The Political Discussion Thread

[Annoyed]

I haven't said much about the First Amendment Defense Act which is likely to be successful in Congress next year.

I look at it as an issue where there are two legitimate, opposing points of view. Yes, alternative* people have right to get married and carry out related activities, but private businesses such as the often cited bakery owner also have the right to operate their business according to the dictates of their beliefs and values. They own the business, it's their private property.

No matter who wins, one side or the other gets its rights trampled on.

I don't intend on getting into a debate about the legitimacy of either side of the argument. We've done that till we're blue in the face here. Everyone pretty much knows where everyone else is standing on the topic.

But rather I intend a simple statement of fact.

For a long time, the pendulum has been swinging towards the more permissive side if you want to call it that. (on this and many other issues as well) Laws have been passed, the SCOTUS has issued rulings and so forth, generally favoring the "permissive" side of the discussion. It has been the conservatives who have been told to sit down and shut up.

Although social issues such as this are not on my front burner, economic matters are more important to me, they are front & center on many people's stoves. And the recent election is a sea change in US politics on many, many issues. This is just one of them. By handing the WH to Trump, (particularly with the SCOTUS implications) and allowing them to retain control of both houses of Congress, the voters have spoken loud and clear. They want change.

The Republicans will own the White House & Congress come Jan. 20, and will soon begin taking ownership of the SCOTUS. Right off the bat, they get to tilt it to the right, and with two of the more liberal justices around 80 years old, it's a very good bet that one or more currently liberal justices will be replaced by conservative justices within the next 4 (and damn near certainty in 8 years). As well, there are somewhere around 100 or so lesser federal judgeships that are also waiting to be filled.

So, like it or not, the pendulum is now swinging dramatically to the conservative side on this, and many other issues. Roe V. Wade is likely on the chopping block too.

Eventually, I have no doubt that the pendulum will swing back to the permissive side, and over a long enough time scale, I suspect the center point will continue to shift to the permissive" side, but until then, those on the permissive side will just have to accept what they cannot change, just as the conservative side has had to do for a long time now.

*Alternative being used in place of the constantly changing string of alphabet soup being used to describe such people these days. They're going to run out of letters before long, there are only 26 in the English alphabet.

[Gatefan1976]

I haven't said much about the First Amendment Defense Act which is likely to be successful in Congress next year.

I look at it as an issue where there are two legitimate, opposing points of view. Yes, alternative* people have right to get married and carry out related activities, but private businesses such as the often cited bakery owner also have the right to operate their business according to the dictates of their beliefs and values. They own the business, it's their private property.

1: The laws that people want to bring in removes their right to get married, even in a civil service with the protections and benefits of marriage.
2: No, private business owners do not have the right to do what you are suggesting, they have not been able to do it since the civil rights act where places of business were barred from discriminating based on race. Places of business are not anything like "private homes" where "your home is your castle" and you can freely institute whatever kinds of "personal law" you want based on your beliefs and inclinations. They are deemed "for public use" as it is the public who patronize such places.

No matter who wins, one side or the other gets its rights trampled on.

What rights are getting trampled on?

I don't intend on getting into a debate about the legitimacy of either side of the argument. We've done that till we're blue in the face here. Everyone pretty much knows where everyone else is standing on the topic.

Where we stand, and what constitutes a legitimate argument are not the same.

But rather I intend a simple statement of fact.

For a long time, the pendulum has been swinging towards the more permissive side if you want to call it that. (on this and many other issues as well) Laws have been passed, the SCOTUS has issued rulings and so forth, generally favoring the "permissive" side of the discussion. It has been the conservatives who have been told to sit down and shut up.

How?
Besides not being allowed to freely discriminate against others, HOW?

Although social issues such as this are not on my front burner, economic matters are more important to me, they are front & center on many people's stoves. And the recent election is a sea change in US politics on many, many issues. This is just one of them. By handing the WH to Trump, (particularly with the SCOTUS implications) and allowing them to retain control of both houses of Congress, the voters have spoken loud and clear. They want change.

The -voters- voted for Hillary, by almost a 5% margin in her favour. No other person in American political history has lost the popular vote by such a margin -ever-, and despite all this "trump won the EC in a landlside" BS he peddles, there have been 54 votes by the EC in US history, trump ranks in at number 46, the bottom 20%.
The VOTERS did speak loudly, they voted for Hillary.

