Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Hermit]

*Sigh*

I hate my state's politicians SO much...

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/tn-bill-that-allows-government-employees-refuse-to-solemnize-marriages-passes-house/ar-AA18ophj

 

Hey, you scared folks with different faiths might get married? Does seeing someone of another ethnic group with someone of YOUR Ethnic group make you feel insecure ? Are you pissed off at the nerve of some people when you peek in someone's window and see two guys kissing in the privacy of their own home?  Come to Tennessee, where we're trying to take things back to the 1950s, and not the cool Happy Days version either!

 

 

[TrickstaPriest]

1 hour ago, Hermit said:

Hey, you scared folks with different faiths might get married? Does seeing someone of another ethnic group with someone of YOUR Ethnic group make you feel insecure ? Are you pissed off at the nerve of some people when you peek in someone's window and see two guys kissing in the privacy of their own home?  Come to Tennessee, where we're trying to take things back to the 1950s, and not the cool Happy Days version either!

 

Yeah.  Allowing government employees to refuse to solemnize a marriage is kind of... but I heard about this a couple days ago IIRC.  The whole situation is pretty disgusting, and it's going to impact everyone who does business (edit) has employees in those states.

[unclevlad]

As written, tho, the (barely) positive aspect is it has NO chance of standing up.    It may be targeted at same-sex marriages, but it has no limits, and requires no justification beyond "a person's conscience or religious beliefs."  OTOH, the mere introduction is chilling enough.  

I rather suspect this won't reach the US Supreme Court, as I think it probably violates the state constitution.

[Lectryk]

41 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I rather suspect this won't reach the US Supreme Court, as I think it probably violates the state constitution.

 

The State of Tennessee is one of several that has a clause that bars same sex marriages/partnerships:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions

Like many laws or clauses they are unforceable because they run contrary to the supremacy of Federal Laws, but that doesn't stop these types of laws from being passed.  So, *if* a clerk does follow through on their beliefs, it wouldn't need to go the Supreme to be overturned - that clerk/official would face Federal charges when someone they reject complains (remember Kim Davis?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis).  It still will be messy, and cause problems all around, but the real criminals here are the politicians saying 'oh, our laws will stand!'  I can't use the langauage here I'd like to, to describe these cretins.

 

 

[unclevlad]

This goes beyond same-sex marriages, tho.  It applies to any couple seeking a license.  That's where I suspect the state constitutional violation will reside.  Going through state channels is likely faster.

[Pattern Ghost]

Some people need to learn religious freedom isn't the freedom to inflict your religious beliefs* on everyone else.

 

 

 

 

*Or misbeliefs, in most cases.

[csyphrett]

Someone tried to do the don't talk about sexual orientation on a federal level and one of the Republicans at the meeting was just like so whom are you trying to bar with this bill because as written this bill bars anyone from talking about anything involved in a marriage, sex, gender, so forth.

 

I didn't mean for that to happen.

 

It's called the Law of Unforseen Consequences. Maybe you should learn how to read a book so you can see how that works.

CES 

CES 

[unclevlad]

I remember, at least in the past, that pornography filters would block a kid from learning about the breast cancer his mother was just diagnosed with.

[TrickstaPriest]

I mean, there's also the question of what the point of such a ban would actually serve.

 

...Does not teaching people that gays exist actually provide a benefit to kids?

 

...Only if you consider it to be harmful.

[Old Man]

3 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

I mean, there's also the question of what the point of such a ban would actually serve.

 

...Does not teaching people that gays exist actually provide a benefit to kids?

 

...Only if you consider it to be harmful.

 

Yes, we routinely hide the existence of harmful things from our kids.  Like strangers.  And traffic.  And poisons.  And dangerous animals.  And house fires...

[death tribble]

For a change of pace, Boris being Boris.

As US Presidents can do things when leaving office like pardoning criminals so a Prime Minister can submit the names of people to be honoured when they leave office. What is Boris doing but honouring his father. And also Paul Dacre of the Daily Fail.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64911178

[Cygnia]

Sir BendyBus!

[Lord Liaden]

23 hours ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

Yeah.  Allowing government employees to refuse to solemnize a marriage is kind of... but I heard about this a couple days ago IIRC.  The whole situation is pretty disgusting, and it's going to impact everyone who does business (edit) has employees in those states.

 

I don't think the edit was really necessary. This is going to affect business on a broad level. Companies will not want to have offices in a state where a significant portion of their employees won't move because it's discriminatory, and which will offend their more progressive customers elsewhere, which is the growing demographic in America. Politicians thinking they'll gain short-term political benefit from such moves, are hamstringing their states economically in the long term.

