• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

michaelskis said:
Oh look, armed citizen stops shooter at restaurant. (CNN LINK) *Although I don't fully agree with the NRA and I do not support the orginization.

Liberal Response? Crickets!



What happened in Santa Fe TX is horrible. But what federal gun regulations do you think could have been put in place do prevent it from happening?...... Crickets!
Click to expand...

First, that's just a bunch of gun rhetoric. If it's not providing a solution than it's just talking heads leading to the same response...thoughts and prayers.

What regulation could be put in place to prevent the Santa Fe, TX problem, ban firearms, as in remove the 2nd amendment and collect the guns. It's not realistic politically, but it would have prevented it.

On the restaurant story, let me get this straight...armed guy shoots 3 (injury only, no death) and runs away. Possibly because the other guy drew on him. So 3 gun related crimes. Plus the armed guy CHASES HIM DOWN AND SHOOTS HIM. One gun fatality through vigilante justice. If he were to draw and return fire in the restaurant or just draw and the guy flees. Problem solved. But that's not what happened.
When the shooting stopped, Benton and some friends headed to Louie's parking lot. They spotted the gunman walking on a sidewalk, he said. Then, Benton told KFOR, he saw a car circle back after exiting Louie's parking lot.

"A guy jumped out of it and went for the back of his vehicle. I just assumed maybe it was an off-duty officer or something like that," he said. "It was just the way he moved, whoever it was. He just appeared to be somebody who had some training, some weapon training."
Click to expand...

If he were a police office, he would have identified himself. He was probably ex military.

There are many better examples of people shooting mad gunmen and there are also examples of unarmed people talking down gunman. Let's stop using these stupid examples like it just answers all the questions that guns are good things. Plus for every one example of a "good" gun there are many more examples of "bad" guns.

Oh and way to go NRA bashing a GOP governor because they expect crazy things like training when you get a concealed carry. Imagine that, even the super conservative state of Oklahoma doesn't want just any idiot to carry concealed without some kind of training. There was a time when the NRA stood for proper gun safety and training. Now because they can't even stand up for children.
 
dvdneal said:


First, that's just a bunch of gun rhetoric. If it's not providing a solution than it's just talking heads leading to the same response...thoughts and prayers.

What regulation could be put in place to prevent the Santa Fe, TX problem, ban firearms, as in remove the 2nd amendment and collect the guns. It's not realistic politically, but it would have prevented it.

On the restaurant story, let me get this straight...armed guy shoots 3 (injury only, no death) and runs away. Possibly because the other guy drew on him. So 3 gun related crimes. Plus the armed guy CHASES HIM DOWN AND SHOOTS HIM. One gun fatality through vigilante justice. If he were to draw and return fire in the restaurant or just draw and the guy flees. Problem solved. But that's not what happened.


If he were a police office, he would have identified himself. He was probably ex military.

There are many better examples of people shooting mad gunmen and there are also examples of unarmed people talking down gunman. Let's stop using these stupid examples like it just answers all the questions that guns are good things. Plus for every one example of a "good" gun there are many more examples of "bad" guns.

Oh and way to go NRA bashing a GOP governor because they expect crazy things like training when you get a concealed carry. Imagine that, even the super conservative state of Oklahoma doesn't want just any idiot to carry concealed without some kind of training. There was a time when the NRA stood for proper gun safety and training. Now because they can't even stand up for children.
Click to expand...

Until we accept that lives are more important than gun rights, we will move no where. The insanity of continuing to say there are no solutions, when there are plenty, we just don't want to enact any of them.

"Liberal Response? Crickets!"

Crickets are because that doesn't mean that anything good came out of it. Why is shooting someone who has a gun something that warrants a positive response? Why are we supposed to be happy about any lives being lost. This "good" guy, "bad" guy rhetoric is really shameful. There are no good and bad guys with guns. There are people without guns and people with guns. Someone who doesn't have a gun can't kill you with a gun. Someone with a gun can.

So to answer your previous Q Mski: "But what federal gun regulations do you think could have been put in place do prevent it from happening?" There are literally a million ways to try and solve this problem. Name me one that we have tried? We are so scared of our guns being taken that we are unwilling to even try. THEY ARE TAKING OUR GUNS, you scream. Instead, why not scream for the lives of our children dying. For the lives of anyone being lost. "Good" or "bad".
 
dvdneal said:
First, that's just a bunch of gun rhetoric. If it's not providing a solution than it's just talking heads leading to the same response...thoughts and prayers.

