All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

Correct.

And I would say that would apply to those who love to blame every single crime by ONE POC person on every single POC. A point many POC have yelled about that too many folks especially the snowflakes trying to pass these laws have tried to do or allowed Fox News to encourage them to do.

So why do we have to care about white kid's feelings and not the feelings of every kid of color that has been called everything in the book? For stuff they did not do?

I would be upset if anyone received taxpayer money to call a kid of color everything in the book, or to blame every single POC for every single crime by one POC person?

Does anyone here think this is something that should be a part of public-education or job-related training, because that is the context.

The sitcom Will & Grace did an episode about situation like that. Grace heard that Karen was refused a service at cakeshop and assumed that it was something like the gay wedding cake and was all ready to go fight the owner. Only to learn that they refused to bake a MAGA cake for then president's party. She changed the course quickly, but was called on that being hypocritical. At the end, she went to argue that Karen was allowed to have her MAGA cake, even if she completely disagreed with it. It was actually interesting to watch and made some good points, I think.



I am sorry to hear you had such bad experience with your friends. This is what I think is worst about this debate, it is not really that serious issue and it created so much division among people. There is enough of the more important suff for that kind of division, but for some reason people often get caught up in these smaller things. I guess they sound more interesting or something.



Just to cover the US and what I have heard of, I would say that transgender rights are still quite endangered. There was that thing about banning medication for transgender children in Texas last year (not sure now if this was just Texas or another state as well).

Also, there seems to be an increased push to ban books about any LGBT+ topics in some schools and libraries:
https://bookriot.com/lgbtq-books-qui...middle-school/
https://www.mississippifreepress.org...brary-funding/

Once again, it is one side that seeks to ban topics they don't agree with.

So with LGBT+ issues, the concern isn't about current laws but about laws that could be passed from the future?

I think you can find examples of the left trying to ban topics they don't agree with.

Amazon employees petitioned Amazon to remove Abigial Shier's book Irreversible Damage, which explored the increase in adolescent-onset gender dysphoria and the implications.

https://www.seattletimes.com/busines...sgender-youth/

The word "ban" is probably used a little bit broadly, applying to radically different situations. The Tennessee School board is accused of trying to ban Maus, when they didn't want it to be part of a school curriculum. It's still the wrong call, but by that token, every book that is rejected as part of a curriculum is banned, which seems to be category creep. From that rationale, the Seattle school board banned To Kill a Mockingbird for its depictions of racism.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/1/...nges-continues

Other school districts have pushed against The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Great Gatsby. Is this the same thing?

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...partisan-game/

There are separate questions about what books should be carried in school libraries, and how things should be promoted within the publishing industry.

[Mister Mets]

If that business does NOT want to serve certain folks-why NOT be honest about it and accept the consequences?

If you don't want black customers what do you do? You don't set up shop in places where a large black population is.

Do understand those consequences will affect your bottom LINE.

Companies that are open to everybody tend to make more than those who don't.

There is a reason you are seeing more diverse ads from certain companies that were NOT doing that at first.

The specific argument is that it should be illegal for a baker to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding.

That would be different from refusing to serve gay customers.

It would also be different from him facing consequences of a controversial decision. The question isn't whether people in the community should be able to shop elsewhere, or even whether other entities can factor his decision into theirs (for example, a bank may decide not to offer a loan because someone alienating customers and their allies represents a business risk.)

If a bigot who didn't want to serve a type of customer moved somewhere where they're underrepresented, he would still face potential legal repercussions for denying service.

And if they see mixed race couples an affront to God, then not making a cake for them is A-okay? Cause it's religion then.

If I point that a metaphor isn't quite apt, it doesn't mean I support a different version of it.

Here, we do have to distinguish between something being A-okay and something being illegal.

I'm not sure we need a law against a baker who would refuse to make a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple. It's most places in the United States, that will be career suicide.

If that business does NOT want to serve certain folks-why NOT be honest about it and accept the consequences?

If you don't want black customers what do you do? You don't set up shop in places where a large black population is.

Do understand those consequences will affect your bottom LINE.

Companies that are open to everybody tend to make more than those who don't.

There is a reason you are seeing more diverse ads from certain companies that were NOT doing that at first.

Diverse ads are distinct from ads that identify people a business doesn't want to serve.

A company making it clear that they'll provide services to people who aren't members of the dominant faith is different from an advertising campaign that a company is for people smart enough not to believe in magic sky daddy.

I don't think the latter should be illegal. In most cases, it would be a bad idea.

