|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 12 2016 18:17 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Whatever you think of Trump you have to admit what happened in Colorado was a fucking disgrace.
It certainly showed that his campaign is totally incompetent and that for all his vaunted ability to hire good people he is terrible at it, but I'm not sure it's really any more of a democratic disgrace than plurality winner-take-all primary states or any of the other wacky Republican delegate rules that are the only reason Trump has a snowball's chance of getting nominated.
|
On April 12 2016 23:59 ticklishmusic wrote:
Georgia looking pretty good rn
Georgia has always been weird in that it is split with Atlanta / rest of Georgia. The other states doesn't really have the amount of corporate involvement GA has.
|
On April 13 2016 00:08 ragz_gt wrote:Georgia has always been weird in that it is split with Atlanta / rest of Georgia. The other states doesn't really have the amount of corporate involvement GA has.
TN has a huge healthcare thing and 10ish Fortune 500's (so right around the average)
But I know GA has like 20 F500's in the state, so they keep us from going full stupid. Still pretty stupid sometimes though
|
|
|
I can only hope we get a functional congress so we can have them threaten to pull federal funding for passing these stupid laws. None of them are going to survive a challenge and it’s a huge waste of time, money and effort. Let alone they are trying to legalize discrimination by creating laws that no one is asking for. Like what gay person is seeking out a homophobic counselor that thinks they live in sin?
|
Pretty much summed up the majority of the people in this thread.
|
On April 13 2016 00:21 Plansix wrote:
I can only hope we get a functional congress so we can have them threaten to pull federal funding for passing these stupid laws. None of them are going to survive a challenge and it’s a huge waste of time, money and effort. Let alone they are trying to legalize discrimination by creating laws that no one is asking for. Like what gay person is seeking out a homophobic counselor that thinks they live in sin?
I wonder how you can even be an effective councilor if you cant distance yourself from your own moral/social convictions while working with patients.
|
On April 13 2016 00:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 00:21 Plansix wrote:
I can only hope we get a functional congress so we can have them threaten to pull federal funding for passing these stupid laws. None of them are going to survive a challenge and it’s a huge waste of time, money and effort. Let alone they are trying to legalize discrimination by creating laws that no one is asking for. Like what gay person is seeking out a homophobic counselor that thinks they live in sin? I wonder how you can even be an effective councilor if you cant distance yourself from your own moral/social convictions while working with patients.
I have to assume these people are terrible at their job. This has to be the least Christian law passed. The Big-J told them all not to judge and help everyone, but they feel the need to pass laws allowing them to refuse consoling to gays. Apparently their own feeling of purity is more important than listening to the Big-J.
|
These religious freedom laws should be a complete non-troversy. That you can refuse service to any one for any reason should be the default. The act of attempting to earn money, or selling protections if the corporate form should not result in complete abrogation of your 1st, 4th or other rights. That states feel they might be needed at all is a troubling sign.
But, alas, someone will rebut with "what about blacks in the South in the 60s?" Well, #1 we don't know, because the private anti-discrimination laws went into effect at the same time public mandates of discrimination were removed; and #2 I would support a narrow exception to the general rule if such a parade of horrible scenario occurred.
|
Ahh yes, the good old "the CRA didn't do anything because racists were retreating" spiel. Excellent. There's a good Stormfront article in support of your position, let me try and find it for you.
|
Please trust humans not to impost discriminatory practices, despite overwhelming evidence that we will totally do that every fucking time. Naturally, the person pushing for this has almost zero chance of being negatively impacted by this change.
|
On April 13 2016 01:03 cLutZ wrote:
These religious freedom laws should be a complete non-troversy. That you can refuse service to any one for any reason should be the default. The act of attempting to earn money, or selling protections if the corporate form should not result in complete abrogation of your 1st, 4th or other rights. That states feel they might be needed at all is a troubling sign.
But, alas, someone will rebut with "what about blacks in the South in the 60s?" Well, #1 we don't know, because the private anti-discrimination laws went into effect at the same time public mandates of discrimination were removed; and #2 I would support a narrow exception to the general rule if such a parade of horrible scenario occurred.
Ah yes, the freedom to discriminate, what a great freedom to have
Companies are part of the public sphere. If you open a business you'll have to play by the rules and not be an asshole. I don't understand why this simple social contract goes over the head of some people.
|
A leading brand of home and garden pest-control products says it will stop using a class of pesticides linked to the decline of bees.
Ortho, part of the Miracle-Gro family, says the decision to drop the use of the chemicals — called neonicotinoids, or neonics for short — comes after considering the range of possible threats to bees and other pollinators.
"While agencies in the U.S. are still evaluating the overall impact of neonics on pollinator populations, it's time for Ortho to move on," says Tim Martin, the general manager of the Ortho Brand.
The announcement comes on the heels of state legislation passed by the Maryland General Assembly to restrict the sales of retail home and garden products that contain neonics. The bill is now before Gov. Larry Hogan – his office tells us that he is currently reviewing it. Other states are also studying pollinator health and considering action, according to the National Council of State Legislatures.
As we've reported, neonics are widely used in agriculture. Currently, at the direction of the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency is assessing the effect of neonicotinoid insecticides on the health of bees.
