Announcement

Collapse

Please use the Forum's Amazon Link this Holiday Season

As you shop this holiday season, please remember to use the forum's Amazon.com link (listed in the menu as "Amazon Link") to add items to your cart and purchase them. The forum gets a small commission from every item sold.

Additionally, the forum gets a "bounty" for various offers at Amazon.com. For instance, if you sign up for a 30 day free trial of Amazon Prime, the forum will earn $3. Same if you buy a Prime membership for someone else as a gift! Purchasing an Audible membership will earn the forum a few bucks. And creating an Amazon Business account will send a $15 commission our way.

If you have an Amazon Echo, you need a free trial of Amazon Music!! We will earn $3 and it's free to you!

Your personal information is completely private, I only get a list of items that were ordered/shipped via the link, no names or locations or anything. This does not cost you anything extra and it helps pays the operating costs of this forum which continue to go up as our commissions have gone down. Stay safe and well and thank you for your participation in the Forum and for your support!! --Deborah

Here is the link:
Click here to shop at Amazon.com
See more
See less

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
    That's a brazenly unconstitutional law. Well, for now.
    I've been reading through the brief. What is your position on this again? Do you believe that ANY law banning discrimination against gays would violate the Constitution or is it just that the currently existing Civil Rights laws do not, in fact, consider gays as a 'protected class'? Because I thought it was the latter. Congress could in theory pass a law making same-sex marriage legal and anti-gay discrimination illegal but current laws in your interpretation don't protect them.

    I'm reading the code and her lawsuit and I may be missing something but I don't see how she can be forced to officiate a wedding against her will. Is it because she's making money off of officiating and writing vows that this "endangers" her?

    Unlike the bakery case, where a gay couple was aggressively trying to compel that particular baker, I didn't see where anyone was trying to do that with this woman. Additionally she's claiming that this law is preventing her from expanding her business because she can't be as vocal about disliking gay marriage as much as she otherwise could be.

    This is County Code Chapter 1501.02 (B) (c) which is what they are saying is unconstitutional:

    C. Unlawful Discrimination in a Place of Public Accommodations.
    1. It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
      1. For any proprietor or any employee, agent, keeper, or manager of a place of public accommodation to deny, discriminate against, or treat differently any person except for reasons applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, military status, national origin, disability, age, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of a place of public accommodation;

    Comment


    • It's not much of a surprise that they got a huge boost in users during the greatest economic downturn of our lifetimes and a worldwide ban on in-person social interactions. Even the most censorship-oriented platform in the world could grow in those conditions.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hannibal View Post
        It's not much of a surprise that they got a huge boost in users during the greatest economic downturn of our lifetimes and a worldwide ban on in-person social interactions. Even the most censorship-oriented platform in the world could grow in those conditions.
        Oh but I thought your side was the silent majority. How is Gab's ad revenue doing?

        Comment


        • I read this commentary from the Hartford (Conn) Current in my local Sun Sentinel. It may be the best commentary I've read to date on how we should be looking at the pandemic......

          The idea that any activity is fully “safe” and carries zero risk of infection is a fantasy. We should turn away from that kind of thinking in order to have more honest and productive debate about how we restore some normalcy. Nothing is totally safe, but nothing guarantees infection either. There are risks to returning kids to school, and there are risks to keeping children isolated at home. We now live in a world of constant risk assessment and mitigation.

          His recommendations don't come across as hard edged as I'd like them to be and that is because the author is an Oncologist that lives in Connecticut. Starting off with a raging growth rate of infections, they tamed it by the usual draconian yet short lived measures and a measured reopening. Deaths are really not a factor in this state like they are in others. Community spread is low with a 1% positivity rate and decent testing and tracking protocols. The kicker to Connecticut's success with the virus? The folks bought in through rigorous PH announcements and great leadership from the Governor. Residents were mostly compliant with local codes enacted as the usual mitigation measures. It worked.

          What makes this MD's perspective unique is that he writes that as a cancer specialist he deals in risk management for his patient's on a daily basis. What he doesn't talk about and, to me, it's in the background, is that mitigation measures he takes in choosing therapies for his CA patients are to add them based on the evidence that they reduce disease progression and ultimately death. In the end game, that's what C-19 management is all about ..... keeping disease burden and especially deaths low.

