Random Politics

[Jerloma]

That is part of the problem. They intentionally wrote the Bill incredibly broad, so it protects just about any action done in the name of religious belief. The clear intent was to allow Christians to discriminate against gays. My guess is that the bill is so broad because they didn't want to look bad in singling out gays. Judging by Al Melvin's interview and other AZ Congressmen, they have no concept of how widely this Bill could be used to justify all sorts of societally unacceptable behaviors.

See, I can't even gauge that. I just see words put together that doesn't seem like it's saying much at all with "free practice of religion" mixed in. I still don't get it.

Exercise of religion" means the
PRACTICE OR OBSERVANCE OF

RELIGION, INCLUDING THE
ability to act or refusal to act in a manner

substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is

compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief

It's pretty clear, really. What you don't understand is how discriminating against gays is a religious practice. Join the club on that one.

[The Sybian]

That is part of the problem. They intentionally wrote the Bill incredibly broad, so it protects just about any action done in the name of religious belief. The clear intent was to allow Christians to discriminate against gays. My guess is that the bill is so broad because they didn't want to look bad in singling out gays. Judging by Al Melvin's interview and other AZ Congressmen, they have no concept of how widely this Bill could be used to justify all sorts of societally unacceptable behaviors.

See, I can't even gauge that. I just see words put together that doesn't seem like it's saying much at all with "free practice of religion" mixed in. I still don't get it.

That's why lawyers get paid. We have to be trained to make sense out of statutes, and throw in some Latin to prevent non-lawyers from doing shit for themselves. My father calls it the Lawyers for Employment of Lawyers Act of 1853, since Legislators used to be primarily lawyers. I will say, the majority of that Bill says absolutely nothing.

[Johnnie]

That wording to me is convoluted as fuck. It reads like pretentious gibberish.

Paraphrased:

The exercise of religion includes the refusal to act in a manner motivated by religious belief...whether or not the exercise is central to a larger religious belief system.

So you're doing your religion thing when you don't want to do something because of your religion. Ah. Ok then. But what? Who cares? I feel like a dumbass because I read that a dozen times before I could understand it.

I feel like I'm a teacher trying to correct a dumb 5th grader who's using big words in an incoherent thought to prove he isn't dumb. Or I'm being reminded that I'm the dumb one because wording like that actually makes sense to people.

[Giff]

I'd put lobster on my menu and when someone ordered it, I'd kick 'em the fuck out.

[The Sybian]

I'd put lobster on my menu and when someone ordered it, I'd kick 'em the fuck out.

Word. It's the only way to know whether they violate the laws of G-d.

[Scottie]

I say we just let business owners discriminate at will and then let them suffer the consequences of it.

Or benefit from it.

It would provide liability protection. Besides, you shouldn't have to sell your goods to someone you don't want to sell them to or provide services to people to whom you don't want to provide them; it's another vile product of political correctness that you cannot refuse to do business with someone you don't like; a brainless bureaucratic groupthink dictating how you should live. If you don't like someone because they are Black, White, Chartreuse, Turquoise, Plaid, Lesbian, Feminist, Gay, Yankees fan, Swedish, Young, Old, Married, Muslim, Japanese, Vegan, Martian, that's YOUR fucking business. Maybe you don't want to sell to some guy simply because he rubs you the wrong way, makes annoying nasal sounds when breathing, smells funny, is stupid, steals from your shop, or you just plain don't want him around. Again, YOUR fucking business.

This protects you against human pus like that assdouche feminst PC-nazi that deliberately went into a Muslim barber shop in Toronto to "get a haircut" knowing damn well that it was against their religion to touch her and there were signs in the place saying they only serve men. So she took her cunt-engineered bullshit to a kangaroo court known as the "Human Rights Tribunal" and tried using her hateful leftist politics to destroy an innocent man whose only crime was simply going about his life; an entirely intentional and complete unprovoked vicious attack. And she won.

There's a story here (with a photo of the festering analsore that caused it all).

So, yeah, there is a huge discrepancy when you can freely use your twat as a weapon for political reasons while being forbidden to use your religion in your business. It's far worse than "you cannot refuse to do business with someone you don't like", far worse, because the narcissistic PC shitheads are too stupid to see the hypocrisy of themselves refusing to let you refuse anything; you are forced to do business with people you simply and unquestionably never would in a sane world. And that is unacceptable.

[Jerloma]

Yeah, I think I agree with you but only at the private level. At a government level that would be some imperialistic bullshit.

Of course there is this idea as well that those customers or potential employees that your turning away pay taxes that help to support an infrastructure that allows your business to exist/succeed/thrive.