[TrickstaPriest]

The primary incentive for politicians is to get votes by reputation-building (and reputation-destroying) for the next election.  Reality or long-term benefits need not apply. 😕

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

 

I don't think the edit was really necessary. This is going to affect business on a broad level. Companies will not want to have offices in a state where a significant portion of their employees won't move because it's discriminatory, and which will offend their more progressive customers elsewhere, which is the growing demographic in America. Politicians thinking they'll gain short-term political benefit from such moves, are hamstringing their states economically in the long term.

 

Remember when the NCAA chose to pull championship events from North Carolina, due to HB2?  That was 2016.

 

That crossed my mind with this bill...but...here's the problem.  Try counting the number of states trying to pass legislation like this.  

https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights

 

You can't withdraw from ALL of them...and many states that aren't passing legislation like this, may have other serious issues, like cost of living.  (I'm thinking particularly NY and Cali.)

[TrickstaPriest]

14 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

You can't withdraw from ALL of them...and many states that aren't passing legislation like this, may have other serious issues, like cost of living.  (I'm thinking particularly NY and Cali.)

 

Yeah, exactly why this concerted effort is concerning.  It's basically waging legalized abuse on a class of people, and there's going to be a tipping point where businesses will essentially be forced to 'accept' it... because ditching/harming a percentage of their existing employees is easier than being forced out of all of these states (which is exactly what we are starting to see (edit:) with medical insurance, for example)

[Lord Liaden]

The thing is, most of the states trying to pass this legislation already have depressed economies, and are heavily reliant on federal subsidies. People complain a lot about the cost of living in California, but it still has by far the highest GDP, and among the highest GDP per capita, among American states. So business seems in no hurry to leave. And while figures for migration showed the largest numbers of Californians moving to Texas and Florida, those figures preceded the recent fan-hitting culture wars.

[TrickstaPriest]

Yeah, I'm familiar.  I think this campaign could cause harm to lots of people for decades, however, if not even longer.  It really depends on how far and how long their politicians (and major supporters) are willing to go. 😕

[Old Man]

"Nobody wants to work", Arkansas edition:

 

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Those kids look thrilled...

 

[Cygnia]

16 tons and whaddya get?

 

[BNakagawa]

3 hours ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

Those kids look thrilled...

 

They live in Arkansas.

[Dr.Device]

https://armoxon.substack.com/p/they-know-exactly-what-theyre-doing?post_id=106406971

[Old Man]

Fortunately I don't know of any trans women in Texas:

 

[unclevlad]

This should be most of the text of the bill.  Edited to eliminate superfluous line breaks.  The line numbers are meaningless...artifact of converting from PDF.

 

1. (1) "Drag performance" means a performance in which a performer exhibits a gender that is different than the performer ’s gender recorded at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical markers and sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs in a lascivious manner before an audience.

6. (2) "Lascivious" means conduct of a sexual nature that is offensive to community standards of decency. The term includes the intentional exposure of genitalia in the presence of a minor.

9. (3) "Minor" means an individual who is younger than 18 years of age.

11. Sec. 100B.002. LIABILITY FOR DRAG PERFORMANCE IN PRESENCE OF MINOR. An individual who attends a drag performance as a minor may bring an action against a person who knowingly promotes, conducts, or participates as a performer in the drag performance that occurs before an audience that includes the minor if:

22. (1) the performance violates the prevailing standard in the adult community for content suitable for minors; and

23. (2) the person fails to take reasonable steps to restrict access to the performance by minors.
24.  
25. Sec. 100B.003. LIMITATIONS. A claimant may bring an action under this chapter not later than the 10th anniversary of the date the cause of action accrues.

 

22. Sec. 100B.004. DAMAGES. If a claimant prevails in an action brought under this chapter, the court shall award:

22. (1) actual damages, including damages for psychological, emotional, economic, and physical harm;

22. (2) reasonable attorney ’s fees and costs incurred in bringing the action; and
23. (3) statutory damages of $5,000.
24.  
25. Sec. 100B.005. DEFENSES.
26. (a) It is an affirmative defense to an action brought under this chapter that:
27. (1) the defendant reasonably believed the minor was at least 18 years of age at the time the minor was allowed entry to the performance; or
28. (2) the minor displayed an apparently valid proof of identification issued by a governmental agency purporting to establish that the minor was at least 18 years of age to gain entry to the performance.

22. (b) It is not a defense to an action brought under this chapter that the minor was accompanied at the drag performance by the minor ’s parent or guardian.

22. SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act applies only to a cause of action that accrues on or after the effective date of this Act.