The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

You keep trying to create a false equivalency here. In order for both situations to be the same, then that baker would have refused to sell anything to any gay people ever. That was not the case. He was willing to (and has done so) sell cakes and other baked goods and products to gay people. The point of contention here is catering to a gay marriage as he felt that it would show support of an institution he did not believe in.

No, I am not. I am giving you exactly the same conditions.
Baker A does not want to "show support" for gays by catering a gay wedding based on what their beliefs are.
Baker B does not want to show support for Mexicans by catering a gay wedding based on what their beliefs are.
BOTH are discriminatory, A against gays, B against Mexicans.

Sorry, I don't argue with strawmen.

What strawman? Asking for empathy is not a strawman. Also, you admit further down that you did not realise the implications of this bill, which makes it look like you called strawman based on, ignorance.

I'll leave this as it stands so the conversation keeps context:

Section A, B and 1 are the main offenders.
Section A and B make it permissible for anyone to discriminate against LGBT people without the fear of federal reprisal via the law. Section 1 permits the Federal government to not recognize any of the secular tax benefits afforded a married couple. Sections 2-5 prevents the federal government from taking punitive action against federal employee's for discriminatory actions against people. They allow for the federal government to fire an employee because they had "gay sex", and refuse the -victim- legal recourse against the federal government based on any grounds.
A, and B of what section? Section 1 is just the title...I'm rather confused.

Section 2 is just a list of "findings".
Section 3 is what I am assuming that you mean.

Correct.

"(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."

I looked into it a bit more. I'll admit that I failed to realize that "person" isn't a literal thing. And I'll admit that I don't like the lack of neutrality in the language in the sentence. It should just be about any beliefs concerning marriage. I would also want a more narrow definition of what constitutes "acts in accordance with" as that is problematic. I would want that changed before it passes...if it passes.

So, you are starting to see the problems with it, congratulations.

Subsection 3b:
"(b) Discriminatory action defined.—As used in subsection (a), a discriminatory action means any action taken by the Federal Government to—"

Scary, a definition. Though admitting there is nuance here I may be missing.

Yeah, the rest of part B and it's implications, the ones I laid out to you that you "failed to see"

3b.1

"(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);"

This seems more of the government can't revoke tax status of people who "act in accordance to..." mentioned above. It says nothing about a married couple.

It says plenty about married couples, the bill itself is about married couples. It prevents altering of peoples status to married under federal law and the changing of tax bracketing to represent that -for starters-. It also prevents federally mandated (if it comes to pass) paid parental leave for gay couples as the fed is not allowed to recognize it.
There's more in that little section, I suggest you think about it about more.

3b.2-5
(2) disallow a deduction for Federal tax purposes of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;

This is regarding charities, not bakeries or wedding services. But the issue is 3a. That language is what makes this part not so good.

A rather narrow ruling on disallowing tax deductions for charitable contributions to pro-gay groups, a rather effective method of denying funding to a specific subset of charities.

(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;

A continuation of the above.

Yes, it narrowly allows the fed to terminate gay people and dodge unfair dismissal laws.

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

Same as above.

Yep, it is a continuation of narrow denial of gay rights.

(5) otherwise discriminate against such person.

Same as above

yep, more singling out of gay people.

It seems to me that the main issues are in one part of this bill. And they aren't directing punitive actions against gay marriage. I will, however, admit that the language is too broad and not neutral enough to pass muster.

Seems to me that you read it wrong and continued to compound your error based on that.
In addition, I am no more than a "interested amateur" when it comes to the law, and -I- can see this as plain as day, what do you think trained lawyers who get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars a year will do with this bill? As annoyed likes to point out, Republicans control all levers of government and once they appoint a new Judge to the SCOTUS, they can push this crap through -as written- and even your "objections" such as they are will mean squat.

[SoulReaver]

new subtopic - what do people think of Obama's recent sanctions against the ruskies?

tbh I wonder what the point is in doing this right now since it will be undone 3 weeks from now. stupid pointless move really
instead he should've sought to get Trump indicted for high treason (which is what Trump would do if the situation & roles were reversed)

[aretood2]

No, I am not. I am giving you exactly the same conditions.
Baker A does not want to "show support" for gays by catering a gay wedding based on what their beliefs are.
Baker B does not want to show support for Mexicans by catering a gay wedding based on what their beliefs are.
BOTH are discriminatory, A against gays, B against Mexicans.