[Kirby101]

If I point that a metaphor isn't quite apt, it doesn't mean I support a different version of it.

Here, we do have to distinguish between something being A-okay and something being illegal.

I'm not sure we need a law against a baker who would refuse to make a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple. It's most places in the United States, that will be career suicide.

.

So we let the marketplace decide whether someone can violate another's Civil Rights? I guess as long as they can buy somewhere else, let's not interfere, until they can't buy somewhere else.

[worstblogever]

In 2015, in 2016, and in 2017, “Crazy Stupid Republican of the Day” published profiles of Sally Kern, who has voted in favor of every anti-choice bill in the Oklahoma legislature, no matter how extreme, voted for a ban on Sharia Law in the Sooner State, a bill to make it more difficult for people to get a divorce for incompatibility, and a bill to allow Creationists to teach “pure science” in class. In spite of being the wife of a pastor, and practitioner of a religion whose Savior was put to death, Kern is not just in favor of the death penalty, but would like it applied to second offense sex offenders (they’re scum and all, but come on, that’s a bit much). Kern had, on three separate occasions, sponsored or co-sponsored legislation to nullify federal law, and even sponsored a bill to prohibit compliance with the United Nations Agenda 21 conspiracy, presumably because she’s convinced it’s a plot for world domination. Even with all that, Sally Kern’s real bread and butter issue is LGBTQ rights, because she’s such a homophobic bigot that she’s said that homosexuals were destroying the United States and are more dangerous than terrorists (and vowed never to apologize for that statement), blamed the economic woes of ’07-’10 on same sex marriage, claimed gays are looking to exploit legalized gay marriage to also legalize polygamy and pedophilia, and longs for “the good old days when gays would get thrown in jail.” Kern has also commented on race and gender in the same speech in uncomfortable ways, saying that there is a larger percentage of African Americans than whites in prison because they “don’t work as hard in school” and that women don’t deserve equal pay to men because “they don’t work as hard”. In 2015 alone, she supported three radically anti-gay “religious freedom” bills, one to make it legal for businesses to discriminate against gay people, one that would prohibit judges and clerks in Oklahoma from issuing marriage certificates to same sex couples, despite federal court decisions that already struck down Oklahoma’s gay marriage ban, and a third to allow for the “freedom” for individuals to seek out gay conversion therapy. We are relieved, however, to report that Sally Kern faced term limits in 2016, and is no longer a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. To the end, she was a homophobic loon, as even in her farewell speech, she took time to insist that “the homosexual agenda is worse than terrorism”. She then called for homosexuality to be outlawed, and described herself, literally, as a “victim of anti-Christian persecution”.

On this date in both 2018, as well as 2019, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” profiled the former U.S. House Representative from Illinois’ 14th Congressional District, Randy Hultgren, who first arrived in Washington D.C. in, yes, the Tea Party Wave in 2010 after he spent twelve years floating around the Illinois state legislature with a meager 51% of the vote. After redistricting his district was redrawn to +5 Republican lean, aiding him to hang onto what was once a swing seat for far longer than he deserved to. And that’s a shame, because the last thing the country needs is a man who consistently denies facts and science being given a leg up on being re-elected without effort. Hultgren wanted intelligent design taught in schools, a violation of the separation of church and state and also touted a bill he wrote that would allocate over half a billion dollars to grants to promote “abstinence only” education in schools. He also claimed the Obama administration was enacting “dangerous and experimental” sex education programs for “younger and younger children” (because that isn’t a lie made to sound more sinister), and that there were “incredible success records” for abstinence education. And… that’s completely false, as studies show precisely the opposite, and that abstinence only education is a failure. Rounding things out, Randy Hultgren is a climate change denier, as he expressed in this interview back in late 2009, where against all evidence, he tried claiming that the Earth was entering a “cooling period”: As a legislator, Hultgren frequently voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, twice voted to Defund Planned Parenthood, against the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act, against disaster relief for victims of Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Harvey, and for the 2013 Government Shutdown. In 2017, he voted for the GOP’s massive Tax Scam, and for the repeal of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Financial Reform. Mercifully, in the 2018 elections, Randy Hultgren was swept out of office by the Blue Wave, with Lauren Underwood overcoming the +5 Republican lean to defeat Hultgren 52.5% to 47.5%. We will set aside his profile at this time and profile a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 830-40, since this was established in July 2014.)