What regulation could be put in place to prevent the Santa Fe, TX problem, ban firearms, as in remove the 2nd amendment and collect the guns. It's not realistic politically, but it would have prevented it.
Click to expand...

Sure... let's make murder illegal too. :r: The real rhetoric is people whining about 'guns' instead of addressing the reasons why people want to kill other people. Perhaps it would be better to solve the problem instead.

The gun is just a tool to commit a crime. Should we ban cars too? They are also used to kill.

dvdneal said:
There are many better examples of people shooting mad gunmen and there are also examples of unarmed people talking down gunman. Let's stop using these stupid examples like it just answers all the questions that guns are good things. Plus for every one example of a "good" gun there are many more examples of "bad" guns.
Click to expand...

You just proved my point on why this argument is ridiculous. You personify guns as if there are "good" or "bad" guns. As I said before a gun is a tool. It is a stone. It was the first murder weapon but it is also used to build beautiful buildings. The fact is guns do not do anything by themselves. The people who pull the trigger are good or evil.

Yes, there are better examples, but that is just the most recent one and it sounds like the guy who shot 3 people in the restaurant was a very lousy shot.
 
Fine then let's "blunt" the tool.

The Brady Bill was a decent first step, but someone decided the country should end that. Ban bump stocks, ban anything that can turn a firearm to automatic, make a standing 3 or 7-day wait on all gun purchases (not taking a right away here, you can still buy the gun), make an applicant go through training/licensing* prior to purchase, AND implement some of the 27 different items we have posted and re-posted many times here. I admit that won't stop the issue totally, but it will sure make it more difficult to pull off.

*you have to do training and license to drive a car so that kills (pun intended) your "ban the cars" rhetoric you keep spouting mskis.

The issue bowls down to a very simple point that hink said which is to value our children and friends more than a weapon. You have 3 boys, I have a daughter and many of our friends here have children of their own. I value all of them a million times over any gun! That is my priority and my point to keep bringing it up.
 
I think it's a perfectly reasonable approach to significantly limit access to various tools depending on their potential and likelihood for misuse. Heroine and crack are 'tools' too and can do nothing by themselves without the introduction of human will. There's a reason they're considered schedule 1 narcotics. Yet, we seek to lessen their death toll by applying pressure to both the supply and demand sides of the narcotics equation. Guns are quite a bit like narcotics in that their potential for use or abuse has everything to do with who, what, where, when, and how they're used.


......And it looks like while we were having this discussion we had yet another school shooting.

thoughts and prayers everyone. Oh, and there's nothing* that could have been done to prevent this.



*nothing, that is, that politicians are willing to do. After all we wouldn't want to jeopardize all those well regulated militias just to save a few school kids
 
Maister said:
I think it's a perfectly reasonable approach to significantly limit access to various tools depending on their potential and likelihood for misuse. Heroine and crack are 'tools' too and can do nothing by themselves without the introduction of human will. There's a reason they're considered schedule 1 narcotics. Yet, we seek to lessen their death toll by applying pressure to both the supply and demand sides of the narcotics equation. Guns are quite a bit like narcotics in that their potential for use or abuse has everything to do with who, what, where, when, and how they're used.


......And it looks like while we were having this discussion we had yet another school shooting.

thoughts and prayers everyone. Oh, and there's nothing* that could have been done to prevent this.

*nothing, that is, that politicians are willing to do.
Click to expand...

And how well has the war on drugs gone? (here is a link that shows it is not going well)

You mention misuse and I am curious on how one correctly uses heroine or crack? In regards to prescription narcotics, we have rehab centers for those who are addicted to them. We don't tell doctors that they can't prescribe pain killers to those that they treat. If I have surgery, should I be denied pain killers because someone overdosed on crack in the town over? Should I be denied the ability to buy a weapon because someone stole a gun and shot a few people? What about alcohol? Should I be denied a beer because some guy killed a family in a car accident because he was drunk?

I agree that guns need to be kept out of the hands of people who will misuse them, but LP's idea of banning them is on par with prohibition and I think it would spark a revolution that would rip this country apart far worse than Trump can.
 
michaelskis said:
Sure... let's make murder illegal too. :r: The real rhetoric is people whining about 'guns' instead of addressing the reasons why people want to kill other people. Perhaps it would be better to solve the problem instead.