The Republicans will own the White House & Congress come Jan. 20, and will soon begin taking ownership of the SCOTUS. Right off the bat, they get to tilt it to the right, and with two of the more liberal justices around 80 years old, it's a very good bet that one or more currently liberal justices will be replaced by conservative justices within the next 4 (and damn near certainty in 8 years). As well, there are somewhere around 100 or so lesser federal judgeships that are also waiting to be filled.

Correct, though I think there are around 200 lesser judges up to have their positions filled.

So, like it or not, the pendulum is now swinging dramatically to the conservative side on this, and many other issues. Roe V. Wade is likely on the chopping block too.

Yay, more rights being lost, rights that by and large have little to no effect on the people making the laws.

Eventually, I have no doubt that the pendulum will swing back to the permissive side, and over a long enough time scale, I suspect the center point will continue to shift to the permissive" side, but until then, those on the permissive side will just have to accept what they cannot change, just as the conservative side has had to do for a long time now.

No, they do not, they can do what the conservative side did, or are you -honestly- going to say that the conservative side just sat down and shut up?

*Alternative being used in place of the constantly changing string of alphabet soup being used to describe such people these days. They're going to run out of letters before long, there are only 26 in the English alphabet.

I stick to LGBT, I don't bother with anything more, not out of a lack of respect, but for ease of use. Q I use sometimes, but not often.

[Annoyed]

No, they do not, they can do what the conservative side did, or are you -honestly- going to say that the conservative side just sat down and shut up?

No, they didn't. And I don't expect the liberal side will do so either. But just as with the conservatives, they will be unable to do anything about it.

[Gatefan1976]

No, they didn't. And I don't expect the liberal side will do so either. But just as with the conservatives, they will be unable to do anything about it.

Are you kidding me?
The republicans were able to block and filibuster -a lot- of what Obama wanted to do for 6 years. Trump will have a clear run for 2 years (assuming he is not impeached). Given that Pence is even -more- hardline right wing on social issues, that might not be anything more than a pyrrhic victory even if it does happen.

[Annoyed]

Are you kidding me?
The republicans were able to block and filibuster -a lot- of what Obama wanted to do for 6 years. Trump will have a clear run for 2 years (assuming he is not impeached). Given that Pence is even -more- hardline right wing on social issues, that might not be anything more than a pyrrhic victory even if it does happen.

Yes, they were able to become a significant impediment to the LSoS's agenda, AFTER the voters turned the House over the first chance they got in 2010.

I know you don't like it, but the liberal agenda is quite unpopular with a large percentage of US voters. Where it succeeds is on the coasts, but there are large parts of this country that are utterly ignored by the Democrats; middle America, flyoverland, or whatever you want to call it where it is wildly unpopular.
Those voters found their voice this year.

And I wouldn't bet on Trump being impeached unless Congress flips in 2018.

[Gatefan1976]

Yes, they were able to become a significant impediment to the LSoS's agenda, AFTER the voters turned the House over the first chance they got in 2010.

Obama also faced opposition in his own party.

I know you don't like it, but the liberal agenda is quite unpopular with a large percentage of US voters. Where it succeeds is on the coasts, but there are large parts of this country that are utterly ignored by the Democrats; middle America, flyoverland, or whatever you want to call it where it is wildly unpopular.
Those voters found their voice this year.

No, they did not.
Trump lost the popular vote. If it were up to the voters, Hillary would be in office. Just drop this whole BS about "the voters spoke" cause Trump getting into the WH had -nothing- to do with the voters, that is a FACT.

And I wouldn't bet on Trump being impeached unless Congress flips in 2018.

Of course not, no matter what he does, the GOP will protect him, even if it means violation the constitution. If Trump is not totally divorced from all his business holdings by the time he takes office, he will be ripe for impeachment, a textbook example of a breach of the emouluments clause, but, it will not matter.

[aretood2]

Opinions are fine, everyone is free to have an opinion.
The law however is -not- an opinion.
The Civil rights act precluded discrimination in "places of public accommodation" as well. Now, while it is true that the law does not specify LGBT people, it's not a real hard stretch to assume it meant (in spirit) equal protection for all. Indeed, to protect or exclude LGBT people, states have drafted their own legislation to deal with LGBT people. Some have extended the protections of the civil rights act to them, some quite the opposite, creating legalized discrimination.

That's a nice slight of hand trick. You're entitled to your opinion, now shut up and do as we say and not as you believe.

