Indiana's freedom to discriminate law

It is impossible for a figment of your fevered fantasy to make anything clear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fundamentalists only read the back because that's where the answers are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who's that white guy?

 

I bet the gayhating bakeries and florists readily do business with all those people. Why are they just singling out gay people?

 

I bet they often do business with gays but when it comes to weddings they get a bee up their ass.

 

In all the movies, TV shows and plays, have they ever had a Jew play Jesus or Moses?

 

Round ... er ... [Insert Round Number Here]: Louisiana

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Although Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is only to the exploratory phase of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, he is defining himself as something of a culture warrior, because, let's face it, if there's one thing the clown car needs it's another culture warrior.

With a new political ad airing this week in Iowa, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is informally kicking off his bid for the Republican presidential nomination by casting himself as the conservative movement’s leading voice in the culture war battle over religious freedom.

The ad, which was previewed for some news outlets including BuzzFeed News, features Jindal rhapsodizing — in his signature rapid-fire twang — about the sacred need to protect religious believers’ “freedom of conscience,” which he argues “must, in no way, ever be linked to the ever-changing opinions of the public.” It concludes with a line that has become a mainstay of his recent speeches and interviews: “The United States of America did not create religious liberty. Religious liberty created the United States of America.”

(Coppins)​

And, to be certain, after praying about it with his wife, Mr. Jindal has decided to move ahead with the exploratory committee. And that, of course, brings us to this:

Gov. Bobby Jindal issued a statement Tuesday (May 19) saying he plans to issue an executive order to enforce the intent of a religious freedom bill that effectively died about two hours earlier, in the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee ....

.... “We are disappointed by the committee’s action to return the Louisiana Marriage and Conscience Act to the calendar. We will be issuing an Executive Order shortly that will accomplish the intent of HB 707 to prevent the state from discriminating against persons or entities with deeply held religious beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman.

“This Executive Order will prohibit the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

(Lane)​

This really is an odd manner of distinguishing's one's leadership characteristics. Picking fights you cannot win in order to shore up a base vote is problematic in any context; certes, with Huckabee and Carson already in, Santorum preparing to announce in a little over a week, and Rick Perry slated for a June declaration―what the hell is Lindsey Graham running on for his 1 June announcement?―the idea of committing yourself to discrimination by executive order seems downright dangerous. For what slice of the lunatic fringe would a "serious candidate" commit such political self-harm?

See, the thing is that after the Indiana debacle, even Louisiana's legislature is cautious, with the state House Civil Law and Procedure Committee returning the bill to calendar by a ten to two vote. So Jindal wants to go ahead with an executive order. To reiterate:

This Executive Order will prohibit the state from denying or revoking a tax exemption, tax deduction, contract, cooperative agreement, loan, professional license, certification, accreditation, or employment on the basis the person acts in accordance with a religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.​

There is no question what this is about. The only real question is why.

This is apparently how Bobby Jindal wishes to demonstrate his leadership.

Sometimes it occurs to wonder whether running for the GOP nomination is some sort of career advancement strategy having nothing to do with actually winning the presidency.

Discrimination by executive order.

Those who insist there is no difference, take note.
____________________

Notes:

Coppins, McKay. "Bobby Jindal Makes Religious Freedom Pitch In New Iowa Ad". BuzzFeed. 19 May 2015. BuzzFeed.com. 19 May 2015. http://bzfd.it/1LiRWRs

Crisp, Elizabeth. "Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announces presidential exploratory committee; here are the possible next steps". The Advocate. 19 May 2015. TheAdvocate.com. 19 May 2015. http://bit.ly/1Ak3tyG

Lane, Emily. "Bobby Jindal plans to issue an executive order enforcing intent of religious freedom bill". The Times-Picayune. 19 May 2015. NOLA.com. 19 May 2015. http://bit.ly/1PUOs8p

—————. "Louisiana's religious freedom bill effectively defeated in committee". The Times-Picayune. 19 May 2015. NOLA.com. 19 May 2015. http://bit.ly/1JZavZI

 

What I like about the Republicans is they offer choice and a wide range of independent people with a wide range of ideas. The Democrats offer no choice and their base has to vote for Hillary no matter how corrupt and incompetent since she is, simply because she has a D near her name. Why doesn't anyone else with a D offer new ideas? Do they all drink from the same Kool Aid, so it does not matter who they run; nothing original in any of them.

Who actually runs the Democratic show, so all have to tow the same party line, and it doesn't matter who is deemed by the powers to be? I get the impression the democratic leaders are figure heads and actors in a play, with rich and powerful people behind closed doors, running the show, as their directors. Republicans show more diversity and appear to be a party of self reliant people who are not tethered the same way.

 

You mean like the way that George Bush, George W. Bush, and the likely Republican candidate Jeb Bush are "independent people with a wide range of ideas"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Who let the devil out?

 

you got that backwords like well all your posts on politics. the dems have a large number of differing opinions while the republicans attack anyone who starts straying from the line. it why the republican party is currently running like 20 people all saying essentially the same thing.

 

I've never known wellwisher to say anything that wasn't backwards, whether it be about science or anything else.