The gun is just a tool to commit a crime. Should we ban cars too? They are also used to kill.



You just proved my point on why this argument is ridiculous. You personify guns as if there are "good" or "bad" guns. As I said before a gun is a tool. It is a stone. It was the first murder weapon but it is also used to build beautiful buildings. The fact is guns do not do anything by themselves. The people who pull the trigger are good or evil.

Yes, there are better examples, but that is just the most recent one and it sounds like the guy who shot 3 people in the restaurant was a very lousy shot.
Click to expand...

Yep, just a bunch of people whining on both sides. I'm over doing this, but at least one side recognizes that there is a problem with hundreds of kids getting shot every year. They may be trying to go too far, but at least their trying to go somewhere.

Should we ban cars because they're a tool? No, but we do regulate who can drive them. We create safety laws so they can be safely operated, we regulate the manufacture of them.
I hate the tool argument. It's comparing apples to oranges and entirely illogical. A gun is not a car, stone, hammer, bat, or anything else. No tool out there can cause the damage a gun can in such a short time. And if you bring up stuff like bomb making materials, remember that those are just every day objects that in some cases we happen to regulate access to that too. The whole tool argument is just a way of saying, "You can't blame me." No one blames you the responsible gun owner, they blame the hundreds of idiots who have easy access to a tool that can quickly devastate the lives of so many people in just minutes. Since it's not easy to round up all the idiots without violating someone's rights, we need to create some distance between idiots and guns. I don't know how, but start with registration and any of the hundred ideas we've already hashed out on this board every time a shooting happens.

I'll see you all next week or maybe even two weeks if we're lucky to discuss the next mass shooting. Meanwhile I'll keep urging my congressmen to write a sensible gun control bill. I don't even care what measures they consider sensible. Just do something.
 
dvdneal said:
Yep, just a bunch of people whining on both sides. I'm over doing this, but at least one side recognizes that there is a problem with hundreds of kids getting shot every year. They may be trying to go too far, but at least their trying to go somewhere.

Should we ban cars because they're a tool? No, but we do regulate who can drive them. We create safety laws so they can be safely operated, we regulate the manufacture of them.
I hate the tool argument. It's comparing apples to oranges and entirely illogical. A gun is not a car, stone, hammer, bat, or anything else. No tool out there can cause the damage a gun can in such a short time. And if you bring up stuff like bomb making materials, remember that those are just every day objects that in some cases we happen to regulate access to that too. The whole tool argument is just a way of saying, "You can't blame me." No one blames you the responsible gun owner, they blame the hundreds of idiots who have easy access to a tool that can quickly devastate the lives of so many people in just minutes. Since it's not easy to round up all the idiots without violating someone's rights, we need to create some distance between idiots and guns. I don't know how, but start with registration and any of the hundred ideas we've already hashed out on this board every time a shooting happens.

I'll see you all next week or maybe even two weeks if we're lucky to discuss the next mass shooting. Meanwhile I'll keep urging my congressmen to write a sensible gun control bill. I don't even care what measures they consider sensible. Just do something.
Click to expand...


Can you in all seriousness tell me that only one side recognizes that there is a problem? I can tell you 100% that there is a problem but the gun regulations that many of the left are proposing will not fix the problem. They only out for political points instead of actually making a difference. That is where they are trying to go. Personally, I agree that there needs to be improved background and universal background checks for the sale of any firearm. I think that we need to do a far better job of researching the "why" when it comes to these events. There is zero question of how, but both sides have been pathetic in researching why because you don't win political points that way.

We do need to do a better job when it comes to regulating it as a tool and some states do a better job than others. I think that there should be a class/training requirement to get a permit to carry a weapon outside of the school. Most responsible gun owners (who are the majority of total gun owners) would agree that one needs training BEFORE they should be able to carry a weapon. As for the rights, I agree, it is difficult to not infringe on someone's 2nd amendment rights. I wish I had a better answer, but I don't.

I am 100% for sensible gun control, but it really depends on how sensible is defined. One simple test is to take the regulations and look back at recent shootings to determine if those regulations would have truly made a difference in preventing that shooting. The vast majority of the bills over the years don't pass.
 