[Giff]

Of course there is this idea as well that those customers or potential employees that your turning away pay taxes that help to support an infrastructure that allows your business to exist/succeed/thrive.

Exactly.

[Scottie]

Of course there is this idea as well that those customers or potential employees that your turning away pay taxes that help to support an infrastructure that allows your business to exist/succeed/thrive.

And as a taxpayer who happens to own that business, I also pay taxes to allow the rest of society to do a bunch of other shit that I may or may not like. That's life. Which is why what you are suggesting is a completely baseless idea. You being a taxpayer does not give you the right to force me to do business with you. Not even fucking close. Absurd. Completely hypocritical leftist to say that "my tax dollars give me rights that your tax dollars do not give you". Oh, hey, my tax dollars support an infrastructure that allows a business to sell Justin Bieber t-shirts and I DON'T LIKE THAT so therefore it is my right to get legal about it? Oh, fucking please. The one-trillionth of one-trillionth of one penny of any tax dollar I might see from somebody doesn't give them the right to do shit.

And if I turn someone away at the risk of hurting my own enterprise? My problem, my risk and none of your business.

[Jerloma]

Ehhh...I don't know. I'll concede that it wasn't as black and white as the liberal media was painting it but that's par for the course with the media, I suppose.

I live in a state where I'm 10 minutes from everything but I imagine there are towns in AZ where if you were rejected service for something, you'd have to drive like 2 hours to find another one. That's kind of awful.


Where's Howard? What does he think?

[brian]

Of course there is this idea as well that those customers or potential employees that your turning away pay taxes that help to support an infrastructure that allows your business to exist/succeed/thrive.

And as a taxpayer who happens to own that business, I also pay taxes to allow the rest of society to do a bunch of other shit that I may or may not like. That's life. Which is why what you are suggesting is a completely baseless idea. You being a taxpayer does not give you the right to force me to do business with you. Not even fucking close. Absurd. Completely hypocritical leftist to say that "my tax dollars give me rights that your tax dollars do not give you". Oh, hey, my tax dollars support an infrastructure that allows a business to sell Justin Bieber t-shirts and I DON'T LIKE THAT so therefore it is my right to get legal about it? Oh, fucking please. The one-trillionth of one-trillionth of one penny of any tax dollar I might see from somebody doesn't give them the right to do shit.

And if I turn someone away at the risk of hurting my own enterprise? My problem, my risk and none of your business.

That's sort of true. By this reckoning it would be acceptable to refuse service to someone because they were black (I'm not saying YOU feel that way, but that's the same argument that racists used in the days of Jim Crow).

That said, refusing service to blacks based on the color of their skin and not wanting to make a cake for a gay wedding are not even in the same hemisphere as far as discrimination goes.

[Scottie]

That's sort of true. By this reckoning it would be acceptable to refuse service to someone because they were black . . .

Right. Which is what Jerloma said (and to which I replied).

In fact, J-Lo has hit the Escher Staircase of logic going up these stairs:

I say we just let business owners discriminate at will and then let them suffer the consequences of it.

And right back down these stairs:

those customers or potential employees that your turning away pay taxes that help to support an infrastructure that allows your business to exist/succeed/thrive.

[Jerloma]

Well...I'm trying to work it out. Usually when I do that it'll appear that I'm arguing with myself, which I suppose I am.

[The Sybian]

Well...I'm trying to work it out. Usually when I do that it'll appear that I'm arguing with myself, which I suppose I am.

When J-Lo argues with himself, everybody loses.

[Jerloma]

Well...I'm trying to work it out. Usually when I do that it'll appear that I'm arguing with myself, which I suppose I am.

When J-Lo argues with himself, everybody loses.

[DaveInSeattle]

Of course there is this idea as well that those customers or potential employees that your turning away pay taxes that help to support an infrastructure that allows your business to exist/succeed/thrive.

And as a taxpayer who happens to own that business, I also pay taxes to allow the rest of society to do a bunch of other shit that I may or may not like. That's life. Which is why what you are suggesting is a completely baseless idea. You being a taxpayer does not give you the right to force me to do business with you. Not even fucking close. Absurd. Completely hypocritical leftist to say that "my tax dollars give me rights that your tax dollars do not give you". Oh, hey, my tax dollars support an infrastructure that allows a business to sell Justin Bieber t-shirts and I DON'T LIKE THAT so therefore it is my right to get legal about it? Oh, fucking please. The one-trillionth of one-trillionth of one penny of any tax dollar I might see from somebody doesn't give them the right to do shit.

