Both Democratic Frontrunners Voted For The Religious Freedom Restoration Act In 1993. Do They Still Support It?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act is one of the more interesting federal laws of the past few decades. What makes it so is the shifting nature of its political implications.
When it was almost unanimously passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, it was viewed as a liberal bill, and a rebuke to a Supreme Court decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia that allowed Native Americans to be punished for using peyote in a religious ritual. Today, it is most often invoked to protect Christian small business owners from forced participation in gay weddings.
Another interesting point, that is perhaps just a function of them being so old, is that both the leaders in the polls for the Democratic nomination, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, voted for the bill. RFRA was sponsored in the House of Representatives by a young New York congressman named Chuck Schumer, and in the Senate it was sponsored by Ted Kennedy. It is an ingenious little piece of legislation with two major planks.
First, it establishes that if the government is going to compel a person to violate his religious beliefs, it must have a reasonable interest in doing so. Second, and more importantly, once that interest is established, the government must find the least restrictive means possible to achieve that interest. That is to say, government must achieve its goal in the way that least burdens individuals and the practice of their religious beliefs.
In 1993, this was a pretty easy bill for liberals to latch onto and support. After all, it was a bill meant to protect Native Americans from intrusive government action prohibiting their religious practices. It is unlikely that at the time anybody foresaw a situation in which RFRA would be used to protect Christians from forced participation in gay weddings. Generally speaking, at the time, the right of Christians to practice their religious beliefs was just assumed.
But the times, they are a changin’. Although the federal RFRA law does not apply to states, several states adopted their own versions. So across the country, both in state and federal matters, some of the religiously observant have these laws in their back pockets when the state tries to make them “bake the cake” or “take the photo.”
When it is demanded that a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other observant person of faith who owns a bakery or photography business participate in a same-sex wedding, the two planks come into play. Does the state have an interest in making sure gay couples can get wedding cakes and photos? Sure. Is forcing people with religious objections to do it when others with no such objections are happy to do it the least restrictive way to achieve the goal? No. Pretty cut and dry.
But that leaves us with the question of Biden and Sanders. It’s not 1993 anymore. That’s a shame, but it is what it is. Do Biden and Sanders still stand by the idea that the government should go out of its way to not compel people to violate their religious beliefs? Do they still hold that, to whatever extent possible, the state should not compel Americans to violate their religious beliefs?
For the younger candidates, so far drowning in the single-digit territory in the polls, this is not a liability. They did not cast votes for RFRA. I mean, one of them was in middle school when it passed. But what role, if any, should religious liberty play in the Democratic primary? Or the general election?
At first glance one would imagine that Biden, who has been defending a whole host of 1990s policies that progressives poo poo of late, not least of all his crime bill, might defend his support of RFRA. For Sanders, it’s a different matter. In 2016 he did distance himself from the idea that the government can’t force people to violate their religious beliefs. But as these two old guys take center stage in the Democratic primary, might religious freedom become an issue for them?
Don’t count on it. But it’s out there. Biden has clearly come to believe that the rest of the Democratic field is running way too far to the left. Bernie kind of has no choice on that — he is, after all, a socialist — but Biden can shore up some support with religious voters by simply affirming what he already once voted for. And it’s hard to see why he wouldn’t do it.
By David Marcus
MAY 21, 2019
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
"But that leaves us with the question of Biden and Sanders. It’s not 1993 anymore. That’s a shame, but it is what it is. Do Biden and Sanders still stand by the idea that the government should go out of its way to not compel people to violate their religious beliefs? Do they still hold that, to whatever extent possible, the state should not compel Americans to violate their religious beliefs?"
Does anyone know the answer?
Why don't you ask them. I'm sure they would be glad to respond to you
It's funny that you would stop by. I kind of was looking for someone with an answer.
Discrimination in public business has never been a religious right. Our religious rights are limited to the right to believe or not to believe in god(s) and to worship as we choose. It does not apply to how you treat others or what rights they enjoy because they must have the very same religious rights to do as they please even when their beliefs are 180° from yours or or what you seek is religious privilege. Nobody forced them to open a business or toy make wedding cake or photograph weddings and none of those actions are religious in nature. You do not need to be a member of a church to buy a cake for a reception or need flowers for a secular wedding.
If you are claiming that it is a religious belief then when did Jesus tell his followers to act in this way if they are claiming that treating others as less than equal is part of the teachings of Jesus? I might not be reading the same Bible as you but the Jesus in my childhood bible wasn't a bigot.
Luke 6:31,
Matthew 25:40
We could not have any secular laws or an enforceable Constitution if any schmuck could claim that his religious rights were being violated if he was forced to obey secular law.
The RFRA was in response to native Americans being encroached upon by the federal government and their use of peyote in religious rituals. It was not meant to be a gift for religious bigots to hide behind.
Your'e not really answering the question. You are calling religious people bigots. I have to disagree.
The RFRA establishes that if the government is going to compel a person to violate his religious beliefs, it must have a reasonable interest in doing so. Second, and more importantly, once that interest is established, the government must find the least restrictive means possible to achieve that interest. That is to say, government must achieve its goal in the way that least burdens individuals and the practice of their religious beliefs.
Again.....The question is do Biden & Sanders still believe in the law as written or are they gonna peddle more hate?
Compelling all businesses to treat all customers equally is a reasonable interest.
Telling a bigot they can no longer own a business if they can't follow the rules in no way restricts the worship of God, Allah, Christ or any other deity.
Um-hum. That's one part. What about the rest of it?
Telling a bigot they can no longer own a business if they can't follow the rules in no way restricts the worship of God, Allah, Christ or any other deity.