So someone tell me what the pro 2nd amendment people are proposing to stop this. More guns in schools? Good guys with guns? Oh, it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue or we just call it the price of freedom. I haven't seen any decent legislation proposed, but sure, the left is out for political points on this. We all know the first thing we have to do is stop the left/right argument and political point argument and get to where I think we all are, get some decent registration legislation passed, maybe some limits on ownership. Maybe stop with the thoughts and prayers line that has been used so many times it's a joke. After each shooting I see one side offer up legislation (sometimes a bit extreme) and the other side make excuses or deflect it away from the correlating point we can control, guns. So yeah, it's pretty one sided. Maybe it's time for the adults to come to the table and make a compromise. Wish we had some of those in congress.
 
dvdneal said:
So someone tell me what the pro 2nd amendment people are proposing to stop this. More guns in schools? Good guys with guns? Oh, it's a mental health issue, not a gun issue or we just call it the price of freedom. I haven't seen any decent legislation proposed, but sure, the left is out for political points on this. We all know the first thing we have to do is stop the left/right argument and political point argument and get to where I think we all are, get some decent registration legislation passed, maybe some limits on ownership. Maybe stop with the thoughts and prayers line that has been used so many times it's a joke. After each shooting I see one side offer up legislation (sometimes a bit extreme) and the other side make excuses or deflect it away from the correlating point we can control, guns. So yeah, it's pretty one sided. Maybe it's time for the adults to come to the table and make a compromise. Wish we had some of those in congress.
Click to expand...

You are spot on with your frustrations regarding pro-2nd amendment people. There are several good ideas out there, but there is a notable lack of unified voice on that side of the issue. To make matters worse, too many people think that the NRA talking points speak for responsible gun owners when they actually speak for gun companies who have a very different agenda.

Personally, I think it should be a combination of things including the following:
  • Armed Resource Officers in Schools Some have them and they help with other issues including bullying and community outreach
  • Giving teachers and administration the option of conceal-carry in schools if they pass and maintain ongoing training. This is something several churches have done recently
  • Better access control within schools. There are several different door barricades that have been created to secure classroom doors
  • Research why these events happen and focus more on preventative programs including behavior health resources, family counseling, and mental health programs
  • Mandatory discussion and documentation regarding the proper storage and securing of firearms for EVERY gun sold.
  • Universal background checks for every weapon sold
  • Universal training and enhanced background checks for concealed pistol licenses that are uniform to every state with required ongoing range time for maintenance.
  • Rethinking gun free zones to allow for concealed carry in most locations that don't have metal detectors if a person has a valid concealed carry licence.
 
All this discussion kind of leaves responsible gun owners in the middle asking WTF? I think we all forget there are normal, moderate people out there that just want common sense rules. I really don't care what they put up for legislation, just do something. There is so much low hanging fruit that would score political points and start solving the problems like allowing research, banning things like bump stocks, and maybe working toward a real registration background check. Like you said, the NRA represents industry, not owners, but there was a time when that was different. I'll go back to something I think everyone hates, money in politics. Get the money and lobbying out and things change. Maybe that's the first step to real gun control reform and immigration reform and any other meaningful reform.
 
dvdneal said:
I think we all forget there are normal, moderate people out there that just want common sense rules.
Click to expand...

You're describing the average American, whether you own a gun or not. The media just likes to hype up the outliers on either side of the argument. I think most people can agree that A) owning a gun is a fundamental American right and that's something that will never change, and B) gun control is a problem, and it needs to be fixed.

NOW, figuring out a solution is a whole different issue. Good luck with that.
 
JNA said:
:-o - Rosanne Barr twitter comments :-o
Click to expand...


Glad this show is cancelled. It should never have been greenlighted in the first place. I always found her to be extremely crude and obnoxious and most notably....not funny! And now she's a racist too. Roseanne is strictly bottom of the barrel: Down there with Steve Wilcos, The Kardashians and Jerry Springer in terms of quality of entertainment.
 
JNA said:
:-o - Rosanne Barr twitter comments :-o
Click to expand...

Kudos to ABC TV for doing the right thing, even though it worked against their immediate financial interests (but may ultimately benefit them long term when folks see how they acted with integrity).
 
pResident tRump makes everything about him. According to USAToday, he tweeted that he didn't get a phone call from Bob Iger apologizing for the mean things ABC said about him.

C'mon dude, just STFU!
 
Planit said:
pResident tRump makes everything about him. According to USAToday, he tweeted that he didn't get a phone call from Bob Iger apologizing for the mean things ABC said about him.

C'mon dude, just STFU!
Click to expand...

Did he mention all the people he apologized to? Oh wait... While the list of those that he has offended on twitter is very long, I don't think he is capable of apologizing.

