Swatch sues Malaysia

Pastorbottle · Jul 18, 2023

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-18/swatch-sues-malaysia-lgbt-rights-pride-watches/102612946

Anyone with a pride Swatch, should probably not wear it if travelling to Malaysia and that probably goes for visiting some other less than tolerant countries too.
And before anyone starts….yes I agree that you should be proud of who and what you are, but I believe that you should also use judgement to pick your battles.

Foo2rama · Jul 18, 2023

Pastorbottle
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-18/swatch-sues-malaysia-lgbt-rights-pride-watches/102612946

Anyone with a pride Swatch, should probably not wear it if travelling to Malaysia and that probably goes for visiting some other less than tolerant countries too.
And before anyone starts….yes I agree that you should be proud of who and what you are, but I believe that you should also use judgement to pick your battles.

Malaysia seized product they can sue.

Watch my Whisky · Jul 19, 2023

Glad to see Malaysia continues to focus on its real problems.

gbesq · Jul 19, 2023

It was later reported that Malaysian authorities tried to confiscate Rolex “Explorers” because the model name prompts impure thoughts, but they were thwarted when they realized that none were available …

Aroxx · Jul 19, 2023

I heard they were planning to seize the stock of Speedmasters next to address their motorist speeding issue and to thwart aspiring astronauts in one fell swoop. Ain’t nobody got time for the moon.

RevZMan123 · Jul 19, 2023

Duh, this is why all those companies don't change their logos in the Middle East during Pride month, they don't ACTUALLY fight the good fight. I suppose good on swatch for sending them over anyway but they're not going to win this based on the location.

gatorcpa · Jul 19, 2023

This is what happens when a country has a supposed "benevolent" dictatorship and allow religions (any religion) to shape civil law.

Lawsuits will likely be pointless, as the judiciary is beholden to the government.

Let them come over here to cane me for "speech against the government", which I'm sure is a serious crime in Malaysia.
gatorcpa

gbesq · Jul 19, 2023

gatorcpa
This is what happens when a country has a supposed "benevolent" dictatorship and allow religions (any religion) to shape civil law.

Lawsuits will likely be pointless, as the judiciary is beholden to the government.

Let them come over here to cane me for "speech against the government", which I'm sure is a serious crime in Malaysia.
gatorcpa

Agreed. The Founding Fathers got it right when they decided on the separation of church and state.

gatorcpa · Jul 19, 2023

gbesq
The Founding Fathers got it right when they decided on the separation of church and state.

Because they came from a political system where the head of the church was also the head of state. Always a bad combination.

Unfortunately, there are those in our country who want to go back to that system. Shame on them.
gatorcpa

gbesq · Jul 19, 2023

gatorcpa
Because they came from a political system where the head of the church was also the head of state. Always a bad combination.

Unfortunately, there are those in our country who want to go back to that system. Shame on them.
gatorcpa

I am all too aware as I live in an area where that element is alive and well. Not a good thing.

kippyk · Jul 19, 2023

Founding fathers were not necessary for separation of church and state. That was part of a great compromise that there would be no official federal US religion. However, many individual states at the time of constitution ratification had official state religions or religious tests for office. The Constitution would not affect those existing state laws.

https://csac.history.wisc.edu/docum...s-and-oaths-in-state-constitutions-1776-1784/

The Supreme court later ruled that state constitutions cannot contradict the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court did not rule on religious tests for state office until 1961.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C3-2-2/ALDE_00013639/

Syrte · Jul 19, 2023

Part of me can’t help but think Swatch deliberately sent those watches in countries where they knew they might spark a sort of government crackdown.

With the Moonswatch alone we know those people are marketing geniuses.

gbesq · Jul 19, 2023

Syrte
Part of me can’t help but think Swatch deliberately sent those watches in countries where they knew they might spark a sort of government crackdown.

I certainly hope that’s not the case.

gbesq · Jul 19, 2023

kippyk
Founding fathers were not necessary for separation of church and state. That was part of a great compromise that there would be no official federal US religion. However, many individual states at the time of constitution ratification had official state religions or religious tests for office. The Constitution would not affect those existing state laws.

https://csac.history.wisc.edu/docum...s-and-oaths-in-state-constitutions-1776-1784/

The Supreme court later ruled that state constitutions cannot contradict the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court did not rule on religious tests for state office until 1961.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C3-2-2/ALDE_00013639/

Thanks for the additional information. My recollection is that the Establishment Clause (the first clause in the Bill of Rights) was widely interpreted to require the separation of church and state at the federal level and wasn’t challenged for the first 150 years or so after the Constitution was ratified. You are correct that this did not affect states’ rights in the matter until the Supreme Court said otherwise, but to my knowledge there was no state that ever had a government sanctioned state church as did England.

