If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
The Championship game, not the entire conference. Also, those championships are "historically bad" and a money loss, anyway. One of those things that you're expected to host when it's your turn, but rarely make back your investment.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Also, those championships are "historically bad" and a money loss, anyway. One of those things that you're expected to host when it's your turn, but rarely make back your investment.
Gov. Pat McCrory could call lawmakers into session as soon as next week to repeal House Bill 2 – but only if the Charlotte City Council first drops the ordinance that prompted it, his office confirmed Friday.
At a lunch event at the Hood Hargett Breakfast Club in Charlotte last week, McCrory's staff planted "softball" questions from fake reporters about unrelated topics, according to The Charlotte Observer.
The moderator of the event introduced the questions as coming from The Observer, however they had all been written by McCrory's staff, the Observer found.
When an actual Observer reporter attempted to ask a question, McCrory shut it down:
"We’ve got three Observer questions answered already. I think you guys dominate the news enough," he said.
That's meme is reserved for the Hillary campaign this year, sorry. I'm not saying they're right, there are far better measures to take that are inclusive, I simply haven't seen a repercussion that's actually punitive, yet.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
On Saturday, a Massachusetts law that could throw pastors in jail for using biologically correct pronouns took effect.
But you wouldn’t know that from The Associated Press’ article on the matter. Quoting in part:
Advocates for transgender people in Massachusetts say they can no longer be legally discriminated against in public places.
A new law taking effect on Saturday bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity in public accommodations. Among other things, the statute allows transgender people to use bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond to their gender identity.
The Democratic-controlled Legislature approved the bill after several years of debate. Republican Gov. Charlie Baker signed it into law in July.
Mason Dunn, co-chair of Freedom Massachusetts, a group that advocated for the new law, said Saturday that the protections represent a “shining moment” in Massachusetts’ legacy as an ‘inclusive, welcoming place.’
The group says Massachusetts is the 18th state to provide similar protections for transgender people.
So far, bad but not awful – a law that throws tolerance out the window in favor of state-sanctioned discrimination against business owners who disagree with the government on bathrooms and locker rooms being properly segregated by sex.
Reality is far worse, however. “Guidance” from the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) outlines the real truth. Employment, housing, bathrooms, and locker rooms for “public accommodations” are now open to anyone claiming to be the opposite of their biological sex – even if there is no proof of such, in most circumstances.
Additionally, using wrong pronouns is punishable. Including for churches. From the “guidance”:
Even a church could be seen as a place of public accommodation if it holds a secular event, such as a spaghetti supper, that is open to the general public.”
And in a footnote:
Violation of the law shall be punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both…. In addition, the violator shall be liable to the aggrieved person for damages.”
I’m not spitballing here. One of the MCAD commissioners acknowledged the threat against pastors in comment to Fox News’ Todd Starnes:
I reached out to the Mass. Commission Against Discrimination and they told me Commissioner Sunila Thomas George said there’s really no need for alarm. “By and large, places of worship are not held to the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination statutes that deal with places of public accommodation,” she said. “We are not by any means saying that the anti-discrimination laws absolutely apply to them.”
Washington Post legal analyst Eugene Volokh has more, outlining how the law could threaten pastors if parishioners say biologically accurate things.
Remember the good old days, when LGBT activists wanted “tolerance?” That’s so 2007. In 2016, holding to biological truths in America can get you jailed – religious liberty, freedom of speech, and common sense notwithstanding.
It looks like Cardinal George’s prediction is coming true. Here’s praying that the Massachusetts Family Association, which told me it might have enough signatures to get a ballot question in front of voters in November, can overturn this atrocious law.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Ah, Republican men feeling threatened by women's rise in stature... or maybe just clueless? Current internet vogue leads me to believe the correct thing to say right now is "suck it up, buttercup?" or, perhaps, "all the republican men feeling threatened should go to their safe snowflake spaces?"
But I feel like a jerk saying that. Especially when, as the rest of the survey respondents said, it really isn't better to be a woman, yet. It's not even close to equal. There's a discord here, and these republican men need to actually talk to the women in their lives and discuss their experiences.
Interesting this bit, glad to read it:
Ninety percent of the respondents and 86 percent of Republicans supported the idea that the next president and Congress should work on equal pay laws. Eight-nine percent of respondents supported policies improving access to high-quality, affordable child care, and 87 percent supported paid family and medical leave.
Maybe someday there will be equality in prosecution and sentencing, that'll help a lot.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Because their focus has always been on the children, not adults.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Senate Bill 6, which would make it illegal for transgender people from using bathrooms they feel match their gender identities, has been filed by Texas legislators. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy told the Associated Press that if a “proposal that is discriminatory or inconsistent with our values were to become law there,” it would be a factor in awarding future events. Simply put: If the bill becomes law, that will be included in the discussion of whether Houston or Dallas gets a Super Bowl in the future.
“The NFL is walking on thin ice right here,” Abbott told conservative radio host Glenn Beck, according to the Texas Tribune. “The NFL needs to concentrate on playing football and get the heck out of politics.”
Edit: I guess my point is it's a discussion for another thread.