Having said that, and while I agree with ABC's position to fire Barr, I also think they need to fire several people on The View and Bill Maher should be shown the door as well. I don't think that there is any room for hatred in this world regardless of your 'opinion'. As for 1st Amendment... ABC/ Disney/ HOB are all private companies, not the government.
 
michaelskis said:
Did he mention all the people he apologized to? Oh wait... While the list of those that he has offended on twitter is very long, I don't think he is capable of apologizing.

Having said that, and while I agree with ABC's position to fire Barr, I also think they need to fire several people on The View and Bill Maher should be shown the door as well. I don't think that there is any room for hatred in this world regardless of your 'opinion'. As for 1st Amendment... ABC/ Disney/ HOB are all private companies, not the government.
Click to expand...

Should ABC have to fire people more than say Fox News?

We have created this mess by allowing blowhards on both sides. I seriously hope that they continue to fire people who say racist things. I don't care who you work for.
 
michaelskis said:
Having said that, and while I agree with ABC's position to fire Barr, I also think they need to fire several people on The View and Bill Maher should be shown the door as well. I don't think that there is any room for hatred in this world regardless of your 'opinion'. As for 1st Amendment... ABC/ Disney/ HOB are all private companies, not the government.
Click to expand...

Meh, there is no way this was just about Rosanne's comments. Everyone knows shes a crazy right wing lunatic. Hell her Twitter account was used almost solely to bash Obama, even NOW. It's not like Rosanne hasn't been in trouble for similar comments over the years. ABC saw an opportunity to can the show AND come out looking like the good guy, so they took it.
 
Hink said:
Should ABC have to fire people more than say Fox News?

We have created this mess by allowing blowhards on both sides. I seriously hope that they continue to fire people who say racist things. I don't care who you work for.
Click to expand...

If people from Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, or any of the others said something like this, then yes, they should be fired.

Oh, and Pierre Mcguire should be fired for being an hateful idiot.
 
JNA said:
How much do you spend on pens ?

EPA paid $1,560 for 12 fountain pens, emails show
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/01/politics/pruitt-epa-pens/index.html
Click to expand...

I'll give the EPA a pass on this one. They have to have some kind of fancy gift for visiting dignitaries and the like. They can't hand out cheap pens at the conferences like the rest of us.


gtpeach said:
Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/poli...do-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips but leaves unsettled the broader constitutional questions the case presented.
Click to expand...

I keep wondering what the cake design was like. If it's like a typical wedding cake than it's pretty, but I wouldn't put it to the level of artistic. The argument that by making a cake people will think he supports gay marriage is a crock. People will think he makes cakes.
 
"Pruitt aide inquired about used Trump hotel mattress for him"

But...why? Why would anyone A) buy a USED mattress, and B) buy one from a HOTEL?! I mean I get it, the Trump hotel probably has nice mattresses, but how many people have slept on that thing? That just seems like an incredibly weird thing to buy.

UNLESS....that used mattress also contained a large amount of untraceable bills....
 
Nope, not buying a hotel mattress. I don't care how nice it is. We all know what happens on hotel mattresses. Just ask the Russians.
 
dvdneal said:
I keep wondering what the cake design was like. If it's like a typical wedding cake than it's pretty, but I wouldn't put it to the level of artistic. The argument that by making a cake people will think he supports gay marriage is a crock. People will think he makes cakes.
Click to expand...

I think it is a bit more than just the cake. How is this different than a musical artist not wanting his music to be played as part of a political campain? Or a company not wanting their product use as part of a movie?
 
michaelskis said:
I think it is a bit more than just the cake. How is this different than a musical artist not wanting his music to be played as part of a political campain? Or a company not wanting their product use as part of a movie?
Click to expand...

I would say it's different because the wedding is not a public event and the use of a product in a wedding doesn't really carry with it any sort of branding or marketing considerations (unless it's a really high profile wedding). I actually don't know what the "right" answer is here. I just know that if I was a cake baker (which I kind of am on a much more basic level), I'd make it for them.
 
I have a lot of issues and no right answer. Although I'm tired of people quoting the bible for their "religious" intolerance. If you quote the old testament as your only reason to discriminate then follow it and stop cutting your hair, eating pork, etc. and maybe go back to stoning women. You know, like the bible says. :r: Sorry, don't want to get into a religious debate.

