 |
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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:12 PM. |