 

How do you imagine a picture of some white guy playing with leaves is related to what I said?
Is that supposed to be the idiot who went nuts because a tree did not have fruit out of season?

<>.

 

I'm with Daecon, but my reason for interjection is this crap:

Grammar police to the rescue. It's "toe the line", as in step up and stay put. Not hauling a rope.

As far as differences between Democrats and Republicans go, there's not much: They are both fucking corrupt. Have a nice time with your delusions.

 

I always wonder why people cling so desperately to this delusion.

Go ahead and elect as many Republicans as you can. And when you are living under Christian law while the American Empire sends its armies to storm over the world, tell yourself the Democrats would have done the same thing.

Hint: It's not Democrats preparing to pass a bill that will protect Texas government officials who choose to abet child rapists in order to prevent a rape survivor from receiving medical attention, thus forcing children to have babies.

Hint: It's not Democrats who looked at Daa'ish and an old Authorization for Use of Military Force and rejected the president's request for a situationally specific version simply because it wouldn't start a big enough war.

Hint: It's not Democrats who have trashed the finances of Kansas and New Jersey, seeing the states' credit ratings downgraded multiple times.

Hint: It's not the Democrats who campaign on a platform of complaining that government doesn't work only to get elected and set about proving the point.

There are plenty of things wrong with Democrats, but those who simply hide in bitter delusions of equivocation are not wise; rather, they are cowards whose complaints only help empower what they whine about.

And thing about it is that the argument for equivocation really is irresponsible, as it depends wholly on one of two methods: pedantic cherrypicking or embittered apathy.

Your argument, sir, is nothing more than your flag of surrender. Enjoy the spoils of defeatism.

 

::rollseyes:: oh cry me a river.

actually it was Eisenhower who got first involved in vietnam back in 1950. trying to help bail out the french when vietnam was still french indochina. so your blaming JFK for Eisenhowers screw up.

carter didn't create the taliban. they were already there prior to that. assisted them yes but hardly created them. also Zbigniew Brzezinski is hardly incompetent, this may come as a surprise to you but just because you don't like someone doesn't make them incompetent.

and there you going showing your biases. it had nothing to do with wanting stop people from living differently. in both cases it was believed crimes to be committed. and in waco serious crimes actually were committed. you don't get to misrepresent the facts simply because you hate the government. your still required to deal with the truth.

 

One way to say it would simply be, "Different time, different world".

We might also point to the Democratic Party pre-'68.

Or mention something about the Cold War.

Not that any of it was bright, but just who is trying to tank nuclear negotiations with Iran, and who said the president can't have a proper AUMF because it didn't start a big enough war?

I just resent the implication that there is no difference. I'm one of many people whose quality of life is better under Democrats than Republicans. Our neighbor suggests there's no difference? I call bullshit. The fact that the Democrats aren't our saviors in suits and ties doesn't mean there's no difference.

I would propose that once upon a time a friend of yours closed up his fist and, for some reason, hit you on the arm. Indeed, it's a common gesture in our American culture. To the other, I propose if someone hit you with a Buick, you might object if I called these two acts the same thing.

Just sayin'.

I mean, sure, they both "hit" you, but I think we can agree that's a bit too general, and that closer scrutiny will reveal serious differences between the two acts.

In the Evergreen State, we had a nasty issue where two Democrats in the state Senate rolled, and gave a chamber to the Republicans. Now, then, at the same time, we have a situation going on called McCleary, in which the Legislature is in contempt of court for refusing to properly fund the public schools. Now, we can certainly blame both parties for screwing it up in the first place, but we also have to blame voters, not only for electing the politicians but for approving and rejecting various funding measures to help do their part to contribute to the billion and a half per year we're shorting our schools just in terms of basic funding.

Before Sens. Tom and Sheldon rolled, the argument between Democrats and Republicans was about how to make up the shortfall, with all the usual bickering by which Democrats wanted to make up the funding in various ways and Republicans wanted to take food out of hungry people's mouths, and medicine away from the sick, and so on. You know, the usual bullshit they do.

After the Senators rolled, the argument became about whether or not it was worth even trying to make up the shortfall. Why? Because Republicans could, now that they had one chamber.

And that's how our entire legislature ended up in contempt of court.

We still don't understand what was up with rolling in the first place; they waited until after the election to tell voters, which to me, much like Zell Miller's incredibly dishonest speech at the '04 Republican convention, is emblematic of what it takes for a Democrat to be satisfactory to Republicans.

This idea that it makes no difference? It is a sick surrender.

Yep. And just whose National Security Strategy calls for starting a new Cold War with Muslims? You know, who's trying to create a bad situation in which such bad decisions are made?

And, you know, I would suggest deposing a democratically-elected prime minister and installing a puppet regime in an oil-laden Middle Eastern nation that would go on to build the fourth largest army on the planet might well have done one of those bits after which the Middle East hasn't been the same.

In the end, I guess I just don't buy your Cold War comparisons.

Then again―

―it's better than your defense of a child-raping megalomaniac cult leader with a reputation for rolling firefights in the streets of Waco and that wingnut in Idaho.