          The salient point is look at the pandemic not in terms of case numbers as a measure of control or lack thereof but rather look at how to manage risk and add risk reduction measures based on evidence. IMO, that is not happening on the scale necessary and instead of fact and evidence based decisions from officials empowered to make them, we're getting mitigation measures that don't always make a lot of sense. I'll leave it to you to sort out what makes sense in your locale and what doesn't and communicate it to local decision makers.

          https://www.courant.com/opinion/op-e...544-story.html
          There is such a thing as redemption. Jim Harbaugh is redeemed at the expense of a fading Ryan Day and OSU. M wins back to back games v. OSU first time since 1999-2000​ - John Cooper was fired in 2000!!!

          Comment


          • I'm reading the code and her lawsuit and I may be missing something but I don't see how she can be forced to officiate a wedding against her will. Is it because she's making money off of officiating and writing vows that this "endangers" her?
            Are you kidding?

            It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice For any proprietor or any employee, agent, keeper, or manager of a place of public accommodation to deny, discriminate against, or treat differently any person except for reasons applicable alike to all persons regardless of race, color, religion, military status, national origin, disability, age, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression the full enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of a place of public accommodation
            Looks to me like the law is doing exactly what they want it to do. If you're open to the public for business, you must provide business for everyone, and you may not discriminate for the reasons listed. Sexual orientation is listed.

            So, madame minister, you must marry gay couples, or you cannot do business in our fair community.

            How does this read anything else?

            Comment


            • I think the the law's intent is to not allow businesses to refuse service to gays. I'm not sure I agree with your (and her) interpretation that the law forbids any minister from refusing to conduct a gay wedding. For instance if a gay couple walked into the diocese in downtown Cleveland and demanded to be married, the priests who refused would not be subject to being fined. I don't think an actual minister should or could be compelled to marry gays either.

              Unless I missed it there's no evidence in her brief that Cuyahoga County has been punishing her or that any gay couple was pressuring her to conduct a wedding. She simply claims that the law's existence, as written, is hurting her business because she could otherwise advertise more freely that she opposed gay marriage.

              Comment


              • I wonder if the solution for school is something like this....

                You have in person school for those in K-6. Those are the kids that are going to be the ones most hurt without in person instruction. They are also the ones that are going to struggle the most with social distancing and all the requirements that are going to be needed. If you keep the middle and high school kids in an online environment it will open up these buildings to social distance a lot easier. Also breaking the classes into smaller groups would give more one on one interaction from the teachers/aides and might help them learn better.

                Just spit balling here a bit.
                2012 Detroit Lions Draft: 1) Cordy Glenn G , 2) Brandon Taylor S, 3) Sean Spence olb, 4) Joe Adams WR/KR, 5) Matt McCants OT, 7a) B.J. Coleman QB 7b) Kewshan Martin WR

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
                  I think the the law's intent is to not allow businesses to refuse service to gays. I'm not sure I agree with your (and her) interpretation that the law forbids any minister from refusing to conduct a gay wedding. For instance if a gay couple walked into the diocese in downtown Cleveland and demanded to be married, the priests who refused would not be subject to being fined. I don't think an actual minister should or could be compelled to marry gays either.

                  Unless I missed it there's no evidence in her brief that Cuyahoga County has been punishing her or that any gay couple was pressuring her to conduct a wedding. She simply claims that the law's existence, as written, is hurting her business because she could otherwise advertise more freely that she opposed gay marriage.
                  I think the problem is that is a business. A Church is a private venue. A business has to be open to the public----a church does not.
                  2012 Detroit Lions Draft: 1) Cordy Glenn G , 2) Brandon Taylor S, 3) Sean Spence olb, 4) Joe Adams WR/KR, 5) Matt McCants OT, 7a) B.J. Coleman QB 7b) Kewshan Martin WR

                  Comment


                  • Okay, lets try this one.

                    In my town, there is an Amish owned bakery, where the owners don't use electricity in their building at all. Their lights are kerosene, their refrigeration is kept by blocks of ice. They do so, in keeping with the tenets of their faith.

                    Can my community make a law that requires the Amish bakery to use electric lights and refrigeration?

                    Comment


                    • DSL:

                      I assumed the law was being applied to her. My point was that the County obviously can’t compel her to do that. That much is absolutely correct.

                      The issue for the Court is going to be one of standing (is she suffering an injury-in-fact. That’s a very broad concept. She has an argument that she does have standing if, on its face, the bill says what she thinks it could do. Whether it’s being enforced or not.

                      The idea is that the Court won’t waste its resources on cases that it has no need or ability to redress.