The thing that people ignore here is that what was being discriminated was not an individual, it was an activity. That bakery would have sold them anything even if those gay customers had big giant neon signs with them saying "I am a homosexual". But my question still stands. What part of FADA allows or demands discrimination?

How is not allowing discrimination, persecution?
It's a nice word to throw out there, "persecution", conjures images of churches burning and priests being kicked out into the streets, but I can't seem to find enough examples in the US of this kind of "persecution". I can find a trend however of push-back against religion when it tries to interfere in secular law however. Strangely enough, when you live in a secular country you tend to get that. This "persecution" garbage is just that, garbage, and highly hypocritical garbage at that.

Yeah, because no churches in the US have ever been bombed or burned or shot up...Are Mormons collectively imagining their plight too? How about Jehovah's Witnesses? Did they just make everything up? Let's take your logic to it's end. The US doesn't practice wanton censorship, thus we do not need the Freedom of Speech clause of the 1st amendment. I say, we draft an amendment that removes it. Same thing with freedom of the press. Can you tell me why lack of oppression requires no law to prevent said oppression?

And this one "helps" some how?

Should Muslim women have to take off their headscarves for DMV photo's?

Yes, unless you're an idiot who doesn't understand that headscarves don't cover the face...

Except that a bakery isn't a private-sector business. It's a public business, open to all.

It's probably me, but I can't get it through my head why anyone would risk bad publicity on their business which earns them their money to -- I don't know -- pay off the business or loans, or savings for later or to expand the shop if so desired.

This has nothing to do with civil liberties. These are people who forget the core of their own religion -- respect each other and love thy neighbor (or some such). Fine, you consider LGBT a sin or whatever, but you're still running a business which bakes cakes for events. Your religion has no place in the workplace. Your religion is a private matter, left at the door of the business.

So if the bakery was asked to cater to an orgy and they refused, that's discrimination? Orgies are perfectly legal (As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult). But is denying them discriminatory against Orgy goers? The issue in question is involvement in an activity. The bakers weren't being asked to sell cakes to a gay couple. They were being asked to cater to a gay marriage.

Religious freedom bills only exist to do one thing: discriminate on the base of one's religion. That's what they are for. And who do you think will be on the receiving end?

Well this is a slap to the face to any religious minority in any country with a history of religious persecution.

You damn well bet your ass they should. A DMV license is supposed to provide POSITIVE Identification. If you can't see the face, how the Frak do you know the person under said headscarf/full on burka IS the person they claim to be??

The full on Burka is an issue, but considering that only a police officer will see it, I don't think this is an undue burden upon a person's religious freedom. But a headscarf, I see no sane nor logical cause to make that "illegal" beyond wishing to discriminate. I think I made myself clear in the past about how I feel about these sort of things.

[Annoyed]

Obama also faced opposition in his own party.

No, they did not.
Trump lost the popular vote. If it were up to the voters, Hillary would be in office. Just drop this whole BS about "the voters spoke" cause Trump getting into the WH had -nothing- to do with the voters, that is a FACT.

IF we didn't have the electoral college system.

Citing one of your favorite resources, factcheck.org:

FULL QUESTION:

Why does the United States have an Electoral College when it would be so easy to directly elect a president, as we do for all the other political offices?

FULL ANSWER [edited for brevity here]
The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.

As I noted earlier, Democrats do well on the heavily populated coasts, but not so well in the middle of the country.
In this case, by design, the EC is preventing the heavily populated coasts from drowning out the voices of the rest of the country by virtue of sheer numbers.
If a majority of middle American voters hadn't voted for Trump, Hillary would have won. But they did, and the EC allowed their voices to be heard, as it was designed to do.

That is the system we have, and while I question the ethical ramifications of the EC system, I have to admit it works. If only we had some means of diluting the influence of heavily populated downstate area of NY, which is locked Democratic, NY state might be in better shape than it is in.

[aretood2]

IF we didn't have the electoral college system.

Citing one of your favorite resources, factcheck.org:



As I noted earlier, Democrats do well on the heavily populated coasts, but not so well in the middle of the country.
In this case, by design, the EC is preventing the heavily populated coasts from drowning out the voices of the rest of the country by virtue of sheer numbers.
If a majority of middle American voters hadn't voted for Trump, Hillary would have won. But they did, and the EC allowed their voices to be heard, as it was designed to do.