So first, define an artist. If you make fancy cakes you're not an artist, you're a baker. Although I've seen some of the cakes and maybe we can call him an artist. For the sake of argument let's say he is.
If the part you don't like is frosting "happy gay wedding Tom and Bob" then don't do that. If you don't like putting a plastic topper with two men then don't do that. At the same time, those aren't artistic expressions.

If you don't like the cake at a "religious" ceremony than I guess you can't do it for anyone except people in your specific church because I believe the Catholics, Methodists, and Unitarians all believe different things to some degree. So if Unitarians are okay with gay marriage and your cake ends up a Unitarian wedding it's okay if it's straight, but not if it's gay. What about their religious beliefs?

You think the fact that your cake is at the wedding people will think you support gay marriage? No, I think you made a cake I paid you for. Religion and politics never entered into it.

Using the same overzealous religious standards you couldn't do cakes for a wedding at the courthouse because they might be atheists and we can't have people thinking you support godlessness.

Don't complain about the loss to your business. 1, you made the choice to discriminate in a more liberal city like Denver. It was a choice and it cost you. 2, it was your choice to stop making wedding cakes and lay off all the people that helped that part of the business. After all the news do you really think there is a gay couple in town willing to use your business. I wouldn't eat that cake.

At the same time, I'm sorry to gay people everywhere, but part of me says can't the free market just handle this one instead of the court. It's an easy fix. "Hey everyone! This company hates gay people." His market becomes very limited and maybe he fails. Either way, no gay people are hurt by him not making cake anymore.

Going back to the artist problem. I still have a problem with cake maker being classed as an artist. No museum says gay people can't view this art because the artist has "religious reasons" for you not to view it. No local band says no gay people at the bar because my music is all Christian. There are many things outside of the artists control, but when you provide a common good like a concert, art showing, bake cakes, then it needs to be for all.

When you talk about Springsteen (I think he was one) not wanting tRump to use his music, that's different. It's copyrighted material and use for personal gain without the artists consent is illegal. Just because I bought the album doesn't mean I can have a national event using the music. And yes, the artists might be a little selective on who they enforce that on, but in that case someone took the art without compensation or permission. It is not being performed as a common good.
 
I think our country (particularly many religious people) seem to confuse what religious freedom means. The concept was that you could not be told how to believe. It didn't say that you don't have give others their rights, or that you don't have to pay taxes, etc.

I am not angry at the Supreme Court, in that they were very specific. I do think that our country needs to be clear in what we mean when we say freedom. Who is free? The baker, who discriminated against a couple? Or the couple, who was discriminated against? And yes, there is no argument that the baker wasn't discriminating against them. The only argument is if he has the right to do so. That isn't religious freedom. The couple didn't ask him to believe in their wedding. They asked him to make a cake. Something he does for a living. Something he does for any other couple who request it. His beliefs have nothing to do with that. Even though he wants to say they do. He can keep his beliefs and still make the cake. If he doesn't want to make cakes for everyone, don't go into business. I agree with the free market idea, "Hey that guy discriminates, don't go there!", but I also agree with our laws, which should be strong and clear in terms of protections of all people.

Your rights are supported by me until they infringe on someone else's rights. In this case, they did. I don't agree with that.
 
Hink said:
I think our country (particularly many religious people) seem to confuse what religious freedom means. The concept was that you could not be told how to believe. It didn't say that you don't have give others their rights, or that you don't have to pay taxes, etc.

I am not angry at the Supreme Court, in that they were very specific. I do think that our country needs to be clear in what we mean when we say freedom. Who is free? The baker, who discriminated against a couple? Or the couple, who was discriminated against? And yes, there is no argument that the baker wasn't discriminating against them. The only argument is if he has the right to do so. That isn't religious freedom. The couple didn't ask him to believe in their wedding. They asked him to make a cake. Something he does for a living. Something he does for any other couple who request it. His beliefs have nothing to do with that. Even though he wants to say they do. He can keep his beliefs and still make the cake. If he doesn't want to make cakes for everyone, don't go into business. I agree with the free market idea, "Hey that guy discriminates, don't go there!", but I also agree with our laws, which should be strong and clear in terms of protections of all people.

Your rights are supported by me until they infringe on someone else's rights. In this case, they did. I don't agree with that.
Click to expand...

I was surprised they made a federal case out of this. This was trivial compared to other things going on in this country.
 
