General US Politics

[Life]

And where exactly is the federal government overreaching? The federal government always knows best for pretty much every topic, and the states who want their own choices just want to use them to spout their homophobic, transphobic, racist vitriol. It's the federal government's job to keep the backwards states from forcing their horrible ideas on the people who live there. I shouldn't be disadvantaged because I live in Tennessee, one of the worst states in the entire country.

Question: What horrible ideas are you talking about? Can you point out specific legislation in any given state that are discriminatory by intent?

And don't bring up the bathroom idea because it's the silliest thing ever. Either you urinate like a man or a woman. Show me a way how a human being can urinate in a different way barring medical procedures or anomolies (like 1 in 100 million diseases) and I'll concede that point.

State rights are not inherently racist or homophobic or discriminatory. Just because they may have had Jim Crow laws at one point does not mean that they only existed at the state level (Woodrow Wilson is a great example as are LBJ and FDR). Does Milwalkee have a racist municipal government too because blacks there are generally poor? Does Detroit? Baltimore?

Edited August 20, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[solrocknroll]

Question: What horrible ideas are you talking about? Can you point out specific legislation in any given state that are discriminatory by intent?

And don't bring up the bathroom idea because it's the silliest thing ever. Either you urinate like a man or a woman. Show me a way how a human being can urinate in a different way barring medical procedures or anomolies (like 1 in 100 million diseases) and I'll concede that point.

State rights are not inherently racist or homophobic or discriminatory. Just because they may have had Jim Crow laws at one point does not mean that they only existed at the state level (Woodrow Wilson is a great example). Does Milwalkee have a racist municipal government too because blacks there are generally poor? Does Detroit? Baltimore?

Marriage equality was the primary idea on my mind. The Supreme Court was able to make a choice accurately, and yet smaller states now complain that their hateful standards for marriage aren't being upheld. Without the federal government, the states could be prejudiced against anyone, and not everyone can move to New York or California.

Likewise, there was the point brought up earlier about businesses rejecting people for religious reasons. That's prejudice and should be shut down for obvious reasons.

The bathroom issue is equally valid. A person should not be antagonized for who they are. Glee had an episode about this back in 2013 or 14 and it was incredibly insightful. Just because you feel differently does not mean that it isn't valid.

Racism on the other hand wasn't a particularly valid point on my part, but the other two most definitely were.

[Life]

Marriage equality was the primary idea on my mind. The Supreme Court was able to make a choice accurately, and yet smaller states now complain that their hateful standards for marriage aren't being upheld. Without the federal government, the states could be prejudiced against anyone, and not everyone can move to New York or California.

Likewise, there was the point brought up earlier about businesses rejecting people for religious reasons. That's prejudice and should be shut down for obvious reasons.

The bathroom issue is equally valid. A person should not be antagonized for who they are. Glee had an episode about this back in 2013 or 14 and it was incredibly insightful. Just because you feel differently does not mean that it isn't valid.

Racism on the other hand wasn't a particularly valid point on my part, but the other two most definitely were.

Marriage equality didn't exist at the Federal level until 2014. So the federal level was also discriminatory until 2 years ago.

I don't care about Glee because that is designed for entertainment. I'm talking about how a human being physically urinates. I don't care if they feel like a woman inside; if they urinate like a man, they should use a men's bathroom. The fact that I should even have to say that sentence feels like an absurdity.

If they have a problem with it, they should find a private unisex bathroom.

[Tryhard]

I've never really understood the states rights argument. Isn't it important for the country to be somewhat unified in policies i.e either abortion/gay marriage is legal or it is not? What is the difference between letting the federal government decide policies or letting the states decide policies? Aren't the states pretty much forming their own separate countries at some point when they are given ultimate legislative power? (either that or there would be an actual desire to secede from the US, even Texas barely wants to) The fact that states rights have been used in the past to justify racial segregation and other forms of laws more recently against abortions, sexual behaviour and critical thinking education programmes is rather troubling.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

I've never really understood the states rights argument. Isn't it important for the country to be somewhat unified in policies i.e either abortion/gay marriage is legal or it is not? What is the difference between letting the federal government decide policies or letting the states decide policies? Aren't the states pretty much forming their own separate countries at some point when they are given ultimate legislative power? (either that or there would be an actual desire to secede from the US, even Texas barely wants to) The fact that states rights have been used in the past to justify racial segregation and other forms of laws more recently against abortions, sexual behaviour and critical thinking education programmes is rather troubling.