That is the system we have, and while I question the ethical ramifications of the EC system, I have to admit it works. If only we had some means of diluting the influence of heavily populated downstate area of NY, which is locked Democratic, NY state might be in better shape than it is in.

Democracies are predicated upon the idea that the vote of the majority is what carries a motion.

[Annoyed]

Democracies are predicated upon the idea that the vote of the majority is what carries a motion.

But aren't we officially a "representative republic" ?

[garhkal]

What rights?

The already mentioned right to religious expression. LOOK at how many times we have had postings concerning this school or that who got forced to stop allowing XYZ from bibles, or this or that prayer service..
Or all those places where you can no longer USE a legal product (Tobacco!!)...

So, because a facet of Islam contradicts the law, it must bend, but when it is Christianity, it is the law that must bend.

First off, comparing telling someone "your religion saying you can't condone gay marriage, but WE are going to force you to serve gay marriages or we will sue" is NO where near the same ball park as telling someone "If you want photo ID to drive (or get a passport etc), you need to remove your facial coverings"..
Secondly, you NEED a license to drive yes? So in order to get one you SHOULD abide by all the requirements for that license, regardless of religion.
Civil rights DID NOT include gay/lesbian or 'sexual orientation' when they were made, and even NOW several states still don't extend CR's to 'sexual orientation'. So a Private business is NOT breaking the civil right laws, telling them "We will bake a cake , but won't cater your wedding"...

The law is well within it's power to impose such punishments, they do it to drink drivers and illegal drug users all the time. Also, not going "to trial" and not seeing a judge means bugger all.

Is it?? I ave never seen somewhere where it states a 'board of arbitration' or the like has the similar power to impose fines, or other restrictions as a judge...

If your home is also a business, yes. The only exception to this is a church, and as I have said many times, a church -does- have the right not to perform it's religious services for someone it does not "approve" of.

SO what makes churches special, but someone's HOUSE which the are allowing to be used NOT??

Correct, and the Civil rights act protects citizens from discrimination based on things such as race and gender. As I said within the framework of the act, it is abject abuse of the spirit of the law to exclude either sexual orientation of gender identity from those protections just because they were not specifically mentioned, and who pray tell is spearheading those kinds of laws? Republicans and more specifically the Christian religious right. For you to see that there is not something wrong with that (law based off religion) when you say you are an Atheist/agnostic makes utterly zero sense to me.

When not even everyone AGREES that sexual/gender identity is an actual thing, i find its abject abuse of the CR laws, to extend protection TO those groups based on incomplete/poorly understood ideology..
AND WHERE i am i pushing Religion into the whole Identity laws??

[Gatefan1976]

That's a nice slight of hand trick. You're entitled to your opinion, now shut up and do as we say and not as you believe.

What if I don't want to serve you because you are Mexican? "I think all Mexicans are rapists and murderers (moral belief) therefore I choose not to serve you or do anything for your event"
Is that discrimination?

The thing that people ignore here is that what was being discriminated was not an individual, it was an activity. That bakery would have sold them anything even if those gay customers had big giant neon signs with them saying "I am a homosexual". But my question still stands. What part of FADA allows or demands discrimination?

How is it discriminatory?
Look at the totally secular benefits of marriage, then deny them to a group of people because you find it morally wrong based on your religious beliefs. Churches completely have the right to deny the application of their religious ceremonies to a practice they do not believe in, they do not have the right to impose that into the secular world.

Yeah, because no churches in the US have ever been bombed or burned or shot up...Are Mormons collectively imagining their plight too? How about Jehovah's Witnesses? Did they just make everything up? Let's take your logic to it's end. The US doesn't practice wanton censorship, thus we do not need the Freedom of Speech clause of the 1st amendment. I say, we draft an amendment that removes it. Same thing with freedom of the press. Can you tell me why lack of oppression requires no law to prevent said oppression?

What -are- you dribbling about tood?
Attacks against churches and people are already covered by other laws, you can even get sentencing enhancements under hate crime laws.
What extra laws do you want?

So if the bakery was asked to cater to an orgy and they refused, that's discrimination? Orgies are perfectly legal (As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult). But is denying them discriminatory against Orgy goers? The issue in question is involvement in an activity. The bakers weren't being asked to sell cakes to a gay couple. They were being asked to cater to a gay marriage.