I think Trump will change the President's Office for the better in that he will stop the President being involved in congratulations for winning things. Although the concept is nice, it is really stupid that our government needs to be involved in those types of activities. Isn't the parade that the city holds for the teams enough? Those people actually like the players and teams.

I liked Obama putting out a March Madness bracket, but I certainly wouldn't say that I valued him shaking hands with the team. I preferred our President working on democracy and trade and government things.

---

The tax changes are breaking SS and medicare even more...

SS costs are exceeding income this year (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-security-says-costs-will-exceed-income-this-year/).

Same with medicare: "The report also forecasts that Medicare's giant trust fund for inpatient care won't be able to cover projected medical bills starting in 2026, three years earlier than previously expected. "

"You could change some of the formula about how much people get, you change the full retirement age, you change payroll taxes," he said. "There are a million solutions to it. There just has be political will."
 
Hink said:
I think our country (particularly many religious people) seem to confuse what religious freedom means. The concept was that you could not be told how to believe. It didn't say that you don't have give others their rights, or that you don't have to pay taxes, etc.

I am not angry at the Supreme Court, in that they were very specific. I do think that our country needs to be clear in what we mean when we say freedom. Who is free? The baker, who discriminated against a couple? Or the couple, who was discriminated against? And yes, there is no argument that the baker wasn't discriminating against them. The only argument is if he has the right to do so. That isn't religious freedom. The couple didn't ask him to believe in their wedding. They asked him to make a cake. Something he does for a living. Something he does for any other couple who request it. His beliefs have nothing to do with that. Even though he wants to say they do. He can keep his beliefs and still make the cake. If he doesn't want to make cakes for everyone, don't go into business. I agree with the free market idea, "Hey that guy discriminates, don't go there!", but I also agree with our laws, which should be strong and clear in terms of protections of all people.

Your rights are supported by me until they infringe on someone else's rights. In this case, they did. I don't agree with that.
Click to expand...

I think that you raise some interesting questions of where is the threshold of what is and is not acceptable in terms of denial of service. Should a Catholic priest be required to officiate a same sex marriage? What about a photographer or a church that does not support same sex marriage? Should they be required to provide service? What about the DJ at the reception or even a wedding planner?

It also brings up other questions as well. For example, should a pro-life lawyer be required to represent an abortion clinic in a rezoning or development case? Should an african american baker be required to bake a cake for a white supremacy group? Should a pro-life nurse be required to scrub into a voluntary abortion procedure at a hospital? My wife was once asked this question and indicated that she would not participate under any circumstances, even if it met that she would be fired.

Should restaurants that have a particular dress code deny service to a person who has the financial means to pay for a meal, but otherwise has the appearance of a homeless person? Not with a religious angle, but what about a music or graphic artist who does not want their work being used for a particular event or subject that they might be opposed to, even if someone is willing to pay for it. Is that discrimination?

Overall, I think that there needs to be some protection for religious freedoms, but I really don't know where that line is.
 
michaelskis said:
I think that you raise some interesting questions of where is the threshold of what is and is not acceptable in terms of denial of service. Should a Catholic priest be required to officiate a same sex marriage? What about a photographer or a church that does not support same sex marriage? Should they be required to provide service? What about the DJ at the reception or even a wedding planner?

It also brings up other questions as well. For example, should a pro-life lawyer be required to represent an abortion clinic in a rezoning or development case? Should an african american baker be required to bake a cake for a white supremacy group? Should a pro-life nurse be required to scrub into a voluntary abortion procedure at a hospital? My wife was once asked this question and indicated that she would not participate under any circumstances, even if it met that she would be fired.

Should restaurants that have a particular dress code deny service to a person who has the financial means to pay for a meal, but otherwise has the appearance of a homeless person? Not with a religious angle, but what about a music or graphic artist who does not want their work being used for a particular event or subject that they might be opposed to, even if someone is willing to pay for it. Is that discrimination?

Overall, I think that there needs to be some protection for religious freedoms, but I really don't know where that line is.
Click to expand...

These are all easy answers.

Churches only need to perform weddings for their members. If you happen to be gay and the church believes that's a sin then I guess you won't be a member of that church. 1st amendment trumps that one easily.

abortion clinics, white supremacy groups, etc. are not protected classes. So the lawyer or baker can do whatever the hell they want.

Restaurants can deny service by dress code or whatever. It's not about discrimination it's about having a standard. If the guy can afford a meal he can afford a suit.