The thing that gets me about the tinfoil supporters is that in the one case the pretense of innocence just doesn't hold up. With the other, sure, the guy was dangerous, but, yeah, sure, it was also a fuckup. So he got his ass kicked like an unarmed black man. Given the history of voter demand for law and order, and the long time this sort of bullshit has been going on, sure, we can blame both parties if we want in the case of the fuckups that occurred under their watch, but reality itself indicates that there are glaringly obvious differences between the parties and their implications today and looking to the immediate future.

So I don't get why people are so set on this delusion that there is no difference. And when you have to stand up for a megalomaniac child rapist in Texas in order to complain about a Democrat, yeah, you know, it's one of those times when I find myself wondering, "Really? That is what it takes to believe this shit?"

I've voted off ticket before, and I will again someday.

And maybe the Greens will come up with a candidate, sure.

But this bullshit about the parties being so similar is nothing more than an indictment of voters. In areas of strong overlap, the parties are responding to market demand.

Some of these policies need serious help.

But there are also areas of vast difference, and those have tremendous impacts both immediate and enduring in questions about our quality of life.

And Brzezinski may have been an idiot as an NSA, and JFK may have eaten the brown Cold War acid, but that is history, and, you know, looking at what is actually happening now and about to happen―oh, you know, like a presidential election―just how much do people really want to rely on history to tell us that what we do in the ballot box in our time makes no difference in terms of Democrats and Republicans?

But Texas Republicans want to force women to carry doomed pregnancies regardless of what their doctors say about their health. And those same Republicans want to give cover to state agents who put insufficiently Christian children in re-education camps, or abet sexual abusers by forcing children to carry pregnancies.

Tell me there's no difference. I dare you.

Republicans just turned on their own health care plan, and are now nervous enough to wonder what they're going to do if they successfully kill mandatory private insurance. Tell me there is no difference.

I've got a party in my state that, sure, has any number of chances to screw up their best attempt to fix school funding, and one that would rather not bother trying. Tell me there's no difference.

If I woke up in January, 2017, in a Republcan-controlled state, an outcome that could only occur if you could convince that many voters to vote for the Republicans specifically because it doesn't make any difference ... you know, how many people do you actually think we would harm if we could pull that off in any given Democratic-favoring state?

And the only reason, say, it would make no difference in a state like California is that voters regularly demolish their government's capacity to do anything with that ludicrously permissive initiative process.

And tonight I'm hanging out at my father's, on a rural peninsula in Pierce County, Washington; my stepmother works in Mason County schools. Anybody who tells you it doesn't make a difference should go take a look at the human need in Mason County. Indeed, the only reason it doesn't get as much attention as the plight of urban schools is population density. Fewer people, both to cause trouble or to care about it. It sometimes catches me off guard; living in the Corridor, "rural" is more exurbian than anything else. I wouldn't go so far as to suggest it's backwater Appalachia, or anything, but I can promise you, the differences between the parties make all the difference in the world out here.

Oh, right. It isn't Republicans per se, but, rather, a mix of conservatives and libertarians―in other words, our Republicans, but, you know, whatever―who celebrated their victorious tax rebellion in the '97 general election all night, and then woke up mad at the government for cancelling EMS funding. Hell, all the voters in King County voted against was ... er ... um ... ah ... funding EMS. Can we please have another ballot pleasepleasepleaseplease? It took us until February to get that one fixed, but, yes, they begged nicely, and got the chance to restore EMS funding.

Which is the other thing I need to remind about both the McCleary mess and our voters in general. See, we've always had a messed up tax system, but every time we try to fix it, voters pitch a fit. In '96, we had a vote to reduce the cost of license plate fees to a price that couldn't support even the tabs themselves. So we destroyed the MVET, which was the state's primary funding stream, and have never replaced it. Part of the way legislators and voters alike buried the schools was by playing a shell game because nobody will give up services, and nobody will fix the tax code. In the end, departments are increasing their fees; everyone's whining about their tabs again, because I guess it went up a few dollars from last year. And that's how we're getting by. We can blame the government or the parties all we want, but in this state, just like California, or Kansas, we did this to ourselves.

Remember the art of compromise in politics. You know, the way it should be as compared to the way it is. If marketplace consumers repeatedly demand slashed taxes or increased police power, what do the politicians pitch?

And that's a difficult juxtaposition. In such dimensions that the parties are similar, it is because we ask them to be. In such dimensions that they are different, I guess we're expected to pretend they're not.

 

Very simple - if I'm forced to work for people I don't want to work for, by government legislation, I'm a slave.

In a free society, I'm free to make my own choices with which people I want to make contracts. My own choices may be, of course, completely arbitrary. Imagine, for example, a vague feeling or irrational fear that this person is a cheater. Certainly something which has to be left to my own decision, without any obligation to justify this.

That means, once I have the freedom not to cooperate with people I don't like, and don't have to justify this decision, I can as well follow completely irrational principles, like religious, or racist, or homophob reasons.

This freedom to make even irrational decisions is what distinguishs a free society from a totalitarian Brave New World where I'm obliged to make love with everybody.

Maybe. But this is not the business of the state.