1. Providing your normal services to somebody doesn't mean you approve of their lifestyle, behavior, or anything else about them. You can oppose homosexuality, but that doesn't mean you can't serve gays. 2. The Bible doesn't say you can't exchange goods and services with gay people. All it says is that sodomy is punishable by stoning. So, in this case, the opposition to homosexuality is not based on religious scripture. 3. I'm not sure the government should be taking sides in this case. I have immense respect for the justice of the courts, but this seems like the sort of issue that should be hashed out in public debate rather than decided by the courts. 4. This is a very minor issue compared to how much attention it's getting.
Imagine the uproar that would take place on FOX News if a bakery in Seattle started refusing to bake cakes for Trump voters (incidentally, something that, unlike being gay, is actually a choice). Furthermore, I could start a religion tomorrow and say that my holy texts CLEARLY state I am not allowed to serve Trump voters, and it would be no less valid than anyone making the claim they can't serve gay people based on Christianity. Sound ridiculous?? Of course it is....all of it.
Point being, if you are going to let businesses LICENSED to serve the public use religion as an excuse to discriminate, anyone can simply INVENT a religious doctrine or entirely new religion to accommodate that view. The problem, of course, is that only Christianity is given this kind of insane leeway, and the people who end up getting targeted are ALWAYS minorities.
The Supreme Court is going to hear the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for a homosexual couple's wedding, citing religious objections; the couple sued the baker because they feel that a business should not be allowed to discriminate against them. My take on the situation: business owners definitely have the right to refuse service to people (you have seen those "no shoes no shirt no service" signs, this is an extension of that) if and only if they are willing to risk economic ruin when people stop spending money in their store. Only an idiot turns away paying customers, though, religious objections or not.
WE are close to the tipping point of having more older folks than younger folks.
Beginning in 2011, people in the United States began turning 65 at the rate of about 10,000 per day. The middle of the Baby Boom years, typically defined as the period from 1946 to 1964, was 1955, so those folks will turn 65 in 2020--we haven't yet reached the midway point of people turning older. If we presume an average lifespan of 85 (which seems reasonable) then Baby Boomers won't start dying in significant numbers until about 2031, a process which will then continue past its own midpoint of 2040 and continue until 2049. In other words, the age demographic of this nation has already been changing rapidly for several years but the population demographic of the country is about to start changing dramatically in the near future. All those people will be leaving their jobs for retirement (wherever possible), they will be collecting their Social Security and Medicare benefits, etc. When they were young children that generation redefined the public school system (which was inadequate to house that many students at the time, so schools had to expand), then as they entered the workforce they redefined the economy, and as they start to withdraw from the workforce they are going to redefine the economy again. For example, nursing homes and hospices are going to see more business, unless more people go back to the older method of having elderly relatives live in the home with them. I do not think we are prepared for the changes those people retiring will bring because many of those jobs are going to be phased out or not filled by a younger employee, labor force participation is going to drop, etc.
@Mathsorcerer That was my point, thanks for doing the math and detailing it out.
@Zaghoul You are welcome. Sometimes I get lost on tangents but, in all seriousness, only very few people have put some thought into how dramatically our demographics are going to change over the next 25 years. Even with the current rate of immigration, by the time I hit 65 our population will have decreased, our job numbers will have become negative (more people leaving jobs as they retire), and so on and so forth. All those retirees are going to be taking money out of the system as opposed to putting money into it.
The wrinkle in the case the Court will hear is the Colorado actually has an anti-discrimination law on the books--refusing service is technically against that law--but not all States have such a law.
In other other news, the EU fined Google $2.7 billion for the way it ranked its comparison shopping results.
There have been no terrorist attacks by the people from the countries listed on the travel ban.
Are we supposed to be believe maybe that Trump knows something we don't? Ha among other things this guy believes the human's are powered by batteries and only have so much juice and lies literally all the time.
Looking back on this image, wasn't the 9/11 attack linked to extremists out of Syria? Or am I remmbering that wrong?
There have been no terrorist attacks by the people from the countries listed on the travel ban.
Are we supposed to be believe maybe that Trump knows something we don't? Ha among other things this guy believes the human's are powered by batteries and only have so much juice and lies literally all the time.
Looking back on this image, wasn't the 9/11 attack linked to extremists out of Syria? Or am I remmbering that wrong?
