wal-mart because they have a little bit of spandex in them, making them more stretchy than just straight cotton.

Otherwise, I just go to Superstore or Canadian Tire or Zellers. I find Wal-mart too busy.

But would guaranteeing freedom of retail activity in the constitution be the next step after guaranteeing freedom of religious activity? I assume that's the point of this thread--the lameness of the U.S. constitution?