And if I turn someone away at the risk of hurting my own enterprise? My problem, my risk and none of your business.

I know I'm going to hate myself for asking this.....but here goes...

So you don't think the Civil Right laws back in the 60's should have been passed? Because the way I'm reading this, it sure sounds like you think that those Lunch Counter owners had every right not to serve black customers.

[Giff]

Of course there is this idea as well that those customers or potential employees that your turning away pay taxes that help to support an infrastructure that allows your business to exist/succeed/thrive.

And as a taxpayer who happens to own that business, I also pay taxes to allow the rest of society to do a bunch of other shit that I may or may not like. That's life. Which is why what you are suggesting is a completely baseless idea. You being a taxpayer does not give you the right to force me to do business with you. Not even fucking close. Absurd. Completely hypocritical leftist to say that "my tax dollars give me rights that your tax dollars do not give you". Oh, hey, my tax dollars support an infrastructure that allows a business to sell Justin Bieber t-shirts and I DON'T LIKE THAT so therefore it is my right to get legal about it? Oh, fucking please. The one-trillionth of one-trillionth of one penny of any tax dollar I might see from somebody doesn't give them the right to do shit.

And if I turn someone away at the risk of hurting my own enterprise? My problem, my risk and none of your business.

I know I'm going to hate myself for asking this.....but here goes...

So you don't think the Civil Right laws back in the 60's should have been passed? Because the way I'm reading this, it sure sounds like you think that those Lunch Counter owners had every right not to serve black customers.

You wanna argue with someone who is equating discrimination against gays to people selling Justin Beiber shirts?

[howard]

The first lunch counter protests did not seek legal remedy--they sought to pressure the Woolworth corporation to change their policy of segregation, as well as to similarly pressure other store and corporate policies. And the protests met significant success in this regard.

This is the exact objection raised at the time by 'true' conservatives such as Barry Goldwater (and my dear old dad) at the time. That the federal government has no proper role in regulating private conduct by business owners. The creation of the 'public accomodations' class of business in the 1964 Act, including hotels, restaurants, and (eventually) most retail establishments was a huge enlargement of the reach of federal government into the commercial sphere.

There was an earlier civil rights law, passed in 1875, which similarly outlawed discrimination by restaurants, hotels, theaters and other businesses. This law was overturned as unconstitutional by the Court in 1883, despite an eloquent lone dissent by John Marshall Harlan. One court's unconstitutional is another court's mandate for social change/engineering.

The slippery slope of that extension of government powers led to the onerous aspects of the Americans with Disability Act of the 1990s, as well as the generally positive aspects of that subsequent law.

Personally, I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the subsequent affirmations by the Court. At the same time, I recognize that the set of actions by the three branches of government in creating, enacting, enforcing and constitutionally affirming this Act carries negative effects, some foreseeable at the time, others unforeseeable.

As I frequently state, there is a big difference between what is a right, and what is a law; I do not think that there is a 'right' to run a business in any fashion that one wishes (or in any fashion that the 'free market' permits or rewards). Clearly society has a role in regulating business/commerce, through its laws as well as through the 'invisible hand of the free market'. We struggle to determine how much regulation is ideal, not whether or not zero regulation is a worthy goal (despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, from both left and right.) And, back to my personal thinking, the state compelling businesses not to discriminate on the basis of such bullshit as color, gender, religion or private sexual behavior is proper and appropriate.

No law is perfect; not even that early set that limited itself to only ten provisions. Even the wisest, best crafted and administered law will carry risk and downside, regardless of ones point of view of political party or general stance.

The idea that any individual law or act of Congress enacted into law is black or white, (heh), or that support for or opposition to any specific law or Court decision is required for/inconsistent with a political label (liberal, libertarian, conservative) is silly. Much less that support/opposition of any such provision affirms or negates an entire set of political views or values.

My father was hardly an opponent of equal rights for all people in the nation because he held greater weight of the (easily foreseeable) negative effects of the expansion of federal government reach into the sphere of regulation of (intrastate) commercial activity than his fellow supporters of equality who ignored or discounted these negative aspects.

[HaulCitgo]

Isnt this the reason the supreme court has made up law over the past century. Legislators pass (or attempt to pass) laws and judges interject with their upper class norms under the guise of a state or federal constitution. Whats the problem?

[sancarlos]

howard, you ought to be in politics. That was a non-answer that kind of split the middle of the arguments of DiS/Giff vs. those of Scottie/JLo. As usual, I'm more confused than ever, now.

[howard]

Personally, I support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the subsequent affirmations by the Court.