Foo2rama · Jul 19, 2023

kippyk
Founding fathers were not necessary for separation of church and state. That was part of a great compromise that there would be no official federal US religion. However, many individual states at the time of constitution ratification had official state religions or religious tests for office. The Constitution would not affect those existing state laws.

https://csac.history.wisc.edu/docum...s-and-oaths-in-state-constitutions-1776-1784/

The Supreme court later ruled that state constitutions cannot contradict the US Constitution.

The Supreme Court did not rule on religious tests for state office until 1961.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C3-2-2/ALDE_00013639/

That’s more than a little revisionist to fit a certain narrative. That is not born out within the letters the found fathers wrote to each other and involves some unsupported interpretations, and has a correlation is causation fallacy .

kippyk · Jul 20, 2023

Foo2rama
That’s more than a little revisionist to fit a certain narrative. That is not born out within the letters the found fathers wrote to each other and involves some unsupported interpretations, and has a correlation is causation fallacy .

What revisionism and what narrative? I have no idea what you are saying.

Religious tests at the state level were legal when the constitution was ratified. That was my main point. The Supreme Court negated these laws/rules later. Is that controversial or inaccurate?

gbesq · Jul 20, 2023

kippyk
What revisionism and what narrative? I have no idea what you are saying.

Religious tests at the state level were legal when the constitution was ratified. That was my main point. The Supreme Court negated these laws/rules later. Is that controversial or inaccurate?

I can't speak for Foo2rama, but I think that we're talking about two separate things and I respectfully disagree with your statement that the "Founding fathers were not necessary for separation of church and state. That was part of a great compromise that there would be no official federal US religion." First, the fact that certain states had "religious tests" or required oaths affirming religious beliefs as a prerequisite to being appointed or elected to office has nothing to do with the Establishment Clause and its nearly universal interpretation as imposing a separation of church and state at the federal level. Second, it is well established in the historical record that conversations between the Founding Fathers had EVERYTHING to do with the inclusion of the Establishment Clause and the formal separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson, in particular, was a staunch believer in the separation of church and state. He was vilified by his political opponents for his role in the passage of the 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom and for his criticism of such biblical events as the Great Flood and the theological age of the Earth. In a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson wrote: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." I find nothing in any of the information that you cited that refers to "a great compromise" that led to the separation of church and state, nor do I find anything in that material that seeks to eliminate or minimize the role of the Founding Fathers in determining that the United States would not follow England's example and have a state sanctioned church.

pdxleaf · Jul 20, 2023

Not to mention, the article states "At the time, many believed religious oaths were supposed to guarantee honorable public service for fear of incurring the wrath of God."

They were certainly proved wrong on that point...

kippyk · Jul 20, 2023

I would agree with the sentiment that most of the founding fathers wanted separation of church and state at the federal level. They probably wanted it at the state level as well. My original statement was not worded correctly.

I reiterate my point that the ratification of the Constitution did not separate church and state at the state level. Separation of church and state was not absolute in America when the Constitution was ratified. I find that a very interesting historical point.

Archer · Jul 20, 2023

gbesq
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Build that wall! Buldt that wall!

Swatch sues Malaysia

Pastorbottle

Foo2rama

Watch my Whisky

gbesq

Aroxx

RevZMan123

gatorcpa

gbesq

gatorcpa

gbesq

kippyk

Syrte

gbesq

gbesq

Foo2rama

kippyk

gbesq

pdxleaf

kippyk

Archer

Similar threads

Disappointed with Omega QC and Swatch Group Support - Misaligned Hand Brushed Off

Mystery Shipment from the Swatch Group?

New Swatch x (Swatch Group Brand) may be coming

What Is The Swatch Group’s Endgame With The MoonSwatch?

Back again for more advice: Omega Seamaster stops overnight--after multiple trips to Swatch

Swatch / Omega MoonSwatch Mission Sun with Perpetual Camo Strap