Invoking states' rights can be used for evil and for good … It'll be interesting to see what the incoming AG's policies on pot will be. He was always touting states' rights.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Late news, but NC 'repealed HB2'. I put that in quotes because the analysis I read made this repeal sound like smoke and mirrors. It had the intended effect, though, because the NCAA has lifted the ban. Now, whether that will translate into NC getting all, some, or little of its events back remains to be seen, but this feels scummy.
(The new Democratic governor was big in negotiating this, likely to get his state some money)
The Texas Supreme Court held Friday that same-sex couples are not necessarily entitled to government employment benefits, sending the case challenging the city of Houston's provision of benefits back to trial court.
The unanimous opinion does not prevent the city from offering employment benefits to same-sex spouses, as it has done intermittently for the last four years.
Rather, it says the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision recognizing gay marriage two years ago in Obergefell v. Hodges did not resolve whether employees' same-sex spouses have a right to benefits.
Talk about lying to yourself. This is asking for separate and unequal.
"The court has limited Obergefell in terms of how broadly it should be interpreted," Woodfill said, adding, "It recognized that there's an argument to be made at the trial court that taxpayer dollars should not be used in violation of one's deeply held religious beliefs."
Houston began offering same-sex benefits in November 2013, after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Plaintiffs Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks quickly sued, alleging the payments were an illegal use of taxpayer money.
I read about half the decision. It's a doorstopper.
Most importantly, both parties want this to go to trial.
For their part, the Judges said they can't just say Obergefell slaps down Pidgeon because Pidgeon hasn't been able to make a case yet, and it looks like he's got the best ****ing lawyers ever. Ho-lee shit do I not want to get on this guy's bad side.
I almost feel like the judges secretly killed the injunction because then they get to watch.
I read about half the decision. It's a doorstopper.
Most importantly, both parties want this to go to trial.
For their part, the Judges said they can't just say Obergefell slaps down Pidgeon because Pidgeon hasn't been able to make a case yet, and it looks like he's got the best ****ing lawyers ever. Ho-lee shit do I not want to get on this guy's bad side.
I almost feel like the judges secretly killed the injunction because then they get to watch.
I was wondering if there might be some legal technicalities going on, but it seems so desperate that I can't fathom that's enough.
I mean, by their reasoning quakers could sue for funding the drone strikes, I imagine.
1) This violates Texas DOMA laws, which have yet to be completely struck down.
2) Obergefell was a shitty decision, so the court has an obligation to rule on it as narrowly as possible. Obergerfell says the state must grant and recognize SSMs. It does not say state funds must be distributed equally amongst married couples.
WRT legal technicalities, I've found bizarre seeming unanimous decisions tend to point in that direction.
(
Last edited by subego; Jul 2, 2017 at 12:41 PM.
)
As an interesting aside, just showing you how sharp these ****ers are.
The case was filed long before the Obergefell decision. Pidgeon's team claims even if it gets decided Obergefell covers the insurance policy, it doesn't do so retroactively, and Pidgeon can sue to "claw back" payments made previous to Obergefell, which they claim are illegal under Texas DOMA law.
The other interesting aside is there's one of those deals where a piece of legislation involved doesn't specifically call out SSMs in the text of the law, which as a constructionist sets off all my alarm bells.
The court says they felt SSMs were clearly the target.
I'm like, okay... show me what you got, but be prepared for me to shit all over it.
The court's rationale for their belief is the name of the law is "Denial of Benefits to Same-Sex Partners and Related Matters".
For those playing the home game, in about a year you'll want to cross-reference which Republicans broke rank with new defense contracts by congressional district.
1) Single out idiot on Twitter
2) Foam at the mouth
3) ...
4)
These nuts need to be exposed and ridiculed. "Want to only date people with vaginas? Hell no, that's bigotry and you should be publicly shamed and harassed! You'll suck dicks and like it!"
It's not like she's a one-off fruitcake, either. This is becoming the defacto perspective within the intersectional community. There's mental illness going on there, and it needs to be identified by people who value personal liberties.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
More broadly, for Gill and his allies, nondiscrimination is the new front of the movement: a campaign that pits LGBTQ advocates against a religious right that responded to marriage equality by redoubling its efforts. The election of Donald Trump, who claims to support gay rights but stocked his administration with anti-LGBTQ extremists, has only emboldened those looking to erase the gains of the past decade. Gill refuses to go on the defense. "We're going into the hardest states in the country," he says. "We're going to punish the wicked."
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
One wouldn't get the idea from the out of context quote, but it seems his plan is to treat Republicans like human beings, something which the LGBT community isn't necessarily thrilled about.
As an aside, a Rolling Stone article? What the **** did I do to you to deserve having to read that?
I feel like it's a perfect illustration of the culture 'war'. One side wants the opportunity to serve and possibly die for this country. The other side says no because we don't like who you are. When you're targeting innocents that's not a war that terrorism. This is cultural terrorism.
That works too (the Sessions part, not so sold on the effect it has 12 months from now), but I'd still put it in the smokescreen category.
New theory: After that God tweet I think he's just trying to improve his approval rating. He's been flirting with his all time low on Gallup the past week.
Top