 |
Hello:
If your DEEPLY held religious belief tells you the races shouldn't mix, do you have the right to refuse service to black people? If you DEEPLY believe that gays shouldn't marry, do you have the right to REFUSE service to gays?
A Washington state right wing LAW MAKER believes you do. In fact, when asked about it, he says that "gay people can just grow their own food if stores won't serve them"..
I find that attitude BARBARIC. Don't you?
excon
Some are stupider than others. Its like regulating a woman's privates, but not the banks that make us poor.
Priorities?
If you are in business, I would think one person's legal tender is as good as another's, as long as it is not an illegal purchase. Doesn't a business owner WANT to do business and sell stuff?
Hello Carol:
Business's that are hungry don't turn down ANYTHING... But, when you're fat and happy, you can afford to be narrow minded.Quote:
Doesn't a business owner WANT to do business and sell stuff?
Excon
The courts disallowed the religious arguments during the civil rights fights in the 60s because there is no biblical injunction against race.
It depends . If I own a restaurant there may very well be laws that force me to serve a prostitute a meal . There are no laws that force me to cater outside my restaurant, at a house of ill repute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
The state law bans discrimination against race ,religion or sexual preference and disability . A policy that says you don't serve Christians or Muslims is discrimination based on religion. Declining the chance to be part of a Muslim Ramadan festival or a Christian Easter Service at the request of a Muslim or Christian is not . The owner of Arlene's Flowers had sold gays flowers in her shop for years. But she is being sued because she refused to participate in a "religious ceremony" she opposed for religious reasons.
She also employs gays. In which state is she? Is gay marriage legal there?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
America has changed so much; much in just the last 4 years under Obama, that is it now not recognizable as it was many years ago.
Who is to tell what is real, what is moral, and what is right! Use to, the American people knew all these answers. Now, no one really cares, except to get their food stamps, of which 47% of the American people do. Millions have lived on extended unemployment benefits for years!
Differences between Black and White people no longer seem to be important to most; now it's the differences between us and Muslims!
Obama has seen to it that we are now separated in our beliefs, don't stand up for America like we use to, and Hillary Clinton lies through her teeth, contradicts herself before the Senate hearings, and gets away with it. There is no justice anymore, and the Muslim U.S. Attorney General, appointed by Obama (who else), stands up for all the changes to America.
Hopefully, it will change before we are completely taken over.
It's less than half that number.Quote:
Originally Posted by fredg
And what are you doing to improve the situation?
fredg,
You keep referring to that 47% on food stamps line.
Where are you getting that from?
Some 15% of U.S. Receives Food Stamps - Real Time Economics - WSJ
This must have been what they were thinking of:Quote:
Originally Posted by smearcase
Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - Real Time Economics - WSJ
The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008.
I don't know how to interpret a 404 error to comment. Got another link?
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
In the 2012 fiscal year, $74.6 billion in food assistance was distributed.[4] As of September 2012, 47.7 million Americans were receiving on average $134.29 per month in food assistance.[4] In Washington, D.C. and Mississippi, more than one-fifth of residents receive food assistance.[5]
49% of all participant households have children (17 or younger), and 55% of those are single-parent households.
15% of all participant households have elderly (age 60 or over) members.
20% of all participant households have non-elderly disabled members.
The average gross monthly income per food stamp household is $731; The average net income is $336.
36% of participants are White, 22% are African-American, 10% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian, 4% are Native American, and 19% are of unknown race or ethnicity.[11]
Women, children, poor people, old people.Quote:
July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, provided estimates of the one-year fiscal multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options, and found that a temporary increase in SNAP was the most effective, with an estimated multiplier of 1.73.[37]
In 2011, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a slightly higher estimate: "Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity."[38] Vilsack's estimate was based on a 2002 George W. Bush-era USDA study which found that "Ultimately, the additional $5 billion of FSP (Food Stamp Program) expenditures triggered an increase in total economic activity (production, sales, and value of shipments) of $9.2 billion and an increase in jobs of 82,100," or $1.84 stimulus for every dollar spent.[39]
And the % will continue to climb as baby boomers start collecting soc sec, medicare, nursing home medicaid etc, and other factors of course. Probably has little to do with fredg's misuse of the stat to imply that it is a recent phenomenon. Romney already ate that 47% BS.