Some vague indications that the Syrians were planning another chemical attack, though the Trump administration threatened punishment if they conducted one (Russia and Syria, naturally, denied the allegation). I expected the Syrian regime to keep committing war crimes (though I didn't think a chemical weapon attack would occur so soon), and the Trump administration would take no meaningful new action.
Speaking of faked Trump has had this fake cover of Time magazine - this issue does not exist - placed in at least five of President Trump’s clubs, from South Florida to Scotland.
The notorious RBG called Trump a faker seems she was right. Of course there's plenty of other evidence of him being a con artist such as Trump University etc.
Should Christian doctors then be allowed to refuse treatment if it's against their religious beliefs?
@Shandyr that's already the case to some extent in lots of countries - the right to refuse abortion is particularly common even where that would endanger the health of the mother, but there are lots of other opt-out provisions.
In a case in the US a few months ago the judge stated doctors can refuse to treat women and transgendered individuals on the grounds of religious freedom. On the face of it that seems inconsistent with the US constitution which says: Section 9: “Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. No person may be unfairly discriminated against directly or indirectly on any one or more grounds including amongst other things religion, conscience and belief”. To me that looks like it was intended that equality takes precedence over religion, but that section can be interpreted differently: - tongue in cheek I might suggest the word "unfairly" in the constitution provides grounds for some people to consider it's always 'fair' to discriminate against certain groups. - in a more mainstream context section 9 is used as a means of protecting people who refuse to do their jobs for religious reasons (they can't be punished as that would be discriminating against them on the grounds of their beliefs). I can't quite get my head round the logic involved there, but there are plenty of people who follow that line.
So think Trumpcare is dead? It's not - it is going to pass (and then real people will be dead).
The few GOP holdouts will be bullied and weaseled into going along. Guys like Cruz and buddies are not really holding out, they're just trying to get some attention so they can get on camera later and say they weren't sure but now believe it is the right thing to do, brothers and sisters. Yuck.
As for the couple Senators limply holding back they will come around for Trump. Trump is really good at bullying people. And it's not like the holdouts really have their own healthcare on the line. Their butt is on the line from pressure from a bullying Trump though. So they will fall in to line. They will decide it's not worth the grief from Trump. They will sign the Wealthcare bill and give those billionaires their tax cut.
On the one hand I am convinced that people have the right to discriminate against each other if they so desire--no law can force you to be nice to others or treat them with respect. That must come from within yourself.
On the other hand, discriminating against other people clearly identifies you as a cabrón (no translation necessary, but feel free to look it up if you are uncertain) and you deserve whatever you get because of it.
*************
Enough Republicans expressed their own dislike of the impending health care legislation that Mitch McConnell has decided to postpone the vote. Maybe they can go back to formula and come up with a better idea. Probably not, but the possibility always exists.
It went down because public opinion is overwhelmingly against it. There is no constituency for the Republican health care bills, not even on the right, not even really on the FAR right. That said, DO NOT underestimate Mitch McConnell if you oppose this bill. He is a master Senate tactician and is as cynical as the day is long. It won't be safe to declare a victory here until we reach September, when they can no longer implement it through reconciliation.
Is this the CNN producer calling the Trump/Russia narrative b.s among other things?
I was going to mention that at some point along with their retraction of yet another story on their part due to Breitbart calling it out and the subsequent firing of people over it. Not having a good record in terms of credibility these days.
Clinton was under FBI investigation. Sanders is currently. Trump is not and never was but if you only read traditional media you would think he's all but been convicted.
their retraction of yet another story on their part due to Breitbart calling it out and the subsequent firing of people over it. Not having a good record in terms of credibility these days.
An odd spin, from my point of view. CNN's response was exactly what it was supposed to be.
CNN put out a false story, retracted it immediately after it was exposed, and then fired the people responsible.
Contrast with Fox, which touted a false story for weeks, and it took a lawsuit before they retracted it.
CNN was threatened with a lawsuit which was why they retracted it. Distinction without a difference.
Point is everyone knows not to trust Fox. They are synonymous with agenda pushing in the way some of these organizations of no greater credibility are not.
CNN was threatened with a lawsuit which was why they retracted it. Distinction without a difference.
Point is everyone knows not to trust Fox. They are synonymous with agenda pushing in the way some of these organizations of no greater credibility are not.