On this date in both 2020, as well as 2021, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” profiled Patricia McElraft, a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives from District 13, and former Delta Burke stunt-double. McElraft has held office now in North Carolina since 2007, meaning she’s been at the heart of some of the s***tiest moments from Tar Heel State Republicans over the past decade, since 2013, she McElraft drafted HB 819, a bill to ban all research on the impacts of climate change upon the North Carolina coastline, voted for HB 392, another of those insane GOP bills that seek to drug test welfare recipients, voted for the Repeal of the Racial Justice Act, voted for SB 353, an extremely restrictive anti-abortion bill that was amended by the North Carolina GOP from a motorcycle safety bill into an anti-choice measure, voted for SB 2, a bill to allow state officials to refuse to perform “certain marriage duties” if they have a “sincerely held” religious objection.[*]July 21st, 2015: Responding to the South Carolina state legislature voting to remove the Confederate flag from their state capitol after the mass murder of nine African Americans at the historical Charleston AME Church, Patricia McElraft is one of several North Carolina Republicans who vote for SB 22, and to make it harder to remove Confederate monuments in North Carolina or that she co-sponsored HB 2, North Carolina’s disastrous anti-LGBTQ law, and boycotts over the law cost the state well over a trillion dollars of revenue from business boycotts and the tourism industry.

She was even a part of the revolting vote by the North Carolina GOP on the 2019 anniversary of 9/11, when the Republicans in the state legislature told Democrats that no votes were scheduled on the anniversary to honor the victims of 9/11… and then they called a vote to pass a veto-proof budget anyway without the opposition in the chamber.

DEMOCRACY! FASCIST-RULING MINORITY-STYLE!

We’ll note that our final reason to single out McElraft for a profile is related to that first bill that she drafted, HB 819. Literally passing a law to deny the existence of climate change by ignoring scientists takes some serious chutzpah, but it’s the quotes she used to justify it that are truly bonkers:

“In 1974, the alarmists were talking about the ice age coming in. What has happened, has the ice age come in?”

(Spoiler alert: climate change scientists never said anything like that. It’s only reported that they did on the sorts of websites where you can read about lizard-men infiltrating our government to steal our water, and the Bilderberg group ruling over the planet.)

We are thrilled to post the update that Patricia McElraft has decided to not run for re-election in 2022. We would like to wish her our finest “GOOD RIDDANCE” salutes at this time.

[Malvolio]

In most cases, the controversial view is alienating.

If someone's selling canoes, it's going to be offputting if they reveal unpopular left-wing positions (anyone who is a member of an organized religion is deeply flawed, anyone against open borders is racist and xenophobic, anyone not on the squad/ Bernie Sanders/ Elizabeth Warren side of the Democratic party is ignorant and worthy of scorn, etc.) It's unnecessary.

In your example, the opinions have nothing to do with whom they sell canoes to. In the case of the bakery, they use their "Christian faith" as their reason for not baking a cake for a gay wedding. And I am not saying that they should advertise their Christian faith in their window, just their refusal to bake cakes for gay weddings. My guess, though, is that they don't want to do that because it might lead to a boycott of their shop.

[CaptainEurope]

He's willing to make cakes for gay couples, just not gay weddings. If he were to refuse to make a cake for a heterosexual Christian black couple's wedding, I'm very curious about how he would go about making a religious exemption argument.

What if it were an interracial couple?
He'd say that he is against the mixing of the races, because his bible makes it clear that black skin means people wear the mark of Cain. This is not new. Religion has been used to argue against interracial marriage before.

[CaptainEurope]

In your very specific example, even racist Christian bakers would typically believe it is a good thing when black Christians marry one another.

[CaptainEurope]

If I point that a metaphor isn't quite apt, it doesn't mean I support a different version of it.




.

Having studied linguistics, I have to point out a comparison is not a metaphor. Please don't use it that way.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, as well as 2021, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” posted profiles of Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, who once voted for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, supported Personhood amendments on abortion, and tried advocating for failed Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers by saying her lack of judicial experience would "add to the diversity of the Supreme Court". Since being booted from Washington, D.C. in 2006 and becoming the Attorney General of Ohio, DeWine has spent the time trying to use the power of his office on a partisan quest to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters in Ohio with strict Voter ID measures, and then had the nerve to publicly accuse the Obama administration of "trying to suppress the military vote" during the 2012 elections (without any facts to back that up). That's hardly the end of his conservative endeavors in that role, as he also sued the federal government over the Affordable Care Act, led a witch hunt against Ohio Planned Parenthood clinics after the fraudulent “sting” video was released by the Center for Medical Progress (DeWine also falsely accused Planned Parenthood of dumping fetal tissue in landfills without any proof to back up his claim), and filed every legal brief he could to try and prevent the implementation of same sex marriage in Ohio, per Supreme Court rulings. Lastly, and most heinously, DeWine refused to press any charges against any of the teenagers involved in the Steubenville Rape Case, and only pressed charges against adults covering it up after months of public outcry. Remember, Mark DeWine's one job is to prosecute people who break the law in Ohio.