Every body and his mama knew this day was coming for a very long time now, and all it takes is the congress to tweak the system like it was designed to be done and stop the whining about the good old days, and the end of the world. Disgusting when after all this time the congress allowed money to be shifted to stop airline delays, but its okay for kids, women and children's needs to be ignored.
It's a disgusting display of governance.
Furloughs at federal facilities in my region are being rescinded. The sequester is being tamed with case by case overruling by Congress, as different influential groups complain long and hard enough. One estimate I read says that deficit will grow to 47 (why does that number 47 come up so often?) trillion by 2023 and that is if the sequester continues at its originally proposed rate for 10 years, which it already won't do in just its 3rd (or less) month.
Maybe we can get by- by pretending that deficits don't matter and that it was all a silly excel miscalculation to start with, and we can further pretend that hope is a strategy-- like we have been.
But tal is correct, the poor might have a slightly harder time getting anything turned around as compared to senators whose frequent flights have been delayed.
Just don't mess with any of my "bennies" and we will be just fine- I hope.
Yeah well that's one interpretation. The other one is that ,with a small bit of tweeking... sequester is here to stay. The Dems had their chance to get it reversed . They instead opted for the more responsible 'case by case' adjustments . The flaw in the sequesters related to air traffic control was that it treated the airports at major hubs the same as the airports that have a few commuter flights and some crop dusters .
Washington state bill would allow businesses to deny gaysQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
We refuse service to people occasionally, what's the big deal?
Just think of how much food $385,000 would buy, but instead it went to studying duck genitalia.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Its okay to change the law to make discrimination okay? Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Less and less as the price goes up.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
As if the left doesn't discriminate. Your side is the worst, you think those 'true believers' have no rights at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
It goes to your "disgusting display of governance" line. Kind of like Zerocare, you're fine with disgusting displays of governance, in fact it's the only way Dems know how to govern.Quote:
Less and less as the price goes up.
Hello again, Steve:
Why don't you LIST the rights the true believers SHOULD have?Quote:
you think those 'true believers' have no rights at all.
(1) They can HIRE anybody they like.
(2) They can REFUSE service to ANYBODY.
(3) They can FIRE anybody they like.
(4) They can make them go to church.
(5) They can MAKE them have a baby if they get pregnant.
(6) They can put up religious displays in the PUBLIC square.
(7) They can teach Intelligent Design right along side evolution.
(8) They can torture people of different religions..
(9) Even though they operate at the pleasure of the STATE, they believe they can REFUSE to sell certain products.
(10) Did I leave anything off the list?
Excon
I like the first three. Your problem is you lefties pretend you don't discriminate but you do. In fact I recall a survey recently of academics who admitted they would discriminate against conservatives.
The fact is people do hire who they want to hire, and fire who they want to fire and do refuse service to whomever they choose for whatever reason. If I walked into a gay bar wearing a non-offensive t-shirt supporting traditional marriage how do you think I'd be treated?
Number 5, see the 'butchers' thread.
Number 6, the constitution never banned religion from the public square.
Number 7, nothing wrong with presenting competing theories instead of preaching evolution as gospel truth.
Number 4 & 9, I won't force you to go to church so don't force me to sell the morning after pill. Deal?
Number 8, I don't know where you came up with that.
Your turn, what rights do you think believers should have?
Businesses operate at the pleasure of the state.. love that one .
This all came about because a florist who had sold to gays and even employed gays made a line in the sand and refused to sell arrangements for a gay marriage. That isn't refusing to sell to gays ;it's refusing to participate in any way in this ceremony that she has religious objections to.
Hello again, Steve:
The same rights I have.Quote:
Your turn, what rights do you think believers should have?
You DO understand that we can't have one set of laws for true believers, and another set for the rest of us. If we adopted YOUR ideas, that would be a return to the 19th Century. As much as you liked it back then, it ain't going to happen..