Sorry to cloud my answer with a bunch of other blather. Let me try to distill it down.

Business is always regulated by government, to some degree. This is a simple fact of society, here in the USA and everywhere else. There is no such thing as 100% unregulated commerce. No such thing exists (afaik--please correct me if I am in error.) Such a condition has never ever existed in the USA. A 'right' for business to operate without any restriction whatsoever is a utopian fantasy, unknown in the real world.

The political issue, often lied about, is how much or how little regulation is ideal or proper. Anyone proposing or seeking no regulation is lying (or a true anarchist I suppose, which is belief that a particular flavor of utopia is practically attainable--good luck with that.)

Any specific regulation has downside. Including the 1964 act. Good and bad effects.

I didn't get a 'harumph' outta that guy. You watch your ass!

[Scottie]

So you don't think the Civil Right laws back in the 60's should have been passed? Because the way I'm reading this, it sure sounds like you think that those Lunch Counter owners had every right not to serve black customers.

Not what I'm saying at all. You know that. And I know that you understand that Civil Rights legislation and lunch counter sit-in protests are two quite separate entities.

You really ought to be posing that question to Jerloma. After all, as I mentioned above in more detail, it is his "let business owners discriminate at will" line to which you are really responding.

Worth noting, too, that it is not Civil Rights legislation the enables a PC-nutcase to walk into a business and attempt/succeed to destroy it. Not even close. The type of kangaroo tribunals to which I referred are not enforcing laws from within in the canons of federal, provincial, or municipal law but are rather simply neo-communist apparatchiks strong-arming their own extremist agenda; these are people infinitely more discriminatory than the people they accuse of discrimination. I have a problem with that and so should you.

There should never be a fine line between "civil rights" and "nanny state" but rather a vast divide between the two. Civil Rights legislation, despite inevitable unintended consequences that may accompany its fundamental necessity, move a nation properly toward a more "just" and civilized society. Nanny state groupthink not only destroys a society but the lives of all within it.

Civil Rights legislation in the United States was (is) necessary and surely long overdue when it did arrive; glaringly required in some states more than others but unquestionably had to be foremost a federal policy. America's two solitudes quite visibly need Civil Rights laws and the laws were written with praiseworthy intent. I don't believe I've ever heard someone who merited the listening, in all my years, ever suggest otherwise.

Excuse me for a moment . . .

You wanna argue with someone who is equating discrimination against gays to people selling Justin Beiber shirts?

Isn't Reddit a troll board? One of those places where deliberate idiocy reigns? The shallow end of the ePool. Hmmm? Some place more appropriate for your aimless absurdities? Or at least stay out of a conversation in which you are not capable of contributing anything; it will be no less compelling in your absence. (Apologies if I'm affording you too much credit. I simply assumed anything so staggeringly stupid must surely be intentional.)

[howard]

America's two solitudes quite visibly need Civil Rights laws and the laws were written with praiseworthy intent.

These make the finest paving stones. Which directly refers to what, in one sentence, summarizes the credo of this particular libertarian conservative.

The road to (socialist, nanny-state, Orwellian) Hell is paved with (praiseworthy) good intentions.

That does not mean to have no good intent, in law or otherwise in life. It means, be fucking careful, conservatively, especially careful wrt liberty.

[Shirley]

Look, we can debate and disagree all we want here. But there's no need to ever tell someone to leave the board. It's uncalled for.

[Scottie]

Look, we can debate and disagree all we want here. But there's no need to ever tell someone to leave the board. It's uncalled for.

Although I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, do note that nothing of the sort occurred. I suggested that if one is fond of trolling there is no shortage of outlets. Nobody said anything about "leaving the board". Nor is there any need, as you well know, to escalate that which is closed into something unnecessarily silly.

[Shirley]

Look, we can debate and disagree all we want here. But there's no need to ever tell someone to leave the board. It's uncalled for.

Although I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, do note that nothing of the sort occurred. I suggested that if one is fond of trolling there is no shortage of outlets. Nobody said anything about "leaving the board". Nor is there any need, as you well know, to escalate that which is closed into something unnecessarily silly.

Something "of the sort" most certainly did occur. Not in the exact words I used of course, but the intent was clear. Let's not do that.

[Scottie]

Something "of the sort" most certainly did occur. Not in the exact words I used of course, but the intent was clear. Let's not do that.

Let's not make me repeat myself about the inappropriateness of errantly making something out of nothing. Such attitude is so . . . easily . . . misinterpreted.

Understood?