We were actually looking forward to one thing about the next two years… we thought that when Mike DeWine went up against term limits in 2018, that he would figure he was over 70, and call it a career. However, as it turns out, he’s ran for Governor of Ohio to replace John Kasich, who also was term-limited. DeWine continues to promise he will combat the opioid epidemic in his state, while having done nothing yet about it, and offering no details on how he’ll take care of it either, short of educating KINDERGARTENERS about painkiller abuse (Note: That’s not the age demographic abusing this drug, Mike.) DeWine had enough rich donors pump dark money into his coffers to pull out a narrow win with 50.7% of the vote. Now sworn in, we’re expecting DeWine to somehow make John Kasich’s hard-right socially conservative agenda and make it seem like he is George Clooney in comparison.

The honeymoon did not last long, as after several mass shootings across the country in 2019, one in Dayton, Ohio, that left 27 dead in but minutes, DeWine had constituents literally screaming, “DO SOMETHING!” at him.

Alas, he did not get anything done, because they didn’t elect a man who holds their interests at heart, only his own, and the wealthiest people exploiting his state. But what he can get done? Oh, you bet he signed a fetal heartbeat anti-choice bill the minute it hit his desk in April 2019, to deny women abortions as early at six weeks, before many even realize they’re pregnant.

Now, here’s the thing about 2020… in a few instances, there were members of the Republican Party who responded to the threat of Covid-19 like rational, sane adults, and wanted to take precautions. Closing non-essential businesses, calling upon the public to voluntarily wear masks, or even mandate that it is necessary. And Gov. DeWine actually was one of those Republicans. This, of course, means that his own party started trying to impeach him for doing the smart thing. And of course, the truly insane right-wing crowd were plotting to kidnap him like they were up north in Michigan, where they wanted to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer. As DeWine has continued using his power to do anything in the interests of public safety, his fellow Republicans have attacked him for, y’know, doing anything that would stop people from dying.

So much so that he now faces a primary challenger in the form of former Ohio Congressman Jim Renacci. That would be THIS Jim Renacci. We’re not of course, too sympathetic, because we’re talking about a guy who conspired with fellow Republicans to take Ohio’s already heavily gerrymandered Congressional map going back to when it was f***ed beyond repair in 2011 by then Governor John Kasich and the Tea Party crowd, but he worked with them to somehow gerrymander it even more to the extent that even elected Republicans on the Ohio Supreme Court punted it right back to them to try again.

Our preferred outcome remains, of course, that Ohio’s governor’s mansion falls into Democrats’ hands because of the infighting between Renacci and DeWine.

[CSTowle]

2.5 is 36.231884057971% of 6.9

Agreed, it's good to see greater participation among voters. There are things that could be done to make voting even easier and see greater civic participation which might lead to a greater sense of engagement and responsibility in the community. It's a shame that bad actors with anti-democratic agendas are looking to do the opposite and actively disenfranchise voters in order to promote apathy and a diminished sense of community and civic pride. After all, if you're not allowed to participate because you're not in the right category or don't jump through the right hoops (which are lowered or waived altogether for those in the "right" groups) it's going to be tougher to convince you to try or even care about what's going on. That's been the goal of some for decades, possibly longer, and I'm glad to see we're on the right track for once. Let's hope the good guys win.

[achilles]

https://www.france24.com/en/20131020...ern-ireland-uk

Never thought I'd see this happen. Still, it'll be easy for them to just sweep under the rug. Sadly, I don't think anyone cares about some wrong that happened in the early 70s.

[Mister Mets]

In your example, the opinions have nothing to do with whom they sell canoes to. In the case of the bakery, they use their "Christian faith" as their reason for not baking a cake for a gay wedding. And I am not saying that they should advertise their Christian faith in their window, just their refusal to bake cakes for gay weddings. My guess, though, is that they don't want to do that because it might lead to a boycott of their shop.