Wait...are you tying the baking of the cake to supporting gay marriage? Eitherway, the comparison doesn't work. They guy was willing to sell to gay people period. Your comparison isn't the same because such a baker would never under any circumstance sell to a Mexican.

So let's say Annoyed's evil twin brother "Crossed" decides to hold a race rally. He wants me to bake him a cake for that race rally that includes a racist message or imagery. Is saying "no" then discriminatory of white people? Or is it just me not wanting to be associated with an activity I don't believe in?

I mean, white supremacist things are something white people would do more so than other ethnicities/races for obvious reasons. I guess a black person might conceivably do one...just as a straight person might conceivably marry another straight person of the same gender/sex/whathaveyou. This one is a bit more on the nose. Only a racist would have such a rally as only a gay man would marry another gay man (barring conceivable situations as previously mentioned).

[Gatefan1976]

Wait...are you tying the baking of the cake to supporting gay marriage? Eitherway, the comparison doesn't work. They guy was willing to sell to gay people period. Your comparison isn't the same because such a baker would never under any circumstance sell to a Mexican.

Wrong.
Get this "bake a cake" out of your mind.
Baker will bake for gays, baker will bake for Mexicans. No discrimination going on.
Baker will not cater for gays "because gay" but will for everyone else -Discrimination
Baker will not cater for Mexicans "because Mexican" but will for everyone else -Discrimination
Why is this so hard for you?

So let's say Annoyed's evil twin brother "Crossed" decides to hold a race rally. He wants me to bake him a cake for that race rally that includes a racist message or imagery. Is saying "no" then discriminatory of white people? Or is it just me not wanting to be associated with an activity I don't believe in?

If you would do it for another "anti-group", but not for crossed's group, YES it is discrimination.
If you would not do it for ANY "anti-group", then it is not. You are not "picking and choosing" which "anti-group" you feel comfortable supporting.
Do you understand the difference here?

I mean, white supremacist things are something white people would do more so than other ethnicities/races for obvious reasons. I guess a black person might conceivably do one...just as a straight person might conceivably marry another straight person of the same gender/sex/whathaveyou. This one is a bit more on the nose. Only a racist would have such a rally as only a gay man would marry another gay man (barring conceivable situations as previously mentioned).

What are you trying to get at here?

[Gatefan1976]

new subtopic - what do people think of Obama's recent sanctions against the ruskies?

tbh I wonder what the point is in doing this right now since it will be undone 3 weeks from now. stupid pointless move really
instead he should've sought to get Trump indicted for high treason (which is what Trump would do if the situation & roles were reversed)

It depends how long it takes for trump to undo everything that Obama is doing now. I would -imagine- that Obama is playing the long game with trump to a degree by doing things like this. The more time it takes for trump to undo everything Obama has done, the less time he has to work on his other agenda's and we have already seen that hardcore trump supporters are willing to get vocally upset if he seems to wind back on his campaign rhetoric. (see their response to not charging Hillary as a prime example)

[SoulReaver]

It depends how long it takes for trump to undo everything that Obama is doing now. I would -imagine- that Obama is playing the long game with trump to a degree by doing things like this. The more time it takes for trump to undo everything Obama has done, the less time he has to work on his other agenda's and we have already seen that hardcore trump supporters are willing to get vocally upset if he seems to wind back on his campaign rhetoric. (see their response to not charging Hillary as a prime example)

that's what I initially thought as well but then: Trump in power + his party has filibuster-proof majority in the legislature = shouldn't take more than a few days to undo everything should it? proverbial snap of fingers

for the Hillary part I call BS on that - 10 to 1 he's bluffing. if Obama has a lick of common sense he'll grant her a preventive pardon before leaving
(not that I'd shed tears if the ***** were indicted - but she in prison while Trump remained free would be another travesty of american justice)

[Gatefan1976]

that's what I initially thought as well but then: Trump in power + his party has filibuster-proof majority in the legislature = shouldn't take more than a few days to undo everything should it? proverbial snap of fingers

I don't think so M8. The only thing I can "hang my hat on" with that is people signing up for Obamacare -now- are still covered for the year (not sure if that is calendar year or financial year however), so while he can begin the process of deconstruction, it won't happen "instantly". I'm not saying he cannot do it mind you, just not "instantly".
Though, if he could can Obamacare on the 21st of Jan, I would love to see his explanation to the 30 odd million people who are now no longer covered because of it, especially given -a lot- of them voted for him. "What's that, you got your insurance under obamacare?, sorry, we are no longer beholden to those laws, but thanks for your money, stupid"

for the Hillary part I call BS on that - 10 to 1 he's bluffing. if Obama has a lick of common sense he'll grant her a preventive pardon before leaving

I don't think he needs to, nor do I think he should.

