Conquer Club

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/05/michigan-town-sued-barring-non-christians-living-within-limits/

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is requiring a tiny Methodist-affiliated Michigan town to show documentation of their exemption from the federal Fair Housing Act after a nearby inclusiveness group sued them for barring non-Christians from living within their limits.

Apparently you aren't allowed to have a community where people agree on things. All land in the United States must, by law, be owned by Chinese state-owned companies.

Well, if you are living in a democracy, you must follow rules made by the majority. Thus if the majority decided that you can't refuse people based on their religion, you can't decide within a smaller group of people to refuse people based on their religion.
Looks like a good example of a functionning democracy to me.

Time to go Judge Shopping and get some perestroika. Lol

Donelladan wrote:Well, if you are living in a democracy, you must follow rules made by the majority. Thus if the majority decided that you can't refuse people based on their religion, you can't decide within a smaller group of people to refuse people based on their religion.
Looks like a good example of a functionning democracy to me.

That's convenient that people who don't live in a place are conveniently allowed to decide how it should be governed.

You're actually defending this? Surprised....

KoolBak wrote:You're actually defending this? Surprised....

Michigan is a big enough state. If you don't like the rules there, move somewhere else. I don't understand why people can't just leave other peaceful people alone. Misery loves company.

America is not a democracy... otherwise, carry on...

thegreekdog wrote:America is not a democracy... otherwise, carry on...

lol, it sure isn't...

With a population of 133 I doubt they even have a gas station. Also, by the population it seems people aren't beating down the doors to get in (religious or not). Must not be rich either as $ draws people and businesses. The reporter should have added the population of the 1960 census, that would be interesting to see the trends. Likely, win or loose, the place will remain a sleepy town at best a bump in the road.

It's a double standard. It's like saying these group of people are exempt from the law because they have a small community vs towns and cities must follow this law. I don't see a point in defending this really, you can't be your own governing body that overrides state or federal regulation.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:It's a double standard. It's like saying these group of people are exempt from the law because they have a small community vs towns and cities must follow this law. I don't see a point in defending this really, you can't be your own governing body that overrides state or federal regulation.

Except one difference between the United States of America and Canada that I find interesting, is the way States have the power to make their own decisions about things that are against federal law. That sets up lots of double standards.

Here you couldn't even suggest a town with special laws. The exception being on a reserve, they are like very small states here. Even that exception is subject to federal laws. You can sell cigarettes and gasoline there without tax but not marijuana yet.

Marijuana laws is a good recent example.
In Canada no Provinces can allow sales until the Federal Govenment legalizes it in July. While in the USA there have been several states to legalize it yet Federally it is not legalized.

It also goes the other way. If your federal government does legalize something there will likely remain some states that will not.

Gay marriage is another recent example, once the Canadian federal government made that legal all provences had to accept it, a few of them did not like that, but have no choice. I'm not following how that is shaping up in the USA but think it's still illegal in some states. Some states still have anti homosexuality laws don't they? Never mind getting married.

There was a documentary about a white supremisist guy that hoped to make a town in one of the Dakotas into some sort of white people only place. Best part is he didn't notice they had a guy that was not white living there before him. Dummy might have got further in a town where it was only white people living there to start with. One of the white supremisist guys that moved there was a mixed up young married guy, pretty sad really. Once the other people that lived there figured out what was going on they were annoyed someone moved there and wanted one of their neighbors to leave because of skin color. Eventually they burned down a couple of buildings and cleared the lots. I can't remember exact details but one was semi abandoned and the white supremisists hoped to make it some sort of head quarters.

I think this stems from the difference in histories between Canada and the US. The original thirteen colonies were primarily self-sufficient relative to each other and nominally under the control of the British crown. The founders took presumably great pains to note that the colonies were separate entities. The term "United States" was a plural term (i.e. "These United States" or "The United States are") up until about the time of the Civil War. Local and state politics continue to follow that tradition to a certain extent. The US constitution also provides some rules on what the federal government can control compared to what state governments can control. I have no idea if the Canadian equivalent document has the same rules. But the reason the US constitution has these rules is because of the differences in the original 13 colonies and how they were primarily their own entities.

Donelladan wrote:Well, if you are living in a democracy, you must follow rules made by the majority. Thus if the majority decided that you can't refuse people based on their religion, you can't decide within a smaller group of people to refuse people based on their religion.
Looks like a good example of a functionning democracy to me.

Let's accept your definition of democracy for a second. It's okay for a majority to tell a minority how to behave, unless you're talking about quite a small area, in which case there is no decision to be made because both should just accept the decision of the authority that represents more people.