People can't discriminate in business. For instance, if you own a coffee shop that has a no loitering policy, you must have anyone removed who loiters, regardless of, lets say race! Sound familiar?
But lets deal with what we are discussing here. Let's use this example:
If I am a Priest running a Catholic school I might be generous and provide insurance for my teachers. In that insurance plan there wouldn't be any provisions for anything contrary to Church doctrine. It would be fair because it was the same for all. If someone wanted to provide for something like contraceptive devices, they would be free to opt out of the plan and get their own insurance. Thus the Church dosent discriminate, nor would the Church be forced to counter it's own principles.
What other part?
...regardless of, lets say race!
Why? Why are race and sex so often mentioned? Oh, because some bigots in the past used race and sex to discriminate against people. Quite a few of those bigots used religion to do so. Now bigots are trying use a freedom of religion argument to discriminate against people's sexual orientation and gender identity. It won't take long before that's completely shut down no matter what they think they can get out of a more conservative court. Public opinion is not on their side.
Religious institutions already have exceptions. They have been upheld by the courts and is settled whether we agree or disagree on the why.
Those nuns you like to reference wouldn't even fill out the opt out paperwork. Whatever... they won in court.
I am calling them bigots because they are bigots per the definition of bigotry. They refuse to treat others equally because of their beliefs, despite the fact that they opened and operate the business voluntarily. they are well aware of the ideas of the 1964 Civil Rights act and now they are looking for loopholes and instead of obeying the spirit of the law.
Where in the Bible does Jesus teach his followers to act in this manner, if they claim that their bigotry has a religious belief?
Denying religious conservatives the right to discriminate in a public business is not peddling hate. It is demanding equality. Did Jesus also peddle hate in the Luke passage that I previously cited?
Do you believe that Maurice Bessinger should have been able to cite his religious beliefs as a reason to deny equal service to black and interracial customers in his BBQ joint? I've asked this question to many religious conservatives who now support denying equal service to LGBT people but they refuse to answer. It is very obvious to me why they refuse to answer....
Chruches and religious businesses have an automatic and a guaranteed exemption to the birth control mandate in the APA. They only had to fill out a form and sign it. The nuns refused to even have their lawyer fill out a piece of paper to get that automatic exemption.
Vic, I have to agree with Epistte here. If someone is going to open a store to the public then they should service the whole public based on what their store is selling. My personal opinion is that just because they are taking pictures or creating a cake for a same sex marriage does not mean they are participating in said marriage. Isn't this more in line in keeping with the spirit of separation of church and state?
Thank you. They are obeying the spirit of the Public Accommodation protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Their customers are not asking nor do they want the approval of the vendors that they have hired. Those people are there to do a job that they voluntarily opened a business to do.
I agree completely. How can we have any secular laws if a bigot can violate them at will merely by citing his bigoted religious beliefs? Maybe he thinks that black people don't have civil rights protections and can be murdered or raped because they are not human, according to his extreme religious beliefs. Should the jury acquit him of murder for that reason? Is paying taxes like others do a violation of his religious beliefs, and as such he get a 100% tax break if he is willing to make that public claim.
Our religious beliefs are limited to the right to believe or not to believe and to worship as we choose. We do not have the right to involve others in our religious beliefs to trample the rights of others because of our beliefs or worship. We also do not have the right to disregard secular law because of our religious beliefs.
An incorporated business is not a person because the person and the business are legally separated. You can operate unincorporated, but I doubt that your lawyer or accountant would support that action.
The Court didn't claim that paperwork wasn't filled out. They took a reasoned approach. You may want to read what they suggested one more time.
Is anyone disputing that part?
The question is of the government exercising some discretion so as not to compel Americans to violate their religious beliefs?"
Hitting people over the head is a bit unnecessary
The government is not compelling anyone to violate anything.
The government is compelling everyone to be treated equally.
Religious belief is not a ticket to be above or circumvent the law.
Do what you want in private, in public one must follow public rights and laws.
Religion is not a pass.
YOU BET!
What was the nun's objection to the ACA when they had an automatic exemption to the birth control mandate? What religious freedom did they want that they were not offered? The nun's religious beliefs do not get to decide medical decisions for their employees.
This is what the SCOTUS ruled.
What discretion do you want that you do not already have or does not violate the equal religious or secular rights of everyone else? Stop dancing around and spell it out for all to see.
Your religious beliefs stop at the end of your nose where the equal rights of others begin. How are the baker's religious beliefs were violated when the customer didn't know what they were and are irrelevant to his job as a decorator? Did the gay couple forbid him from praying or attending church? Did they try to convert him? You want to allow him to discriminate based on his religious beliefs. Why should we allow him to do that when we would also have to allow racists to deny black and interracial customers that same ability to discriminate?
Should we roll back the protections of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because racists don't like to treat non-whites as equals and want to hide behind the Bible d to do it? Where does it end when bigots are willing to hide behind religion to defend their bigotry? Should we also allow Muslims to decapitate people who drink alcohol or eat pork in the US because that is their religious belief.
Good. I guess you posting the same decision I posted helped you to see it.
I'm so glad. You had no problem reading both parts of that sentence you highlighted in red?
I have spelled it out. Your'e doing all the dancing. You want special rights for special groups, but damn those you don't like. Why all the animosity?
Your religious beliefs stop at the end of your nose where the equal rights of others begin.
Oh, ya that's an old saying that Sam Donaldson used to love to recite. A bad one by the way. Rights should never extend all the way to someone's nose. That's provocation!
I feel like one of the teachers you should have had.