Excon
Hello again, tom:
That sounds eerily similar to something I would say. But, I WOULDN'T have said THAT. What I WOULD have said, and have, is that a business like a PHARMACY is licensed, and that licensing authority CAN and SHOULD require they the licensee fulfill certain requirements that the STATE sees as necessary EVEN if the licensee doesn't.Quote:
businesses operate at the pleasure of the state.. love that one .
The LICENSING authority has an obligation to the CITIZENRY and NOT the religious beliefs of its licensee's. That would ALSO include deciding that a drug store is NOT a church.
The florist, of course, isn't bound by a license.. They're only bound by law - and that's enough.
Excon
Dude, I wasn't around in the 19th century and you really can drop the stone age references about conservatives, we aren't the ones that think everyone should live in a mud hut so as not to harm mother earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The state gives me permission to drive a car (a license) but it doesn't tell me where to drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
You didn't have to be alive back then to know it was BEFORE women could vote. It was BEFORE black people could vote. It was BEFORE a time when black people could eat where they chose. It was BEFORE a time when black people could LIVE where they wanted... There's more, of course... Much more.Quote:
Dude, I wasn't around in the 19th century
And THAT'S the time you want us to go back to. You may NOT understand that, but the rest of us do...
Excon
It tells you where you can drive and how fast, and if you don't believe me try going down the highway on the wrong side, or a one way street, or a trucker in the far left lane. Plenty of rules of good behavior for our safety.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Only the right wants to make discrimination a right. For religious reasons no less. I love it when you guys holler about rights and try to take the rights of others in the same breath.
We discriminate?
Hello again, Steve:
WHERE you drive ISN'T in the states interest.. To SEE that every one of its citizens have equal access to the things they NEED, IS.Quote:
The state gives me permission to drive a car (a license) but it doesn't tell me where to drive.
I don't know WHY you can't discern these distinctions. This isn't hard.
Let me ask you this. Let's say this LICENSED pharmacist decides NOT to sell Plan B. So, the state approves a pharmacy license to a fellow right next door, who WILL sell plan B. Do you think pharmacist A would complain to the licensing authority about THAT?? I think he WOULD.
Excon
And that's different from a pharmacy how? The only way youguys argument can stick is to require every pharmacy to stock and sell EVERY drug available, but NONE of them do that, you only want to make sure they're FORCED to sell the drugs you think they should sell.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Only the left, those champions of CHOICE want to FORCE others to have no CHOICE in the matter.Quote:
Only the right wants to make discrimination a right. For religious reasons no less. I love it when you guys holler about rights and try to take the rights of others in the same breath.
Are you telling me you don't? I defy you to find ANYONE that doesn't discriminate.Quote:
We discriminate?
Flowers and abortifacients are not necessities. I don't know why you can't discern those distinctions, it isn't that hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Correct. In both cases if they are not needed then there is no demand for them.Quote:
Flowers and abortifacients are not necessities.
I have a major problem with this sentence. Im not sure if a mistake was made or not. It is not the governments role to provide equal access. That is far out thought. Did you mean to say opportunity? The difference being that if you aspire to a status then you should be granted that status when you obtain it. If access is a forced issue then there is no need to aspire to a status as one is provided for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What are your thoughts on access vs opportunity ?
Hello dad:
This has nothing to do opportunity.. It has to do with ACCESS to medicine. If a state is going to license the purveyor of medicine, the state has an OBLIGATION to the citizens of that state to INSURE its licensee's provide that ACCESS...
If they can sell it at the corner bodega, then the subject is moot.
excon
Dude, you're still ignoring the fact that we have religious rights in this country. The first amendment does not go away because the state issues a license to engage in a certain business. You wish it would but it does not.
Hello again, Steve:
You talk about rights... But, IN this thread alone, you've shown that you care NOTHING about black people's rights. You've shown that you care NOTHING about woman's rights. So, your rights argument is losing gravity with me...
excon
I've shown no such thing, you're making assumptions as usual. It's the same thing you did with the butchers thread, you assume incorrectly that because I defend one right, the rights of the child, that I want to control a woman's uterus. Here you assume that because I believe in religious rights that blacks, gays and women have no rights. That's complete and utter nonsense. You can't get there from here. Your argument is just losing, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:17 PM. |