I guess by that logic the UN should dictate all laws of sovereign states, because the world is bigger than any nation state.

thegreekdog wrote:I think this stems from the difference in histories between Canada and the US. The original thirteen colonies were primarily self-sufficient relative to each other and nominally under the control of the British crown. The founders took presumably great pains to note that the colonies were separate entities. The term "United States" was a plural term (i.e. "These United States" or "The United States are") up until about the time of the Civil War. Local and state politics continue to follow that tradition to a certain extent. The US constitution also provides some rules on what the federal government can control compared to what state governments can control. I have no idea if the Canadian equivalent document has the same rules. But the reason the US constitution has these rules is because of the differences in the original 13 colonies and how they were primarily their own entities.

Yeah it's interesting how it's human nature to want to homogenize the country, but then complain because we want a certain place to continue to be allowed to be different from the others.

As for Canada one of the more controversial prime ministers brought the constitution from the queen in the 1980s so we could pretend to be more independent like the US did a couple hundred years ago when they broke away.

mrswdk wrote:

Donelladan wrote:Well, if you are living in a democracy, you must follow rules made by the majority. Thus if the majority decided that you can't refuse people based on their religion, you can't decide within a smaller group of people to refuse people based on their religion.
Looks like a good example of a functionning democracy to me.

Let's accept your definition of democracy for a second. It's okay for a majority to tell a minority how to behave, unless you're talking about quite a small area, in which case there is no decision to be made because both should just accept the decision of the authority that represents more people.

I guess by that logic the UN should dictate all laws of sovereign states, because the world is bigger than any nation state.

Well, probably in the future ( not near) we'll end up having a world governement making law for the whole world. Yup.

Not the case for the UN since it's not at all the purpose of this institution.
But let's say tomorrow, every president and parlement of the democractic countries around the world decide to give this kind of power to a united nations institution, well then from the day after tomorrow this UN would indeed make the law for every country. ( well ofc, for many countries we'd have to change the constitution first so it wouldn't be that easy, but it could happen).

Also, it's not "my" definition of a democracy, that is basically what living in a democracy means. The majority decide. I understand it might be a foreign concept for you

So if my neighbourhood watch decides to not allow pedophiles on the block, should that be allowed?

Maybe not. Let's say one moves on the street and everyone on the street except the pedophile decides to move to the next street over and then we make a rule - no pedophiles? Why is he allowed to follow us? How come I'm not allowed to select my neighbors if we all mutually agree? The pedophiles are just trolling us by following us around the country.

DoomYoshi wrote:So if my neighbourhood watch decides to not allow pedophiles on the block, should that be allowed?

Maybe not. Let's say one moves on the street and everyone on the street except the pedophile decides to move to the next street over and then we make a rule - no pedophiles? Why is he allowed to follow us? How come I'm not allowed to select my neighbors if we all mutually agree? The pedophiles are just trolling us by following us around the country.

In Texas (USA) pedophiles can live anywhere they want A) if the register with the local government B) not within a certain distance of a school.

To get around that they keep registering with slightly different names (John Smith, J. R. Smith, J. Ray Smith) and slightly different addresses. You can search them on the internet but which of 10 different addresses are they in?

HitRed wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:So if my neighbourhood watch decides to not allow pedophiles on the block, should that be allowed?

Maybe not. Let's say one moves on the street and everyone on the street except the pedophile decides to move to the next street over and then we make a rule - no pedophiles? Why is he allowed to follow us? How come I'm not allowed to select my neighbors if we all mutually agree? The pedophiles are just trolling us by following us around the country.

In Texas (USA) pedophiles can live anywhere they want A) if the register with the local government B) not within a certain distance of a school.

To get around that they keep registering with slightly different names (John Smith, J. R. Smith, J. Ray Smith) and slightly different addresses. You can search them on the internet but which of 10 different addresses are they in?

I know, it's exactly the same thing. You aren't allowed discriminating against religion, race or pedophilia. But why can't I agree with my neighbors to be good people?

DoomYoshi wrote:

HitRed wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:So if my neighbourhood watch decides to not allow pedophiles on the block, should that be allowed?

Maybe not. Let's say one moves on the street and everyone on the street except the pedophile decides to move to the next street over and then we make a rule - no pedophiles? Why is he allowed to follow us? How come I'm not allowed to select my neighbors if we all mutually agree? The pedophiles are just trolling us by following us around the country.

In Texas (USA) pedophiles can live anywhere they want A) if the register with the local government B) not within a certain distance of a school.

To get around that they keep registering with slightly different names (John Smith, J. R. Smith, J. Ray Smith) and slightly different addresses. You can search them on the internet but which of 10 different addresses are they in?

I know, it's exactly the same thing. You aren't allowed discriminating against religion, race or pedophilia. But why can't I agree with my neighbors to be good people?

Also if he/she is following you around, you can probably get a restraining order.