Epistte go back and read the highlighted quote from the article! Give me your interpretation
Equal service in a public business is not a special right. That is equal rights, despite your attempt to rationalize discrimination based on your religious belief.
You are making the very same religious freedom argument that racist Maurice Bessinger did when he was forced to serve black and interracial customers equally with whites at his BBQjoint. Do you also support racism based on relgious belief? The SCOTUS didn't think much of his bigoted claims either.
I was well aware of that SCOTUS decision. I posted it for your benefit.
but wasn't that part of the problem? I mean, the whole lawsuit over the wedding cake thing... a gay couple went into a store that sold wedding cakes, tried to buy said product for their wedding and when refused there was a law suit over the fact. This was my point, it is my opinion that selling the wedding cake is in no part compelling someone to violate their religious beliefs any more than selling a wedding cake to any other person. They opened a store to sell wedding cakes to the public, so I say they should be selling cakes to the public at large.
I've thought long and hard on this and tried to look at it from all sides. And I remain with the belief that if you open a store to sell a product to the public then you need to sell that product to all the public with the only proviso that you are not breaking a law such as selling tobacco to minors. If the person making the purchase is not prohibited by law from obtaining said product then the seller should complete the transaction. IMO this is not forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs so much as insuring fair public accommodations.
And for the record, I am against gay marriage so I will never be in one. That, IMO, is the extent of my religious belief in the matter. I am free to follow my religious beliefs to my hearts content but I am not allowed to push my beliefs on to other people. I understand that one of the laws handed down by God to Moses was that 'man who lies with man as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act and should be put to death'. I will answer to my God when I stand before him and can only hope that the forgiveness of Jesus is sufficient to wipe away that sin, because I feel it is a greater sin to kill than it is to ignore gay marriage.
The beauty of Free Will...
Wrong & wrong.
I'm not rationalizing and I have no religious belief, but it appears that you have an ideology, which is comparable to a religion.
What religion are you a member of?
What ideology do I have except equal service in a public business? Are equal rights for all regardless of religious belief offensive to you?
Yup, that's right we got that.
I've thought long and hard on this and tried to look at it from all sides. And I remain with the belief that if you open a store to sell a product to the public then you need to sell that product to all the public with the only proviso that you are not breaking a law such as selling tobacco to minors. If the person making the purchase is not prohibited by law from obtaining said product then the seller should complete the transaction. IMO this is not forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs so much as insuring fair public accommodations.
Again, that's right
You are reaffirming the law itself, I'm tying to attach the spirit of the law.
So that I don't have to lay it out again, could you take a look at Post # 8.2.1
It's NOT a 'special right' to be treated equally. Additionally, if someone wants to open a business to the public, it needs to serve the public. If someone has a problem serving gays or minorities, don't open a business serving the public that requires a license. It is not forcing special treatment, its enforcing the same treatment.
If equal treatment is an ideology, count me in. He is just trying to find an excuse for businesses to discriminate.
None
What ideology do I have except equal service in a public business?
I know this is a strange answer, but do you recall a nation from Newsvine that had a Maple Leaf as it's logo?
Are equal rights for all regardless of religious belief offensive to you?
I believe in the rights in the Constitution. Do you see anything else coming with those "rights" in RFRA?
And you believe in treating people equally?
I know that you aren't a Canuk so are you a Toronto Maple Leafs fan?
When was it determined that discrimination based on religious beliefs in a public business was a constitutional right?
He is no different than Maurice Bessinger.
No. That was a nation formed by Styres (if I recall) with rules for membership and nation moderators could kick members out. Remember now?
All people are part of those protected classes. The law would be unconstitutional if it were otherwise. The idea of a protected class doesnt take anything away from you and it doesn't give one group more rights.
When the protected class is sexual orientation the law protects heterosexuals, gays/lesbians and bisexuals equally.
When the protected class is gender identity the law protects both transgendered and CIS people like you and me from discrimination
When the protected class is religious believe law protects Christians, Jews, Muslims Hindus, Pagans and atheists, among everyone else equally from discirmnation based on their religious belief or lack thereof.
No, I do not.
How is that relevant to the discussion at hand?
It was, but if you don't remember, I best not go there. Let's just say it was a bad idea to allow the nation mods kick people out.
I think we have beaten this topic into the ground. What say you?
1. WTF is a 'protected class'?
2. I believe in equality. If someone opens and operates a business, they need to serve the public. If their religion says they aren't allowed to serve gays or minorities or women or whoever and they want to adhere to it, they shouldn't open a business. Is that clear enough?
How is this relevant to the discussion at hand? You have danced around in a way that would make Fred Astaire proud and yet have said nothing to support your claim. I am only abusing my fingertips and chipping my manicure in the process trying to get a rational response from you about what spurious religious right you want the RFRA to support.
This behavior seems to be SOP with you.
On what hypothetical basis can they refuse to serve that customer?
Why should there be any exceptions?
As defined by Eric Holder it is anyone who was part of a group that experienced discrimination in the past. Thus, said Holder, only minorities could be considered victims in hate crimes.
2. I believe in equality.
Then if a Starbucks has a policy prohibiting loitering it applies to all groups, right?
Biden and Sanders were late to the current consensus but they made it, belatedly...
Unlike Trump and the damn gop who desperately want a return of Jim Crow Laws.
Meaning what?
Ya, I see what you mean.
Is vanishing right after posting a part of it?
Amazing that the Democrats who had a filibuster proof control of Congress and couldn't be bothered to repeal it, as much as they whine about it now.
It was truly a conundrum!
In case you did not already know, this bulkshit is just exactly the same kind of divisive misleading crapola that all those goddamn Russian trolls were feeding onto the American internet which we all now know was especially crafted by a foreign enemy to drive down the Democratic vote in 2016 in order to help Donald Trump, and Donald Trump alone, thus stealing the US Presidency for Vlad Putin...
