I am not saying Park 51 would have no case to make. The fact that stopping them from building a church would impinge upon the practice of their faith is NOT something that would be debatable.
But it certainly IS debatable, and that case would have to be successfully made to the court, if they sought to challenge a denial to build the mosque. I agree, in YOUR mind it's not debatable, which is why you aren't debating it!
It is not based on whether you think it was okay, you stupid fuck. It would be a fact of the case entered into evidence and the state would not have anything to challenge that fact.
As I already stated, the state would have PLENTY to challenge that fact! Like the fact that there are numerous other mosques in the area, and the fact that the state is not prohibiting the building of all mosques, or even this particular mosque, at a different location. Obviously, the state's position is not based on bias or prejudice toward the Muslim religion.
The state WOULD have stopped them from building a place of worship, period. The court would then decide whether the action was justified.
I thought it wasn't really a mosque? It was a "community center" with a weight room and indoor pool and stuff? Isn't one of the left's main points, that this is NOT a MOSQUE?
Yes, the court would decide whether the action was justified, and whether it constituted a violation of the 1st Amendment right to freedom of worship. You don't know how that ruling may be decided, yet you seem to continue arguing as if the ruling has already been determined, and found in favor of the mosque builders. That's just not reality. This is basically the only point I have made, I don't know how the court would rule either, they may indeed find that it's a violation of their constitutional rights, I don't know. That's the difference in our positions here, you claim you do know, I am claiming neither of us know. Thanks for conceding my point is valid.
That was not the precedent set. They expanded public use, they did not state the government could use it to seize your property without cause.
Again, I am reasonably certain that if eminent domain is used by NYC, it will probably cite a cause, and most likely, it will not be to deny Muslims the right to worship. Just a guess there... New Yorkers are nuts, they could argue otherwise, but it doesn't seem like a valid consideration at this point.
STFU, this is not about violation of a zoning law and I am sure they are willing to comply with those laws.
Yeah, you're "sure" about a whole lot of shit, I see!
How about
YOU STFU! Moron!
Your argument is stupid and would be rejected because it does not meet the requirement that the state action be narrowly focused. The state has a means of dealing with violent criminals that you claim the mosque would have to be protected from.
"The State" is not obligated to present a case FOR denying a building permit, ass! They can just fucking deny the goddamn permit, and they can use any number of legal means to do that, including eminent domain and public safety concerns. At that point, the Muslims could challenge their action with a lawsuit, claiming infringement of liberty, but that case would have to be made, and it would be up to the Muslims to make the case and the State to defend it. In no instance is the state required to meet any fucking requirements.
The threat of a lynch mob was not a reason to allow southern states to oppose integration.
No one claimed it was. Straw MAN!
A judge is not going to pretend that the state suddenly decided that the property was needed for a school. A look at the facts will clearly demonstrate that the action was motivated by a desire to stop the church from being built.
Again, if a judge is prejudiced by thinking something was "suddenly decided" by one of the parties, he must recuse himself and allow another judge to preside over the case. This is not about when the state decided what, it has nothing to do with the case. The facts may demonstrate from a plaintiffs perspective, the motivations behind the actions, but the state would also have an opportunity to refute those opinions and present their own case in defense. You seem to want to think only one side gets to present the facts in court, and again, that is split from reality.
The court is not a place of make believe and a judge is not going to just pretend that there was no controversy surrounding religion, that stopping them from making use of the property is not an infringement on their liberty or that they are building a military base. Those are the fairy tales that your joke of an argument rests upon.
Again.... IF the judge has prejudice, he can't hear the case! What part of that are you not comprehending, dumbass? You are operating under the assumption the judge would view this the same way you view it, and he would rule the way you think he should. But your viewpoint is biased and prejudiced toward one side, and most judges are fair and impartial, and our legal system is certainly supposed to be fair and impartial. We can't enter into the case with preconceived ideas of motivation and such, it's a total affront to what justice is all about.
There will not be any eminent domain taking. They know it would fail. It's just nonsense to stir up hate filled idiots like you into voting. Just like the gay bashing. The center will be built.
Tell ya what... I'll make this bet to you right here and now... The mosque will never be built at this location! In a few years, when all the dust settles, you can come back and tell me you were wrong and I was right.