(not that I'd shed tears if the ***** were indicted - but she in prison while Trump remained free would be another travesty of american justice)

I feel about the same.

[Annoyed]

Open enrollment for the exchanges opened in November to register/sign up for the 2017 year. So those selections will remain in effect for 2017.
After 2017, though, I have no idea what will happen.

The individual mandate, requiring someone to have HC through their employer, a private plan or the exchanges of face a fine or tax penalty may change almost immediately.

[Gatefan1976]

Open enrollment for the exchanges opened in November to register/sign up for the 2017 year. So those selections will remain in effect for 2017.
After 2017, though, I have no idea what will happen.

Right, I just dunno -when- 2017 "ends"

The individual mandate, requiring someone to have HC through their employer, a private plan or the exchanges of face a fine or tax penalty may change almost immediately.

Yes it could, that's pretty "superficial"

[SGalisa]

new subtopic - what do people think of Obama's recent sanctions against the ruskies?

tbh I wonder what the point is in doing this right now since it will be undone 3 weeks from now. stupid pointless move really...

It's believed that Obama wants to stir up enough trouble that Russia will plunge the USA into WWIII. Actual land that was legally purchased and later given over to the Russian gov't is being taken over by Obama's executive orders (or however he's doing it) and the Russians living there are being kicked out (or deported).

Fun times (NOT). The folks tracking this stuff are counting down the days and hours for the new ADMIN team to take over. Add insult to injury, and there is an additional second added to this 2016 year, which makes the waiting process even longer..

I can't remember where I saw it, or when but I believe the administration wants to go with implementing 1 new rule, and tossing 2 out in its place. A 1 for 2 rule or something.

That's not *HOW* regulations get changed / amended / repealed. I'm sure Trump knows this, if he's ever had to follow reading the regs at all. It takes a lot more processing than picking and choosing like holding a bunch of straws and tossing out a few of the selected for tossing into the burial stack ones.

FH is correct on this, Trump has proposed scrapping 2 regs to enact 1 new one. I agree with that idea.

Trump may be just *saying* that, because the gov't often will tell the public one story, but the real deal work is done a completely different way. I know how the regs get changed. For example, the State of California is famous for what they term as "repeal and replace". However, unless a Chapter, Article, or Subchapter is *completely overhauled*, usually the best way to identify the differences is to do a side-by-side paragraph/clause, etc. comparison. In most cases that I've seen, the majority of the original rule is still intact, with only a few rewritten changes scattered within.

As far as the Federal rules go, we're talking hundreds of VOLUMES of books for about 48 head office agencies. No one person can skim thru ALL of those volumes without someone within having decent head knowledge on what is where. Trump said months ago that he'd like to do away with the EPA (agency) and all of its regulations. Well, that's 37 VOLUMES of regulatory material and thousands of Parts, and subpart numbers just under EPA alone. That includes regulations under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Land Disposal, Solid/Liquid and Toxic/Hazardous Wastes/pollutants, etc.

It's not a willy-nilly random dump 2 and replace with 1 instead. It's a detailed sorting of what is what and where, etc. Theoretically, yeah, the regs can be repealed and replaced as a single entity, but GPO (gov't printing office) is going to be majorly PO'd about demanding overtime or hiring extra help, just to process the massive amounts of volumes that is being suggested as being changed. Then, there are the folks who READ the regs to translate where the compliance issues are.

That's mega hours worth of work.. Not to also mention the industries that have adjusted their work processes to be compliant with various sized mechanical parts and calibrations for keeping up with the detailed requirements of each specific regulation. Some machine part pieces are now obsolete. So, what is the point in tossing out millions of new tools and parts that are calibrated to certain specifications, when the old info and parts are now obsolete? That's "just biting your toes to spite your nose."

Here's a possible *cheat sheet method* to find out what changed during President Obama's reign. Go to the Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda, and there -- at twice a year, is mostly every final rule ever codified --written within a few volumes as a sort of
*Quick Reference* Guide for ALL of the (50 overseeing) gov't agencies. Use the Semi-Annual Reg.Agenda publications that came out under Obama's 8-year presidential reign, and there are all the regulations right there in a shortened stack of pages that will locate when and (in specific detail) what and where each regulation was passed or removed.