That's what turned my vote, from Hillary to Trump! It was a story like this.
Does this mean you don't have an answer?
I wonder if some of those Russian election swayer people don't just pose as hysterical angry leftists posting unhinged conspiracy theories in order to make Democrats look like the party of utter nutjobs.
Oh, conservatives are all over the Russian propaganda. They take it and run.
Whole lots of Russian propaganda was spread on NV by the cons in 2016.
A great deal of it, like this, crafted to drive down Democratic participation..,
Yep, I remember.
How about this one:
"But what role, if any, should religious liberty play in the Democratic primary? Or the general election?"
Anybody?
What religious liberty to believe/not believe in god(s) and to worship as you choose do not not have that could be applied to everyone equally regardless of their religious beliefs?
When has discrimination is a public business ever been determined to be a protected religious right?
You are not answering the question
What question didn't I answer?
You may want to look down at Post # 10. There you will find the definitive answer
What exactly are you referring to? This is the first post in #10.
He answered the question. That was the answer I sought from the beginning. Do you see what he is saying there. Biden and Sanders do know right from wrong, but they will do what they can to win the nomination. The spirit of RFRA be damned!
I would hope Biden, at least, would stand by it. Who knows with Sanders what he will do?
RFRA was, and remains, a good idea. That doesn't mean people will always agree with the impact it has on a specific situation, but that's how it is with many of the protections we have for our rights. If it was the kind of thing that everyone agreed on in all situations, we probably wouldn't need laws and constitutional amendments to protect those rights. We see the same thing with the rights of free speech, the press, gun ownership, protection from unreasonable searches, and so on.
This is complete nonsense reasoning. By that standard, as long as black Americans can eat at some other lunch counter, it's just fine and dandy for restaurants to go "whites only" again.
"Does the state have an interest in making sure black Americans can get sandwiches and sodas? Sure. Is forcing people with religious objections to do it when others with no such objections are happy to do it the least restrictive way to achieve the goal? No. Pretty cut and dry."
Really? Is it really that "cut and dry"?
Also, isn't this line a bit charged..?
"Is forcing people with religious objections to do it"
To do it? It's like the author is almost implying the gay mafia are making religious conservatives have gay sex, that's why so many of their legislators keep getting caught in bathrooms tapping their feet or hotel rooms with meth and a male hooker...
This is complete nonsense reasoning. By that standard, as long as black Americans can eat at some other lunch counter, it's just fine and dandy for restaurants to go "whites only" again.
Your'e making a racial analogy? Bad analogy, but we know the reason.
Why not address the question on its merit?
The reason is that the bigots are using the exact same reasoning that the racists used. They're specifically claiming that since the engaged couple could get their wedding cake baked somewhere else, they were not being denied any rights. And that bullshit excuse was ruled out in the civil rights era, when racists tried to claim that black people could just eat at another restaurant.
That's an opinion, a part of progressive dogma, at that. Many religions view homosexuality in the same light as pedophilia. So why don't we start with that. IE: The law says that people of faith cannot discriminate via any public business practice against pedophiles, however the law will make all effort not to treat the faithful in an unnecessarily harsh manner. I say people calling them bigots are in violation of the law.
The question is does Biden and Sanders still believe that?
It's not an opinion - it's a fact. People on this very site have used that bullshit rationale.
I have no idea what Biden and Sanders believe. You'd have to ask them.
And equating pedophilia with homosexuality is a ridiculous strawman.
IMHO, that is what the Bible & Koran does.
Leviticus 20:13 (the Bible) declares it abominable for a man to lie with another man as with a woman, and both partners are to be executed.
The Qur’an (4:16) demands unspecified punishment for men guilty of lewdness together unless they repent.
Yet, the Prophet is supposed to have declared that both the active and the passive partner should be subject to the same penalty as for zina (illicit heterosexual sex, usually adultery), namely execution by stoning.
Both the Bible and Qur'an condemn homosexual acts between two men and tacitly allow pedophilia.
Muhammad, for example, when in his 50s took a wife (Aisha) when she was 6 years old. He graciously did not consummate the marriage waiting for her to reach a proper age ... of 9 or 10.
The Bible does not disallow pedophilia (albeit it does disallow specific forms of incest).
Given that both religions condemn homosexuality, can secularists justly claim that people of either faith are bigots?
The bible says that all sins are equal; I would imagine the Koran says the same thing, since they're both Abrahamic religions and they both worship the same god. It's a good thing that our laws aren't taken from either of those books. Of course, the bigoted religious fanatics don't seem to have issues serving people who commit a myriad of other sins; they're just obsessed with gay sex for some reason and clearly don't pay much attention to their own bibles. People who are divorced or are remarrying, obese people, liars, vain people, people who wear mixed fabrics - no problems there.
I personally think it's a ridiculous premise, because something that doesn't harm anyone else is in no way equivalent to something that does.
Regarding pedophilia, however - the bible seems to think it's just fine and so does the Koran. Little girls being sold to old men, rape victims sold to their rapists .. I think Mary was supposed to have been about 13 when she was cosmically raped ... Mohammed was a pedophile ... so apparently it's not a sin.
That people believe in what they were taught over centuries?
because something that doesn't harm anyone else is in no way equivalent to something that does.
That's an emotional argument, separate from religion or even from law. I try to empathize with both sides. Homosexuals don't harm anyone else, as you say and the SCOTUS has granted them full rights and standing in our society. That had powerful implications. One of them seems to be the smearing of millions of religious people as bigots. Since this development has been a fairly recent event, I try to be fair to the people of faith that are making the adjustment.