I would argue that many, many people trust FOX News implicitly, and that they and AM talk radio have been the most destructive forces in American political debate for going on nearly 30 years now. There is a difference between having an agenda (MSNBC during their evening line-up), being generally goofy and incompetent most of the time (CNN) and running a full-fledged propaganda outfit that is really nothing more than the 2 minute hate from "1984", except it's been going on for almost 25 years, 24/7. I started watching FOX as an observer of their tactics when I was in high school around the time of the Columbine shooting. Not a thing has changed in all that time. Fear and loathing pushed around the clock to sell dick pills and reverse mortgages, and to stop at nothing to keep Republicans in power.
And make no mistake, I think they are BRUTALLY effective at what they do, they are frighteningly adept at convincing those who are susceptible to their tactics of just about anything. If you want to explain where Donald Trump came from, you have to look little further than FOX News and Rush Limbaugh. This has been festering for decades.
CNN was threatened with a lawsuit which was why they retracted it. Distinction without a difference.
Point is everyone knows not to trust Fox. They are synonymous with agenda pushing in the way some of these organizations of no greater credibility are not.
CNN did the right thing. They said something was news that proved false so they pulled it and the people that fell for it were let go.
Did Sean Spicer quit when he was called out for saying Hitler didn't use Chemical Weapons?
Has Trump quit for lying about (among many things) crowd size, winning the popular vote, "taping" Comey, and saying Obama "wiretapped" him? Nope.
Would the world be a better place if everyone lied their ass off like Trump and even when you show the evidence to their face they still deny it? Is that what CNN should have done, take a page from Trump and Fox?
Let's get one thing straight about James O'Keefe. He has been releasing deceptively edited videos to try destroy liberal causes for over a decade. He did it with ACORN (which many on the right still blame for things despite it not existing for 6 years, because of O'Keefe). He destroyed the career of Shirley Sharrod, a women who had nothing to do with anything, simply because she was black and told a story about how she had changed for the better in her feelings about white people over the years (O'Keefe and Andrew Bretibart made her speech sound ENTIRELY different, and she lost her career over it). He pretended to be a repairman and he and a few of his cohorts attempted to use that pretext to try break into a Senator's office to bug her phones. He was convicted of that charge, and the only reason he didn't get hit with a felony is because his dad was friends with the judge. And then we have the Planned Parenthood fiasco of last year, claiming they were harvesting baby parts for profit, basically reviving the "blood libel" charge Christians have historically leveled against Jews. His acolytes were caught on tape trying to get liberal protesters to cause violence at Trump rallies by offering them money, simply so they could have that video. They have broken the law in their "stings" no less than 3 times. He is a scumbag, a fraud, and a convicted criminal.
James O'Keefe is like a cop waiting outside the bar parking lot to bust you for drunk driving. Except he is in an unmarked car. But not only is he in an unmarked car, he is also dressed in street clothes. And when you leave the bar, he walks up to you and hands you a mixed-drink with 80 proof alcohol in it. But he doesn't tell you it has alcohol in it, he actually claims it is Minute Maid Orange soda. And then you take the drink to be polite, but don't actually drink it. Then he pulls you over and writes you a ticket for open container. That is the basic plot of how James O'Keefe produces his "sting" videos.
So Trump attacked Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski this morning saying she was bleeding badly from a face lift when she visited Mar-a-lago and asked him for an interview.
Of course he has to attack a woman based on her looks, right? So how's that stopping cyber bullying campaign going Melania? Not so good eh?
Comments
1. Providing your normal services to somebody doesn't mean you approve of their lifestyle, behavior, or anything else about them. You can oppose homosexuality, but that doesn't mean you can't serve gays.
2. The Bible doesn't say you can't exchange goods and services with gay people. All it says is that sodomy is punishable by stoning. So, in this case, the opposition to homosexuality is not based on religious scripture.
3. I'm not sure the government should be taking sides in this case. I have immense respect for the justice of the courts, but this seems like the sort of issue that should be hashed out in public debate rather than decided by the courts.
4. This is a very minor issue compared to how much attention it's getting.
Point being, if you are going to let businesses LICENSED to serve the public use religion as an excuse to discriminate, anyone can simply INVENT a religious doctrine or entirely new religion to accommodate that view. The problem, of course, is that only Christianity is given this kind of insane leeway, and the people who end up getting targeted are ALWAYS minorities.
The wrinkle in the case the Court will hear is the Colorado actually has an anti-discrimination law on the books--refusing service is technically against that law--but not all States have such a law.