I know plenty people who drive a bike to work, to the store, to all sorts of places.

I know lots of people who do that too. Except over here, it's mostly because they don't have a driver's license or lost it due to DWI, or from some other "loss of license" penalty.

Hey, let me even share a crazy fact here, we receive a monetary reward even when we take the bike to work. And it gets even crazier, my company has this pay-package in place in which one can either choose a company car or a company electric bike.

There you go, you're talking about experiencing *comfort* in having an "electric" bike for transport. We don't have "electric" bikes over here for transport. Most people are on mountain riding bikes with ten-speed gear shift, and operated by manual human LEG peddle-power. No electricity, no gas, no nothing for power back-up besides your own muscular-leg power; so they only need to focus on keeping their tires intact and bring a change of clothes for the office. Add some steep hills to the paths being traveled, and there will be lots of wincing (complaining) going on if forced to do that for longer mileage journeys..
ain't gonna happen..

I know a few privileged folks who ride motorcycles to work on non-inclement weather days, and have a spare change of clothes in their ultra storage units attached to their 'cycles. Except, not everyone can ride a motorcycle (due to the bike's heavy weight). AND, not everyone can ride a standard bike -- "motor" powered or not, because of various knee/spinal back health problems (usually degenerative cartilage issues).

Electric bikes run on batteries -- they run out, you need to recharge it, otherwise you can forget about the extra speed and should be more worried about the extra weight cause they are heavy bikes.

As I've mentioned over and over, most of us in the USA (cities and country hills/mountains) do NOT have electric bikes (some wealthier folks have mopeds, but those aren't highway legal). So, the only recharging is rest stops for the rider's legs (leg-powered ONLY).

[Coco Pops]

It's believed that Obama wants to stir up enough trouble that Russia will plunge the USA into WWIII. Actual land that was legally purchased and later given over to the Russian gov't is being taken over by Obama's executive orders (or however he's doing it) and the Russians living there are being kicked out (or deported).

Fun times (NOT). The folks tracking this stuff are counting down the days and hours for the new ADMIN team to take over. Add insult to injury, and there is an additional second added to this 2016 year, which makes the waiting process even longer..

And if you read that on Breitbart it's fake..... As per usual.

No one is trying to start World War 3


By the way can a bakery have a sign saying "no black people" in its window?

[garhkal]

I'm starting to notice a pattern here...

A pattern of what?

Before getting into the law...the allergic person leaves cause it's in their best interest to do so. They are the one who looses out. Because many of us would see kicking out the person with the service animal to please that one allergic costumer as a big no no.

As for the law...nothing is preventing that allergic person from being in the store. Why should the store owner do anything? It's not his responsibility. As for deciding to kick out the guy with the service animal, I do believe there are accessibility laws that can cause issues with such an act.

Then why all the stores/facilities that are pushing no smoking period, just in case someone can't stand it/is asthmatic, or the whole Nut allergies issue? Ever rented a car in the past 10 years, and seen ANY that allowed you to smoke in the rental? I remember some back in the 90s even into around 2004 area that did. After 2005, none even had ashtrays. Most i have been have had prominent no smoking stickers in.
And its rare as a snowball in hell, to find a motel/hotel that still offers smoking rooms.

Heck, even Uber is getting into that, with banning both the DRIVER and passenger from smoking.

Source: Yes There Is a Constitutional Separation of Church and State

That may be, and if so, i stand corrected.
HOWEVER where i have issues, is how its often seen / used the way it is, to punish anything Christian, but you never see/hear it being used against other religions.
Heck, the NYPD now allows Sihks to wear turbans as their official police hat, and have a beard.
Since the COPS are funded with federal dollars (well, mostly at least)< couldn't THAT be seen as establishment by the state?
OR is it only when its Christians wanting to do something, that these nuts come out and scream "Violation of separation of church and state"??

Aw, you're sad someone decided that it isn't, in fact, a mental disorder. I can understand you want to go back to that time of ignorance and little knowledge. You'd probably feel much safer, don't you.

Well, if that's something that changed over time.. Will eventually we see Padeophillia, necrophillia etc also lose its "mental issue" descriptor??

You really need to do more research on actual mental disorders. You'd know that most of them cannot be cured. OCD can be regulated, not cured (it might in the distant future).

There ar several though that can..

I didn't mean to find you anything but... I'm sorry.

Hm.. Significant linkage.. Many studies back in the 60=70s sayd "we have significant linkage for XYZ being good, but now 30 years later, we have OTHER studies saying the exact opposite.."