[DaveInSeattle]

I can see what the more Libertarian folks are saying with respect to this law...."Hey, its our business, and we should be able to run it the way we want". And in a perfect world, the government wouldn't need to make laws telling businesses not to discriminate based on skin-color, sexual preference, or whatever. But its not a perfect world, by a long shot, and so there needs to be laws to regulate businesses, whether its a lunch counter who doesn't want to serve blacks, or a chemical company who thinks it would be cheaper just to dump its toxic waste in a river somewhere.

And to those saying "I'm just practicing my religion!", get a better religion.

[bfj]

Something "of the sort" most certainly did occur. Not in the exact words I used of course, but the intent was clear. Let's not do that.

Let's not make me repeat myself about the inappropriateness of errantly making something out of nothing. Such attitude is so . . . easily . . . misinterpreted.

Understood?

I think I miss you Scarecrow, most of all.

[Giff]

Something "of the sort" most certainly did occur. Not in the exact words I used of course, but the intent was clear. Let's not do that.

Let's not make me repeat myself about the inappropriateness of errantly making something out of nothing. Such attitude is so . . . easily . . . misinterpreted.

Understood?

I think I miss you Scarecrow, most of all.

Lol. Scottie being Scottie. It's always something to see.

But rest assured, along with nearly everyone else who has left this place, he would certainly be the reason if I ceased posting here. Instead, I will see how many words I can get out of him with a one-liner.

[Scottie]

Instead, I will see how many words I can get out of him with a one-liner.

Which is the very definition of trolling.

Get it? Nah. You don't. You won't. You can't.

Predictably, nobody calls you out for trolling despite your wearing intentional idiocy on your sleeves and waving it as some sort of freak flag. But there is no hesitation for someone to call me out for calling you out for trolling.

Are you possessed of even half a wit that you might identify what you are doing? Or does being reduced to life as a male feminist, so cowardly beaten down, afford a numb kind of delusional comfort that allows you to scurry away from intellectual engagement and hide behind amateurish indecent clown makeup?

You cannot successfully mock someone if you have far less credibility, and infinitely less acumen, than your target. In theatrical argot this is known as "falling flat on one's face." It is also known as being "hoist with one's own petard" and, in idiomatic lingo, "being far too stupid to see how fucking stupid one is."

[bfj]

Instead, I will see how many words I can get out of him with a one-liner.

Which is the very definition of trolling.

Understood?

[Scottie]

Instead, I will see how many words I can get out of him with a one-liner.

Which is the very definition of trolling.

Understood?

http://www.lightbulbs-direct.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Giff]

If people want to call me out for "trolling" you, then they can. I certainly don't waste any of my time outside of this forum trying to figure out a way for you to write a short story that says the same exact thing as your last short story which said the same thing as the last one. All with just different words. It just comes naturally since you act like this in every. single. thread. here. The website really should be renamed scottiefrog.net.

[The Sybian]

Victoria Jackson is back, with another classic. After listening to this song, I am converted. She does make some compelling points.

[Pruitt]

Victoria Jackson is back, with another classic. After listening to this song, I am converted. She does make some compelling points.

I made it to the 1:00 mark before I was convinced as well.

And the fact that the video has had 7,500 views would tell me that I am not alone.

Looks like she's just as popular now as she was when she was on SNL.

[howard]

North Korea elections: Kim Jong-un wins 100% of the vote

Hey, I called this one.

[The Sybian]

Idiot Ohio state Representative suddenly realizes public education is Socialist!?!?!? He decided to look up the definition of Socialism, and suddenly realized this horrible truth. He says the Teaparty should focus on fighting this evil instead of Obamacare, because Socialism is already here! To his credit, at least he bothered to look up the definition, albeit he cites Wikipedia. The funny thing is, he notes that the education system has been Socialistic since the day this country was founded. Soooo, a Teaparty dude wants to overthrow the system the Founding Fathers put into place?

The answer? Privatization of schools, of course! Because profit margins should be the deciding factor in educating our youth. If you don't like your school? Leave and it will go out of business! Brilliant, that'll work in reality. Who the hell is going to go into the business of opening a junior high in anything but a wealthy area? Either teachers will <gasp!> make more money, or quit teaching because who wants to take a lower salary than they could otherwise command to create profit for some corporate school? Why am I even bothering to argue this asinine idea?

[howard]

The Republican National Committee new ad campaign, to reach young voters. Whatever they are smoking, they ain't smoking enough.

[Johnnie]

Really? They got a hipster at a gas station talking to someone off camera as their spokesperson to young people?

That's a marketing campaign fit for democrats.

(At least he's not driving a Prius.)