I really don't want to debate why religious people have a right to follow the teachings of their religion. What I would like to do is follow up on the main point of the article, which is the idea that two of the Senators who passed the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act are now running for President and most likely will toss a key provision of that law out the window to placate some angry, radicalized constituents.
Lots of Christians and Muslims really don't care what other people do in bed. Those who discriminate against gays are bigots, yes. And generally hypocrites as well, since they don't give a crap about many other "sins."
Yes. It is illogical to think that, say, shoplifting is as bad as murder, or that what consenting adults do in bed is as bad as molesting children. People should think for themselves instead of taking the words of an ancient book literally. Especially since many of the things espoused in those books are purely evil.
Regarding Biden and Sanders - I would be surprised if either of them supported how some states are trying to use so-called religious freedom acts to legalize discrimination against gays. Baking a cake is not participating in a wedding, and public businesses are not allowed to discriminate. It's as simple as that. No religious freedoms are being taken away from any Christians; they're just losing their assume right to discriminate. Being the snowflakes they are, they're throwing a fit because they have to obey the same laws as everyone else rather than getting special treatment. The racists whined in the same manner during the Civil Rights era, and the bigots are trying to use the same rationale that the racists used - and which was thrown out in the Loving case.
Well, take a look at modern day liberalism. The belief that one group is victim and another is oppressor. That people should vote based on their race or gender or that people should be appointed to important posts based on nothing more than their race or gender. That a woman has a right to commit infanticide or that opposing views should be silenced or that millions should be smeared. Harassment & violence! Talk about pure evil!
No religious freedoms are being taken away from any Christians; they're just losing their assume right to discriminate. Being the snowflakes they are, they're throwing a fit because they have to obey the same laws as everyone else rather than getting special treatment.
You are oversimplifying aren't you?
Remember when The Little Sisters of the Poor had to facilitate access to contraceptives ? Clearly that violated a key provision of RFRA.
Abortion is not infanticide, and the heartbeat fallacy is just that - but anti-choice people generally aren't interested in facts because they get too emotional about the issue.
Nobody was forcing any nuns to take contraception (although since 40% of them have been sexually abused by priests, perhaps they should be taking it - that's pure evil).
Considering how many conservatives won't vote for a black person and were incredibly butthurt when Obama won, and they don't seem ready for a woman President either, and they defend the ignorant fools Trump has appointed to important posts based on whether they flatter him and suck up to his ego, and disdain people with actual knowledge and experience, your first paragraph is amusing. I have no idea what you mean about silencing opposing views - are you referring to the hateful Infowars/Alex Jones/etc. ban on social media, or what?
The Next time someone dies in front of them, don't go the "Life Saving" route. It's not worth it.
The Fallacy that the "Heart Beat" means everything, actually means NOTHING !
Terminating the life of a child who has been born IS infanticide! You mean the abortion proponents aren't emotional about their belief that only a pregnant woman has rights?
Nobody was forcing any nuns to take contraception (although since 40% of them have been sexually abused by priests, perhaps they should be taking it - that's pure evil).
You know what they were forcing them to do.
Fortunately, the Court saw it differently and the Court was able to fulfill the provisions of RFRA (the point of this discussion):
"Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.” Post, p. ___. Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. Supplemental Brief for Petitioners 4. The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures “for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.”
Considering how many conservatives won't vote for a black person
PROVE THAT SLANDER
BTW in the last election, the GOP had a black candidate, a female candidate and two Hispanic candidates.
followed by:
conservatives won't vote for a black person and were incredibly butthurt when Obama won, and they don't seem ready for a woman President either, and they defend the ignorant fools Trump has appointed to important posts based on whether they flatter him and suck up to his ego, and disdain people with actual knowledge and experience,
Probably the only redeeming thing about the weeks odes to abortion on this site watching the pro abortionists crowd make post after post of inflammatory. emotionally charged arguments and then turn around and accuse the pro life side of being emotional.
This plays out 200 times a thread:
"Anyone who Disagrees with my position wants to kill woman and/or make them slaves! War on Women!" followed immediately by "Pro lifers are too emotional"
Do try to keep up with science.
"Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D.) commented Wednesday about a controversial 40-week abortion bill and in so doing said the law allows an abortion to take place after the infant's birth.
"If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother," Northam said, alluding to the physician and mother discussing whether the born infant should live or die.
Do try and keep up with liberal doctrine
Is the Heart important for Human life to exist or not !
Unrestricted Abortion stuff like signed in other states ...., goes waaaaaay past the "Little Flutter"
stage.
Liberals are not the ones defining who victim and oppressor are. When some believe they have a right to deny service to people simply because they found out that persons sexual orientation, then the oppressor is defining themselves. When some believe they can fire an employee because they found out about that persons sexual orientation, then the oppressor is defining themselves. When some believe they can deny a person the right to marry another consenting adult because they find their union "offensive", then the oppressor is defining themselves.
"That a woman has a right to commit infanticide or that opposing views should be silenced or that millions should be smeared."
Some believe they can inflame passions with outrageous claims based on nothing but their own personal opinion like pretending a fetus is an "infant". And no one is being silenced, as you can hear even the craziest of anti-choice opinions where ever you look. What they're angry and bitter about is the push back on the actual legislation those oppressive busybodies who refuse to mind their own business and who aren't in ANY way being forced to have abortions or being forced to fund abortions.
"Harassment & violence!"
Yes, that's what the oppressors have done, harassing women trying to get access to reproductive health care, murdering doctors and bombing clinics. Talk about pure evil.