                      The easiest way for the County to end this litigation is to pass an exception to the law. That would kill the case for good.
                      Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                      Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                      Comment


                      • In COVID news this morning, new cases and deaths are up in most states in the US, including FL. Yet, R(t) continues to drop in FL and is now below 1.0 (0.98). Fl is among just a handful of states with an R(t) below 1. Of note, the trend that first emerged about a week ago - states spared early have the highest GRs - persists. If you look at GR by state over the last 2 months (since reopening) no state is spared, Cases have risen. Some states have low CFRs, FL is one of them but it is ticking up on a daily basis. Spread out over longer time periods, e.g., a week, the CFR is flat.

                        IMO, sufficient testing and tracking is a problem in the South region and I'm not sure why. FL is only second behind CA in testing rates by any measure you want to apply. Given that data point, you would think the % positive and the number of tests it takes to find one positive result would decline. Its not - its flat or going up. The only explanation I can come up with that pertains to FL is the S. FL region is driving state data and that region accounts for 49% of cases, has the highest CFRs and lowest ICU bed space availability. The rest of the state seems fine.

                        Compliance with tri-county county issued EOs (now mostly consistent with only minor variations) seems to be high with on-going enforcement and wide spread PH announcements urging masking, distancing and hand-washing ...... yet case numbers continue to be stubbornly high on a day to day basis. I'm 50/50 on the likelihood of a reimposed lock-down. If it happens it's going to be because of media reporting and the political pressure that arises. Desantis's poll numbers are down 20 points. He's enjoyed good support for months. It's eroding because of his position that he won't mandate masks state-wide making it a regional decision (and I think he's right - why do I need to mask in the pan-handle's Escambia County when there are no new cases for weeks?) and his position on opening schools 5d/w with county school districts able to offer distant learning options for parents - makes sense to me.

                        The data disconnects continue to be frustrating. The portrayal of FL's situation that tends to only look at rising case #s without context disappointing. Fear level remains high where I live and that affects business activity.
                        There is such a thing as redemption. Jim Harbaugh is redeemed at the expense of a fading Ryan Day and OSU. M wins back to back games v. OSU first time since 1999-2000​ - John Cooper was fired in 2000!!!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
                          DSL:

                          I assumed the law was being applied to her. My point was that the County obviously can’t compel her to do that. That much is absolutely correct.

                          The issue for the Court is going to be one of standing (is she suffering an injury-in-fact. That’s a very broad concept. She has an argument that she does have standing if, on its face, the bill says what she thinks it could do. Whether it’s being enforced or not.

                          The idea is that the Court won’t waste its resources on cases that it has no need or ability to redress.

                          The easiest way for the County to end this litigation is to pass an exception to the law. That would kill the case for good.
                          Yeah, I don't want to act as a definitive authority here but I just didn't see anywhere in her brief that the county had taken any action against her or that she was under pressure from a same-sex couple to perform a ceremony. It was more speculative than that. The law might be used against her one day. Under her reading of the law. I'm not sure she's right about that but it could be rewritten to make it more clear, like you say.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by lineygoblue View Post
                            Okay, lets try this one.

                            In my town, there is an Amish owned bakery, where the owners don't use electricity in their building at all. Their lights are kerosene, their refrigeration is kept by blocks of ice. They do so, in keeping with the tenets of their faith.

                            Can my community make a law that requires the Amish bakery to use electric lights and refrigeration?
                            Well I'm no expert but no I don't think so, to answer your question. I know the Amish have plenty of religious exemptions that allows them to ignore all sorts of laws. Although there is a limit to everything. If they suddenly decided to raise chickens and hogs and sheep in the middle of town and claimed their religion mandates it and that any zoning regulations would violate their freedom of religion, they'd probably be pushing it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lineygoblue View Post
                              Okay, lets try this one.

                              In my town, there is an Amish owned bakery, where the owners don't use electricity in their building at all. Their lights are kerosene, their refrigeration is kept by blocks of ice. They do so, in keeping with the tenets of their faith.

                              Can my community make a law that requires the Amish bakery to use electric lights and refrigeration?
                              Let's try this one. Replace gay or lgbt with black or Mexican or Jewish or mixed race couples because it is against her "strongly held religious beliefs" to marry them and see how that works for her.


                              I feel like I am watching the destruction of our democracy while my neighbors and friends cheer it on

                              Comment


                              • More headaches for Boeing and the airlines...yikes

                                The FAA is ordering the immediate inspection of any Boeing 737 that has sat idle for a week or longer due to lack of business. There's been at least 4 incidents of sudden engine shutdown due to a certain valve being stuck open, which they think is caused when a plane isn't flown often enough.

                                https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/busi...issue/2530414/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X