In this case, the owner's Christian faith was well known. He closes his business on Sundays and refuses to design custom cakes that conflict with his religious beliefs – for example, cakes that contain alcohol, have Halloween themes or celebrate a divorce.

The moment any baker announces his or her refusal to make wedding cakes for gay marriages, that will likely get attention within the larger community.

A small percentage of weddings are same-sex, so for a boycott to be effective, it would have to include allies.

And if we're really interested in the beliefs of business owners, we should give them no opportunity to be coy. and insist that they validate conventional positions.

So we let the marketplace decide whether someone can violate another's Civil Rights? I guess as long as they can buy somewhere else, let's not interfere, until they can't buy somewhere else.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop suit began in 2012.

The Supreme Court ruled on it in 2018.

There really is no indication that gay couples are having a tough time getting wedding cakes. The couple suing Masterpiece Cakeshop received a free wedding cake from another business.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/09/w...plain-english/

There is also no rush of bakers announcing religious opposition to interracial marriage, or any indication that there would be such significant support for anyone who tries to do this that interracial couples would have trouble buying wedding cakes.

Well that would make them heroes in their own and community's eyes true to SJW ideals of themselves. I seriously don't think they are paying their own way either.

Should this be necessary?

Most people want to be left alone, and do not want to be investigated by the government for things like their religious beliefs.

[SUPERECWFAN1]

So yesterday Donald Trump basically said he would grant pardons to everyone involved in January 6th attack at Capitol. Basically saying he will allow our own citizens to wage attacks on Congress and the Capitol under his administration again and will pardon them essentially.

[Johnathan]

So we let the marketplace decide whether someone can violate another's Civil Rights? I guess as long as they can buy somewhere else, let's not interfere, until they can't buy somewhere else.

Since the Constitution only applies to the actions of the government, it is very difficult to use it to enforce anything for private citizens as on private property, you're only protected from actions of the government but not from the actions of the property owner.

During the 90's and early 2000's here in Los Angeles, there were a lot of open mic nights at the many independent cafes that were opening all over the place back then. Also, there were a lot of new independent Christian churches opening up at the same time, and as part of the initiation rituals in these churches, the members had to testify publicly. Obviously, there is an obvious synergy there so born again Christians started signing up for open mics and then their set would be their testimony of their journey to Christ. It was uncomfortable and really tanked a bunch of events.

So, the businesses banned them. Now, is that a violation of free speech and religious rights? Some of the most fundamental rights of the constitution? Well, only if it is being committed by a federal or government agency, representative, elected body. However, we've gotten around this a bit by civil rights laws and also certain arguments that a business requires some form of government approval - incorporation with a state or a license to operate - and therefore allowing a business to operate is a government action, therefore, if a business violates civil rights then in effect it is government sanctioned, so the government would have a right to rescind that sanction by canceling operating licenses or dissolving corporations.

However, that workaround probably would not survive scrutiny as it in effect gives the government too broad authority that we would not want it to have when our opposition is in power. Also, again, it is not illegal to be racist, bigoted, homophobic - we don't have thought crimes and can only judge actions. Proving civil rights violations is very difficult - unless we used a bounty reward system and each became informants against each other. I think the Lawyer Lobby would probably go for that - anything that increases civil actions - but it turns everything into both a money-making scheme and all of us become agents of the government.

Here's the thing, I can't think of a good argument that if a baker must be forced to serve any customers or go out of business then why cafes should not be forced to allow anyone to sign up to an open mic and say anything they want.

[JackDaw]

https://www.france24.com/en/20131020...ern-ireland-uk

Never thought I'd see this happen. Still, it'll be easy for them to just sweep under the rug. Sadly, I don't think anyone cares about some wrong that happened in the early 70s.

The thing is the decision on who to prosecute for lethal atrocities in Northern Ireland in the 60/70/80/90’s has been totally asymmetrical…. IRA terrorists who factually killed substantially more people than government troops have been totally exempt from prosecution for decades now under the terms of various peace deals.

I certainly think that the same standards should apply to the soldiers involved in the conflict…if you look at the guys that get prosecuted it’s usually been some poor sod placed in an impossible position making a tragic mistake, soldiers of modest rank (privates, corporals, sergeants) rather than officers, and the politicians that make key decision.

Personally I think all prosecutions (for the events in NI in 70’s) should be ruled out. There is certainly a case…of course..for prosecuting people that murdered then…but it’s impossible for anyone really caring about Justice to support the present set-up that gives total exemption to one side of the conflict, but pursues prosecutions against the other.