"You are oversimplifying aren't you?"
No, he wasn't at all. All you can come up with as supposed "freedoms" being taken away was a fight over women who work for an organization having access to contraceptives? Really? That's your big "Ah Ha!"? A fight where the company that women work for who may not all be Catholics, they have janitors and others who may work for the "The Little Sisters of the Poor" and assumed their health plan would cover their health needs, but NO! More religious bigots want to inject their opinion into their employees personal health as if it's their business or that they can't TRUST an employee not to use contraceptives if they are a member of the church. They take the choice away from their own employees, and they call that "religious freedom". What a fucking joke.
So the baby was born dead. Sounds like God's plan, right? And why would you resuscitate it, if it was going to be brain dead or something? The family and the doctor SHOULD have a conversation about whether it had any chance at a decent quality of life. Do you think DNRs are a bad thing?
" The New York Reproductive Health Act removes abortion from the criminal code and clarifies that a range of medical professionals, not just licensed physicians, can perform the procedure."
Seems a "Dentist" could do it !
It also seems that after 24 weeks, there is more than a "Little Flutter" for a Life giving "Heart" .
Oh, but they have...We had a president of this country declare that there are those who "cling to their Bibles and guns." We had another individual, involved in all kinds of shady dealings, call millions of Americans "deplorable" and she said it as a presidential candidate.
Some believe they can inflame passions with outrageous claims based on nothing but their own personal opinion like pretending a fetus is an "infant".
Gov Ralph Northam said a woman still had the decision over life or death even AFTER the child was born! WHICH IS AN INFANT!
Yes, that's what the oppressors have done
That's what liberals have done. From harrasing people who were tying to eat dinner to staging a riot in the nation's capitol on inauguration day.
"The Little Sisters of the Poor" and assumed their health plan would cover their health needs
Nope, the Little Sisters of the Poor assumed that THEIR health care plan would respect the principles of THEIR religion!!!
WHA?
No shit. That's why at 24 weeks, babies are generally considered viable.
Where is your outrage over the things Trump has called people? And about his shady dealings?
I can only hope that democrats keep running on their abortion rights, right up to the delivery room:
"With just nine months to go before the Iowa caucuses, Democratic hopefuls seem to be competing to embrace the most extreme position on abortion even though it alienates an overwhelming majority of Americans on both sides of the aisle. It is important to understand just how far Democratic candidates have strayed from public opinion – even among their own constituents.
After New York expanded access to late-term abortion even up to the moment of birth earlier this year, the Marist Poll – one of the country’s most respected surveys – found a broad consensus among the American people.
By about 3-to-1, Americans oppose abortion after 20 weeks – or don’t want it at all. This includes about 8 in 10 Republicans and independents and nearly 6 in 10 Democrats.
This survey also found that 80% of Americans support limiting abortion to at most the first three months of a pregnancy. This included nearly two-thirds of those identifying as pro-choice and a similar number of Democrats (64%). The poll was commissioned by the Knights of Columbus.
Few issues command such massive majorities. The revulsion these proposals caused was bipartisan. But, while the polling showed that most Americans strongly opposed policies like those in New York and Virginia, Democratic presidential candidates appear to be doubling down."
Cuomo and Company, Plus Most Liberals, don't give a Shit about viability ! You can now "Stop a Childs Heart" from beating out life in New York !
Cheers !
It has been tempered by what he has done for this country!
And about his shady dealings?
Such as?
I Agree !
The uber young little "Monicas" of the world ….. DO FEEL !
So you refuse to hold Trump up to the same standards you hold Democrats to. Got it.
As far as shady dealings - surely you've heard of his fraudulent University and his fraudulent charity, to name just two? Or perhaps how he's stiffed lots of small businesses who worked for him, and how he constantly lies? But nope, he gets a pass from his base, because ethics and morals are only a requirement for the other side.
And your calling a decision not to resuscitate a baby that was born dead "infanticide" only proves my point about the emotional issues when discussing abortion with anti-choice people. I don't happen to agree with late-term abortions either, btw, except in rare cases such as the health or life of the mother. But you can't kill someone who is already dead.
That doesn't surprise me in the least. Many Republicans do. However, most of the Republicans I know, and I know quite a few, highly disapprove of Trump and his cadre of power hungry hyenas, all of whom are too stupid to know they are totally disposable at a seconds notice, depending on which tantrum mood Trump is in at the moment.
What I don't understand is why many Republicans, when polled, say they'd support Trump over other hypothetical Republican candidates. Why wouldn't they want a Republican in office who is an actual adult and has a brain? It's a shame we aren't going to have a decent GOP primary. I will be so disappointed if we have to put up with this deranged toddler for another 4 years.
OH MY GOD! I can't believe someone would say something like "cling to their bibles and guns", how offensive to accurately describe people who cling to their bibles and guns. Did he call them evil? Did he say they were bad people? Did he say they should all go die? I don't recall hearing any of that, I just heard a bunch of accurately described people shout in unison "Hey! I don't like 'uppity' Presidents that don't look like me accurately describing me!".
And as for the deplorable comment, Hillary defined deplorable as "xenophobes, homophobes, Islamophobes, racists and misogynists". Those are the "basket of deplorables" described. Who knew so many Americans would self identify as one of those things and jump in the basket proudly declaring themselves a "deplorable"?
"Gov Ralph Northam said a woman still had the decision over life or death even AFTER the child was born! WHICH IS AN INFANT!"