In other other news, the EU fined Google $2.7 billion for the way it ranked its comparison shopping results.
Currently the attack has not taken place.
Speaking of faked Trump has had this fake cover of Time magazine - this issue does not exist - placed in at least five of President Trump’s clubs, from South Florida to Scotland.
Time magazine has demanded he remove the faked covers.
AND in response to that......
Sports Illustrated sent out a "fake your own cover" with a frame to make fun of the lying President.
Here's the most popular faked cover of that
A Time magazine with Trump on the cover hangs in his golf clubs. It’s fake.
In a case in the US a few months ago the judge stated doctors can refuse to treat women and transgendered individuals on the grounds of religious freedom. On the face of it that seems inconsistent with the US constitution which says:
Section 9: “Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. No person may be unfairly discriminated against directly or indirectly on any one or more grounds including amongst other things religion, conscience and belief”.
To me that looks like it was intended that equality takes precedence over religion, but that section can be interpreted differently:
- tongue in cheek I might suggest the word "unfairly" in the constitution provides grounds for some people to consider it's always 'fair' to discriminate against certain groups.
- in a more mainstream context section 9 is used as a means of protecting people who refuse to do their jobs for religious reasons (they can't be punished as that would be discriminating against them on the grounds of their beliefs). I can't quite get my head round the logic involved there, but there are plenty of people who follow that line.
The few GOP holdouts will be bullied and weaseled into going along. Guys like Cruz and buddies are not really holding out, they're just trying to get some attention so they can get on camera later and say they weren't sure but now believe it is the right thing to do, brothers and sisters. Yuck.
As for the couple Senators limply holding back they will come around for Trump. Trump is really good at bullying people. And it's not like the holdouts really have their own healthcare on the line. Their butt is on the line from pressure from a bullying Trump though. So they will fall in to line. They will decide it's not worth the grief from Trump. They will sign the Wealthcare bill and give those billionaires their tax cut.
On the other hand, discriminating against other people clearly identifies you as a cabrón (no translation necessary, but feel free to look it up if you are uncertain) and you deserve whatever you get because of it.
*************
Enough Republicans expressed their own dislike of the impending health care legislation that Mitch McConnell has decided to postpone the vote. Maybe they can go back to formula and come up with a better idea. Probably not, but the possibility always exists.
I was going to mention that at some point along with their retraction of yet another story on their part due to Breitbart calling it out and the subsequent firing of people over it. Not having a good record in terms of credibility these days.
Clinton was under FBI investigation. Sanders is currently. Trump is not and never was but if you only read traditional media you would think he's all but been convicted.
CNN put out a false story, retracted it immediately after it was exposed, and then fired the people responsible.
Contrast with Fox, which touted a false story for weeks, and it took a lawsuit before they retracted it.
Point is everyone knows not to trust Fox. They are synonymous with agenda pushing in the way some of these organizations of no greater credibility are not.
And make no mistake, I think they are BRUTALLY effective at what they do, they are frighteningly adept at convincing those who are susceptible to their tactics of just about anything. If you want to explain where Donald Trump came from, you have to look little further than FOX News and Rush Limbaugh. This has been festering for decades.
Did Sean Spicer quit when he was called out for saying Hitler didn't use Chemical Weapons?
Has Trump quit for lying about (among many things) crowd size, winning the popular vote, "taping" Comey, and saying Obama "wiretapped" him? Nope.
Would the world be a better place if everyone lied their ass off like Trump and even when you show the evidence to their face they still deny it? Is that what CNN should have done, take a page from Trump and Fox?
James O'Keefe is like a cop waiting outside the bar parking lot to bust you for drunk driving. Except he is in an unmarked car. But not only is he in an unmarked car, he is also dressed in street clothes. And when you leave the bar, he walks up to you and hands you a mixed-drink with 80 proof alcohol in it. But he doesn't tell you it has alcohol in it, he actually claims it is Minute Maid Orange soda. And then you take the drink to be polite, but don't actually drink it. Then he pulls you over and writes you a ticket for open container. That is the basic plot of how James O'Keefe produces his "sting" videos.
Source: Looking for Group
So Trump attacked Morning Joe hosts Mika Brzezinski this morning saying she was bleeding badly from a face lift when she visited Mar-a-lago and asked him for an interview.
Of course he has to attack a woman based on her looks, right? So how's that stopping cyber bullying campaign going Melania? Not so good eh?