Yes, it is discriminatory, and really, what "engagement" in a wedding is a baker going to have? Being in the kitchen in a separate room?
OMG in the same building as one of them queer folk for a day!!

[Falcon Horus]

What part of FADA allows or demands discrimination?

The part where the federal government can't discriminate against the discriminator. Discrimination will go unpunished and therefor allowed.

From the text of the FADA itself:

(a) In general.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal Government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

(b) Discriminatory action defined.—As used in subsection (a), a discriminatory action means any action taken by the Federal Government to—

(1) alter in any way the Federal tax treatment of, or cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke an exemption from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of, any person referred to in subsection (a);

(2) disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;

(3) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any Federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or other similar position or status from or to such person;

(4) withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a Federal benefit program from or to such person; or

(5) otherwise discriminate against such person.

(c) Accreditation; licensure; certification.—The Federal Government shall consider accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of Federal law any person that would be accredited, licensed, or certified, respectively, for such purposes but for a determination against such person wholly or partially on the basis that the person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or that sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Look at the cosponsors, not a democrat in sight.

So if the bakery was asked to cater to an orgy and they refused, that's discrimination? Orgies are perfectly legal (As long as everyone involved is a consenting adult). But is denying them discriminatory against Orgy goers? The issue in question is involvement in an activity. The bakers weren't being asked to sell cakes to a gay couple. They were being asked to cater to a gay marriage.

Denying service to anyone on the basis of one's believes, is discrimination.

[Coco Pops]

Yes, it is discriminatory, and really, what "engagement" in a wedding is a baker going to have? Being in the kitchen in a separate room?
OMG in the same building as one of them queer folk for a day!!

Oh noes they might get gay germs. Gay germs turn you gay.

[Gatefan1976]

The already mentioned right to religious expression. LOOK at how many times we have had postings concerning this school or that who got forced to stop allowing XYZ from bibles, or this or that prayer service..
Or all those places where you can no longer USE a legal product (Tobacco!!)...

Seperation of church and state covers what goes on in PUBLIC schools. Public schools should NEVER have allowed religion in the door in the first place. As for "religious expression", your rights to your views begins and ends with your personal space. Wear a cross, a star of David, a headscarf, -whatever-, I don't give two hard farts about how you choose to decorate yourself. The simple fact is, all these arguments boil down to one simple thing, giving one group the legal right to impose their religious informed morality on ALL via law, and that is a theocracy, and you don't live in one.

First off, comparing telling someone "your religion saying you can't condone gay marriage, but WE are going to force you to serve gay marriages or we will sue" is NO where near the same ball park as telling someone "If you want photo ID to drive (or get a passport etc), you need to remove your facial coverings"..
Secondly, you NEED a license to drive yes? So in order to get one you SHOULD abide by all the requirements for that license, regardless of religion.

The comparison is made via the LAW (and guess what suing someone is part of the law as well)

Civil rights DID NOT include gay/lesbian or 'sexual orientation' when they were made, and even NOW several states still don't extend CR's to 'sexual orientation'. So a Private business is NOT breaking the civil right laws, telling them "We will bake a cake , but won't cater your wedding"...

Carrying semi-automatic weapons was not covered by the second amendment when it was written either, but watch the NRA cry when you point that out.
Are we done?

Is it?? I ave never seen somewhere where it states a 'board of arbitration' or the like has the similar power to impose fines, or other restrictions as a judge...

Investigate the law then, because judges sign off on deals, especially in criminal court.

SO what makes churches special, but someone's HOUSE which the are allowing to be used NOT??

Do you have public liability insurance on your home?
Do you use it to engage in commerce?
If your home is your workspace, and that space involves dealing with the general public, then they are not strictly "private dwellings", they are a shop front and are treated by the law as such.

When not even everyone AGREES that sexual/gender identity is an actual thing, i find its abject abuse of the CR laws, to extend protection TO those groups based on incomplete/poorly understood ideology..

It is not an ideology, and I think that it is very well established that Gays and Lesbians are "an actual thing", and really denying them rights based on bronze age -theology- is somehow better? Not everyone agrees that Jesus is your lord and saviour either.............

AND WHERE i am i pushing Religion into the whole Identity laws??

You are not, I am trying to understand what your objection to recognizing LGBT people is based on. MG I can understand, Tood I can understand, SGalisa I can understand, but YOU, you I just don't get your objection.
What is your objection to LGBT marriage if it is not on religious grounds? You find it "yucky"??