Give the hyperbolic faux outrage a rest. You know 92% of all abortions occur at or before 12 weeks. You know that late term abortions (performed after viability) are extremely rare (less than 1%) and only done to save the life of the mother or if the pregnancy died late in utero. Gov. Northam's poorly worded defense of such practice is only used as a cudgel to bash the 99% of abortions done long before viability by unscrupulous dishonest liars who believe the ends justify the means. And the "ends" they so desire is to force their own religious opinion on everyone they can, people they don't even know exist they want to ram their religion down there throat and rip a woman's rights over her own body away.
"That's what liberals have done. From harrasing people who were tying to eat dinner to staging a riot in the nation's capitol on inauguration day."
I point out the doctors shot, clinics bombed and women trying to access health care assaulted outside clinics and you fire back with liberals interrupting someone's dinner, nice.
"Nope, the Little Sisters of the Poor assumed that THEIR health care plan would respect the principles of THEIR religion!!!"
Do you use everything that your health care plan will pay for? I don't, but I'm paying for those things I'll never use. Maybe it's a religious thing, what if I didn't believe humans should take drugs, ever. Can I demand a health care plan for me and all my employees that would refuse to pay for any medication? Not even an Advil or pain medicine administered in a hospital? Should I be able to enforce my religious crazy on everyone who works for me? I think that's pretty stupid, but there you have it. Would I be forced to take medicine because I have a plan that covers it? Of course not, that's my religious freedom at work, but it should never be used as a weapon to deny others their own choice.
Same could be said about the Democrats, neither party has the moral high ground. Many where more than willing to vote Hillary into office, and the Clintons have had their fare share of "shady" dealings and immoral behavior. I know Democrats like to 'feel" they are better than others, but they are not, and also have their faults.
If we voted for a President (or other positions) based soley on ethics and morals, we would probably have to go back to Abe Lincoln.
Do you think he meant it as a compliment?
And Clinton said HALF of ALL Trump supporters where deplorables and irredeemable
You always like to leave things out.
Wow, yeah give the hypberbolic a rest.
The Clintons were certainly shady, but not to the level of Trump. Pretty much anyone has the moral high ground as compared to Trump. And yes, it's hard to find a politician with morals and ethics, but they do exist. Obama didn't have any major ethical or moral issues that I can recall. Bush Sr, either.
Vic apparently doesn't think Trump has done anything shady, which is clearly not the case; at least, that's what his comment implied.
Well that is just an opinion.
But still her "base" ignored her "shady" dealings and voted for her anyways. It seems they get a pass and Trump supporters don't.
"Look at the little three year old girl cling to her teddy bear."
Was that meant as an insult?
Cling: verb - (of a person or animal) hold on tightly to.
Are you offended that someone said some people "hold on tightly" to their bibles and their guns?
"And Clinton said HALF of ALL Trump supporters where deplorables. You always like to leave things out."
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America."
I admit, she should not have been "grossly generalistic", but she immediately spelled out those she was defining, so you could have assumed yourself in the "half" that aren't deplorable, but apparently there were more than half who happily labeled themselves "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic".
"Wow, yeah give the hypberbolic a rest"
So religious conservatives AREN'T trying to enforce their religious opinions on others? They AREN'T trying to rip a woman's right to her own body away? They AREN'T trying to force a supreme court fight in their attempt to overturn Roe v Wade? None of that is hyperbole, it's a fact. What's hyperbolic is taking a singular anecdotal instance of a poorly worded defense, turning it into a straw man and claiming it's the reason all women should have their right to privacy stripped away.
Hell, I voted for her, and I'm not part of her base. It was a matter of who was shadier, and Trump is far shadier. I wasn't thrilled with it, but Trump was the worst candidate I've ever had the option to vote for.
Her shady dealings were investigated and I assume you were happy that they were. Trump's base wants her locked up without due process ... yet they screech about a legal investigation into some truly concerning things about Trump, which has already resulted in a lot of indictments and some guilty pleas.
You can just answer the question....
I have to agree. Trump is the least fit for the position of President of the US, yet, Republicans would vote for him over other well qualified candidates.
I was a Republican for most of my adult life, but, when John McCain brought Sarah Palin into his fold as VP candidate, I left the party. And while there were plenty of other well qualified candidates in the Republican field who would be a much better representative of our Country, our people and their party, they voted for a know liar, totally immoral and admitted lustful letch.
While I know that not all Republicans voted for him, as I still have many friends who are Republicans, it says a lot about the morals of those who did, and who avidly support him, and who claim to be such devout Christians. Do they really think that their God thinks Trump is a man of God, a true believer in Christ, given his own admitted lustful and immoral actions toward women, and his immoral betrayal of his wives?
If Trump is what they see as a moral man, then their idea of what it means to be a Christian that they profess, and I am glad I am not one.
I don't think it was meant as a compliment, but it certainly wasn't meant as an insult either. It was an attempt to explain a growing phenomenon we all saw happening, a rise of "Patriot" groups who claimed their gun rights and religious freedoms were being threatened by the election of President Obama, even though the only gun laws Obama passed increased gun rights allowing them on trains and in national parks.
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." - President Obama
So no, that was not an insult in any way shape or form.
he called them "bigots".
Not surprised you feel that way.
It was rather insulting, IMO, but very true.
he or what sadly passes for the main stream media?
He's been documented lying so many times ... he even lies when there's seemingly no reason to, like saying that his dad was born in Germany. He has always been a pathological liar. But you've just proven a point about his base, so thank you for that.
For 2 and a half years the national media has lied to us about Russia Collusion and you try and contrast that with anything Trump said or was supposed to have said. It is one of the reasons democrats will be defeated in November.