As in a contract, with legal benefits?
Or the church definition?

As in the Dictionary definition for 100s of years.

How does catering a wedding equal supporting it?
That would also mean, they wouldn't be able to cater to a divorcee getting married again cause that too is against their believes?

DO you give to charities you don't support? BY Your being there, it is seen as condoning it/supporting it.
AND YES these places who make these claims, should also do the same for divorcees remarrying. BUT how would you tell someone's a divorcee without investigating? Easier to see who's gay/lesbian based on the names..

We can only blame ourselves for that.

Is it our fault though? Is it cause we have overmedicated damn near everything? Stopped kids being kids and getting into the dirt, and whip out the anti-bacterial soap/wet wipes etc??

Also, did you know allergies, much like mental disorders, can be regulated with medication.

Yes, but not all can. Just look at the whole Nut allergy thing, and how many places no longer let you have nuts cause of others there having allergies.. HECK i have know some schools prohibiting kids bringing in PB&J sammies, just in CASE someone may have a nut allergy...

As an exercise, define your gender to me?
Not your sex, your gender.

Hetrosexual male.. Attracted to females.

[garhkal]

Err, Yes?
Remember, this is the same part of your constitution that forbids things like Sharia law, if it were Muslim law instead of Christian law, would you still be objecting?

Then why is it when we hear people suing for "People violating it" its ONLY when it comes to Christians doing stuff? The NYPD have changed uniform regs to accomodate Shiks.. ALL cause of their religion, but i don't hear ANYONE saying "THIS is a violation of the Church and state establishment thing"
Nor when those schools in NY and CA held "wear burka days"... ETC..

Also, it's not like these kids "self diagnosis" is just accepted right off the bat.

Then i guess there's way too many parents who just 'accept what their kids are saying then, based on the # of news stories i have seen just this year alone, where "Mom or dad, accept and encourage their 4-7 yr old in recognizing their NEW gender identity"//

I mean, white supremacist things are something white people would do more so than other ethnicities/races for obvious reasons. I guess a black person might conceivably do one...just as a straight person might conceivably marry another straight person of the same gender/sex/whathaveyou. This one is a bit more on the nose. Only a racist would have such a rally as only a gay man would marry another gay man (barring conceivable situations as previously mentioned).

Strange, i don't see many white power rallies. I've seen a # of black power ones..

[Annoyed]

new subtopic - what do people think of Obama's recent sanctions against the ruskies?

tbh I wonder what the point is in doing this right now since it will be undone 3 weeks from now. stupid pointless move really
instead he should've sought to get Trump indicted for high treason (which is what Trump would do if the situation & roles were reversed)

Well, at least we now know what kind of crime is serious enough to get deported by this administration.

[Gatefan1976]

Then why is it when we hear people suing for "People violating it" its ONLY when it comes to Christians doing stuff?

I would hazard a guess that considering some 70% of Americans claim they are Christian, it's just mathematically more likely. However, you bring up an interesting point here:

The NYPD have changed uniform regs to accomodate Shiks.. ALL cause of their religion, but i don't hear ANYONE saying "THIS is a violation of the Church and state establishment thing"
Nor when those schools in NY and CA held "wear burka days"... ETC..

See, this is where I would stand on the side of the religious person. Wearing something "faith based" in no way impinges on the rights of others -so long as it does not interfere with state requirements- (this is the slot your DMV photo's sit in, the state has an overarching interest on the grounds of identification). The only other time I can reasonably think of banning such things is if wearing dangly jewellery could pose a risk to your safety (such as working around machinery that could drag you into it). Allowing non religious jewellery and banning religious ones would be discriminatory, no matter the faith.
I guess the best "test" concerning church and state is weather or not the clothing/affectation presents a challenge to the interests of the state in this case.

Then i guess there's way too many parents who just 'accept what their kids are saying then, based on the # of news stories i have seen just this year alone, where "Mom or dad, accept and encourage their 4-7 yr old in recognizing their NEW gender identity"//

I would question weather you are getting the full story. the 4-7 year old may have gone to psychologists or paediatricians -before- mum or dad accept or encourage their new identity. If one of my kids felt that way, it's what I would do, and no matter what, they are my kids and how they identify or who they love will not change how I feel about them.

Strange, i don't see many white power rallies. I've seen a # of black power ones..

The ones you are calling "black power ones" are often held in places to attract maximum media coverage.
The white power ones, yeah, not so much.