If an artist doesn't want their music, etc. used at an event then don't sell them the right to use it. The hard part, if your music is sold through a distribution system like a record company you've lost control of who can use your music.

I just see problems when one constitutional right conflicts with another. It always seems to be religion that makes that conflict. I understand it's the baker's "sincere religious beliefs" that gay is a sin and you should never deal with them, but at the same time he claims to be Christian and the bible has been examined by hundreds of theologians who can easily refute that this is not a core tenant of the religion. Even the Pope has come out to say something in the line that even thought the church isn't going to do a gay wedding anytime soon, you should still embrace gay people and treat them with love and kindness. I bet if you asked he would tell you to bake that cake. If the head of your church says it's not a "sincere religious belief" then you as an individual should not be allowed to claim some religious exemption. I don't think the 1st amendment was meant to allow every crack pot belief, but it seems to have led to that. I'm just going to become a pastafarian.
 
Betsy DeVos has stated that the School Safety Commission, which was founded after the Parkland school shooting, won't be looking into the role guns have played in making schools less safe.

WTF! :-c:-{:-@
 
Planit said:
Betsy DeVos has stated that the School Safety Commission, which was founded after the Parkland school shooting, won't be looking into the role guns have played in making schools less safe.

WTF! :-c:-{:-@
Click to expand...
It's video games. :r:

1994 all over again.

It's not video games. It's social isolation and the internet, more likely.

Let's ban the internet. :p
 
michaelskis said:
It also brings up other questions as well.

1. For example, should a pro-life lawyer be required to represent an abortion clinic in a rezoning or development case?

2. Should an african american baker be required to bake a cake for a white supremacy group?

3. Should a pro-life nurse be required to scrub into a voluntary abortion procedure at a hospital?

4. Should restaurants that have a particular dress code deny service to a person who has the financial means to pay for a meal, but otherwise has the appearance of a homeless person?

5. Not with a religious angle, but what about a music or graphic artist who does not want their work being used for a particular event or subject that they might be opposed to, even if someone is willing to pay for it. Is that discrimination?

Overall, I think that there needs to be some protection for religious freedoms, but I really don't know where that line is.
Click to expand...

I agree with dvd, in that these are not apples to apples with what we are discussing. I find that many of those arguments are used as strawmen to change the argument to "freedom of religion" instead of civil rights. My take:

1. Representing a clinic is different from a person. As dvd said, clinics are not protected, people are. If that lawyer was a defense lawyer and didn't want to represent a client because they were gay, then I think that is discrimination.
2. Yes. A baker should have to bake cakes. That is what they do. People have free speech rights, even if you don't like what they are saying.
3. If the nurses job is to work at the hospital and the hospital performs abortions, then I guess yes. If it is voluntary, then by definition it isn't required. So, then no if they didn't want to. Generally though people in medicine are above the religion argument when it comes to these things, but I get your point.
4. Restaurants can discriminate all they want, as long as it isn't against a protected class. If they say you can't wear rainbow colors, that is still legal.
5. Music rights really don't work in this argument because they are private property owned by someone. If that person doesn't want the music played at a public event then they can legally challenge that.


My take is very simple. You can believe what you want. You can hold those beliefs so dear that you refuse to live in a cultured society or accept someone who disagrees with you. What you cannot do is try and force someone else to feel like you do. Or make someone else less because you feel the way you do. Abortion, gay rights, and religious freedom only are problems when someone tries to say that others are not allowed to believe in them. And in the case of all three the government has weighed in on what is protected and what is not.
 
Planit said:
Betsy DeVos has stated that the School Safety Commission, which was founded after the Parkland school shooting, won't be looking into the role guns have played in making schools less safe.

WTF! :-c:-{:-@
Click to expand...
edit
n/m
 
NC political logic at its finest.

The stupid voter ID bill was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2017. So what to NC Republicans do? Introduce HB 1092, which is "An Act to Amend the North Carolina Constitution to Require Photo Identification to Vote". Reminds me of this....

2buw6g
 
AG74683 said:
NC political logic at its finest.

The stupid voter ID bill was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 2017. So what to NC Republicans do? Introduce HB 1092, which is "An Act to Amend the North Carolina Constitution to Require Photo Identification to Vote". Reminds me of this....

2buw6g
Click to expand...

Sounds like Kansas logic. Our school funding bill was struck down by the state court so they blame the judges for interfering and occasionally talk about changing the state constitution. It's been years and still no solution. The court is about to put the smack down on it.
 
Back
Top