Do you have any idea what that would refer to? As if a healthy baby was going to be allowed to die. When you know your baby won't survivie, wtf do you expect someone to do? A woman doesn't go through 9 months of pregnancy for shits and giggles to kill off her newborn, FFS! Instead of twisting what is a devastating death for a family, tell the damn truth. This is NOT ABOUT MURDER.
"(Convicted spy Maria) Butina asked Trump about his plan for working with her country – particularly if he would continue America’s “damaging” sanctions against it.
“I believe I would get along very nicely with Putin. I don’t think you would need the sanctions,” Trump said. “I think we would get along really well. I really believe that.”
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing”
"Actually, Russia was doing more than listening: It had been trying to help Republican Trump for months. That very day, hackers working with Russia’s military intelligence tried to break into email accounts associated with Clinton’s personal office."
"The Russian military intelligence unit known by its initials GRU targeted U.S. state election offices as well as U.S. makers of voting machines, according to Mueller’s report."
“President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?”
“Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.–Russia relationship back to normal.” - Putin
"Secret documents show Russian plot to stoke racial violence in America"
"By the late 1980s and 1990s, the phrase pay-to-play became increasingly identified with US politics, specifically referring to the practice of companies or industries giving contributions and gifts to candidates in exchange for political favors, influence on policy , tax breaks, and so on. It’s been argued that this practice amounts to “buying out” a candidate, and has been criticized by politicians such as Bernie Sanders, who argue that it had led to politics being controlled by “billionaires and special interests.”
We know Trump told them he'd pay, "I don’t think you would need the sanctions", and we know he asked them to play "Russia, if you’re listening ", and we know Russia was listening "That very day, hackers working with Russia’s military intelligence tried to break into email accounts" and Putin admitted to playing “Yes, I did. Yes, I did.". Unless we choose to imagine that running campaign ads, stealing opponent emails and illegally releasing them publicly and intentionally stirring up racial divisions is not considered a "thing of value" that a candidate might pay for "in exchange for political favors, influence and policy", then it's a clear case of pay-for-play.
This wasn't a "media conspiracy" or some MSM invented lie, it was conspiracy right out in the open. As to whether it was criminal conspiracy, Mueller wasn't able to prove such as everyone Trump surrounded himself with were liars and cheats whose testimony couldn't be trusted even if they did spill the beans. I believe the only reason Trump is not already behind bars is because his staff didn't allow him to record his daily conversations and they are, so far, all willing to fall on their swords for him. History will not be kind to this inept moron who fancies himself a King.
We who? What is this reason discriminating against someone born gay is different than discriminating against someone born black?
I'm not playing games with you. The point here is what the original provisions of RFRA called for. Obviously you are committed to only one part of all that.
I'll try and make you understand. One last time.
Let's assume I'm gay and I'm going to have the proverbial wedding cake made. There are two bakeries only a few doors away from one another. One is owned by a Protestant Minister and the other is owned by Seth Myers. Both are willing to make that cake - which means both are complying with the law. So, in the spirit of RFRA I go and have my cake made by Myers. I'm doing it without burdening someone who will do it reluctantly. (in this analogy, the customer gets the spirit of the law)
Lots of Christians and Muslims really don't care what other people do in bed
That's a fair statement
Those who discriminate against gays are bigots, yes.
You kind of called ALL of them bigots.
And generally hypocrites
Let's see if Biden & Sanders are hypocrites
On a personal level perhaps they do Vic .. but on a public / political level, both will have evolved. Both are pandering for votes. Biden, someone I thought I would support if he got in the race [I so wanted him to run in 2016] can do nothing but bash Trump - so the only way Biden is going to (re) support the religious freedoms act of 1993 is if Trump comes out against it!
I once wanted a ticket of Biden / Buttigieg .. I still like Mayor Pete, yet his focus on the elimination is the electoral college (?) (deal breaker for me) Biden started his campaign off by being the anti Trump candidate. Biden's campaign is all about Biden is the best choice. (kind of a lazy politician move in my book!)
Peace..
Biden and Sanders are both too old IMO. So is Trump, for that matter.
I cannot argue with that .. yet I still think that the nation needs a hand of experience and a time to heal. Biden is that individual, to me anyways. Had he stayed out of the fray and not gone all things anti Trump for his platform, I might have dusted myself off and went to work to get him elected. I still may, if he shows that he is a serious candidate that moderates and independents can get behind...
As an independent, I want whoever has the best chance of beating Trump. I would hope Biden chooses a very good VP candidate ... anyone that age needs to plan for the possibility that they won't be able to complete their term.
What I really wish is that some decent Republican candidates would challenge Trump so that we at least will have a grownup in office after the next election, someone with a brain who actually thinks, regardless of which side wins. But the GOP is going to make sure that doesn't happen. They've talked about canceling the primary in SC, for example, just to make sure their precious snowflake doesn't have to face any competition.
I have a friend that thinks former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake might possibly step up - I have heard rumors of Representative Amash being encourage to run against Trump.
I personally do not see a challenger coming forward, and I do not think the GOP is really worried about it either... just my opinion..
I had heard that Amash wanted to run as a Libertarian.
Hi Ender ..
Interesting .. I know basically nothing about Amash, he has just been in the news for the (R) not towing the mark .. his being encourage to run was in an article I read earlier today … please tell me he has more going for him than the last Libertarian that ran for office - that guy was unique : )
Thank you
Figured I had better at least attempt an answer, since you asked a good question...
Be back in a few
I have to agree with some, this is equating different things and trying to muddy the waters.
Of course people can have religious freedom and do as they choose in their private life.
Once in the public sphere it is a different animal when some are trying to push their private views.
A Native american doing Peyote on a reservation is in no way the same as a physician denying care based on belief.
Thanks to all who kept it civil