A growing body of scientific evidence suggests that neonics can negatively influence bee health and may make bees more vulnerable to mites and other threats.
Now, the amount of neonics used in home lawn-and-garden products is dwarfed by what farmers use on crops. But Delegate Anne Healey of Maryland, a sponsor of the Pollinator Protection Act, says it's still important to take action.
Source
|
On April 13 2016 01:09 farvacola wrote:
Ahh yes, the good old "the CRA didn't do anything because racists were retreating" spiel. Excellent. There's a good Stormfront article in support of your position, let me try and find it for you.
The CRA act did a ton. There are 11 titles, I am only saying we don't know if title II was needed to accomplish the goals. This is not a racist position, this is a question of causality of a small portion of a huge act.
On April 13 2016 01:12 Plansix wrote:
Please trust humans not to impost discriminatory practices, despite overwhelming evidence that we will totally do that every fucking time. Naturally, the person pushing for this has almost zero chance of being negatively impacted by this change.
There is 0 evidence that LBGTQ don't have access to things, in general, right now. There is evidence in Washington State of progressives trolling social media to find florists to ruin , systematically attempting to punish religious pharmacists , and of course the Colorado baker's case.
On April 13 2016 01:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 01:03 cLutZ wrote:
These religious freedom laws should be a complete non-troversy. That you can refuse service to any one for any reason should be the default. The act of attempting to earn money, or selling protections if the corporate form should not result in complete abrogation of your 1st, 4th or other rights. That states feel they might be needed at all is a troubling sign.
But, alas, someone will rebut with "what about blacks in the South in the 60s?" Well, #1 we don't know, because the private anti-discrimination laws went into effect at the same time public mandates of discrimination were removed; and #2 I would support a narrow exception to the general rule if such a parade of horrible scenario occurred. Ah yes, the freedom to discriminate, what a great freedom to have Companies are part of the public sphere. If you open a business you'll have to play by the rules and not be an asshole. I don't understand why this simple social contract goes over the head of some people.
I'd be more convinced by this argument if the same people didn't have the same plans for nonprofits , social clubs, and didn't rail against freedom of speech in general.
|
Nonprofits and social clubs shouldn't undermine society or you run into the problem of creating sectarian parallel societies. It's why mainline Protestants and Catholics hold reasonable beliefs while Evangelicals regularly go off the deep end. Shutting society out of communities is a bad idea, and using "freedom of speech" as some kind of shield is an even worse one. There's no freedom involved when you've been brainwashed into some cult, homophobic or right-wing extremist group, it's the opposite of freedom.
|
Deutsche Bank announced Tuesday that it would suspend its plans to add 250 jobs in its Cary, North Carolina office, citing the state's sweeping law that overrode local measures protecting LGBT individuals from discrimination and limited employees' ability to sue over workplace discrimination.
"We take our commitment to building inclusive work environments seriously. We’re proud of our operations and employees in Cary and regret that as a result of this legislation we are unwilling to include North Carolina in our US expansion plans for now. We very much hope that we can re-visit our plans to grow this location in the near future," Deutsche Bank Co-CEO John Cryan (pictured above) said in a statement.
The company currently employs 900 people in Cary, and in September 2015 announced plans to add 250 jobs, the Charlotte Observer reported.
Deutsche Bank's decision follow's PayPal's announcement earlier in April that it would not open a new operations center in Charlotte that would have created 400 jobs in the state. Numerous corporations with a presence in the state have spoken out against the law, and several film studios have said they will stop filming in the state.
Source
|
Anyone have a good explanation for why a fair number of businesses have taken a pro-LBGT stance recently? Seems to have become a lot more common since that last SCOTUS case.
|
On April 13 2016 01:56 Nyxisto wrote:
Nonprofits and social clubs shouldn't undermine society or you run into the problem of creating sectarian parallel societies. It's why mainline Protestants and Catholics hold reasonable beliefs while Evangelicals regularly go off the deep end. Shutting society out of communities is a bad idea, and using "freedom of speech" as some kind of shield is an even worse one. There's no freedom involved when you've been brainwashed into some cult, homophobic or right-wing extremist group, it's the opposite of freedom.
But is there evidence that these people are even undermining society. The groups that we see actually working to do that are not the ones refusing to bake cakes or provide plan B, its the weird pseudo-militias, and collective efforts to undermine free speech. The opposite of what you are warning against is going on. The cult is not the religious group, its the people actively trying to punish them and impose their ideas on them (which is why in many states 50%+1 are voting to protect them).
|
My favorite part about Clutz's argument is that he always there is "Zero evidence" of there being a problem with LGBT people being denied things, so laws protecting peoples ability to do so are cool, because it isn't a problem. But previously stated that evidence needed to be provided that voter impersonation is not a issue because he would admit that voter ID laws were not necessary.
Apparently, the government needs to keep passing laws protecting people from things that don't exist. Like mean liberal groups going around protecting people's right not to be discriminated against due to religious idiocy. If you have a religious objection to something, be like every other Christian and go talk to your minister/priest and accept that sin is part of life.
|
Legal: I read an article about that recently, not sure where, maybe Time; I'll try to remember: to appear to be good, because many of them have such employees, large businesses tend to be socially liberal (many of them had benefits for gay partners long before legal requirements).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