Because the federal government cannot possibly be responsible for all the issues that affect states. It doesn't have the man power.

A state deals with more local issues than the federal government does. It is a provicial government that can actually focus on communities than the nation as a whole.

[tuvarkz]

Marriage equality was the primary idea on my mind. The Supreme Court was able to make a choice accurately, and yet smaller states now complain that their hateful standards for marriage aren't being upheld. Without the federal government, the states could be prejudiced against anyone, and not everyone can move to New York or California.

Likewise, there was the point brought up earlier about businesses rejecting people for religious reasons. That's prejudice and should be shut down for obvious reasons.

I believe there's a difference between ready-to-sell products (or functionally ready to sell with minimal preparation, such as ingredients for the afternoon in a restaurant) and stuff that is to be specially ordered. If the product is already there, there is an issue, but if there's need to specially order it (and likely being an unique product), I believe the business should have the right to outright reject without need for any further explanation.

Regarding gay marriage, I believe that the issue comes from Western marriage as it is being majorly influenced by the Christian/Abrahamic concept of marriage (rather than marriage as it was in other cultures/belief systems), which is exclusively heterosexual; and that using "civil union" as the term instead would've been far less (as much as I have come to dislike using the following term, no word that fits more comes to mind at the moment) problematic.

[Life]

I believe there's a difference between ready-to-sell products (or functionally ready to sell with minimal preparation, such as ingredients for the afternoon in a restaurant) and stuff that is to be specially ordered. If the product is already there, there is an issue, but if there's need to specially order it (and likely being an unique product), I believe the business should have the right to outright reject without need for any further explaination.

Oh, I missed this.

Basically, implementing that idea would shut down the vast majority of restaurants that sell meat that is not kosher or halal. Which is like... 90% in the USA?

Not only that but if I am a private business, I should be allowed to sell my product to anyone I choose. If I own a bakery and I don't want to bake a cake for a transexual, they can go somewhere else. If I lose enough business because of that and have to close down, I have failed as a business. But the government shouldn't be forcing me to sell to person X because it infringes on my own freedoms.

If a flower shop refused to sell me flowers because I was a Jew, I'd simply find a new store. If that shop goes out of business because of a "no Jews" policy, that's their fault. It's the beauty of the free market.

Remember people: I am a minority also. And I probably have more greivences than all the rest of you put together (being a Jew, we are universally hated). I know what discrimination is.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[ping]

So why does anyone care who takes a leak in which bathroom stall? I agree that this is the silliest thing ever, though. If the reason is sexual in some way, I guess gays shouldn't be allowed to use any bathroom at all? Seriously, why would I care if the person where the urine in the stall next to me comes out?

It's actually a really clever way to increase the representation of the less populous states, to help avoid a tyranny of the majority. It's flawed, obviously, but it's better than nothing, and it's honestly something I'm all for keeping. It's intimately tied to the notion of the United States not as one monolithic entity, but as a collection of smaller republics, each with their own quirks and differences, a notion that has been steadily declining thanks to the creep of federal government overreach. The common flaws of the electoral college (aka I live in an x state, my vote doesn't matter) are all a matter of how the electors are assigned, which is a matter handled by the states. If you don't like the winner-take-all method of assigning electors, get it changed at the state level to a representative distribution. I think most of the legislatures that enacted winner-take-all did so because they perceived it as making campaigns more likely to spend money there as a result of the higher risk, higher reward.

OK, I can appreciate those points. I still don't really agree in this specific case though. ;) The president is very much a "union" thing, so imho the place of residence of the voters shouldn't be a factor in his election. However, I do agree that the states should retain a certain degree of independence in their legislation, without wanting to go too much into the details of this. ;)

€: I actually mostly agree with the post above this. If someone refuses to make a deal for all the wrong reasons, it should still be their decision to make. I might consider them an asshole because of said decision, but I wouldn't want them to be forced to go against their will.

I only mostly agree, though, because access to things like fresh water, electricity or public transportation, which are essential but you can't just by at the store next door, should be open to everyone.

Edited August 20, 2016 by ping

[-Cynthia-]

I believe there's a difference between ready-to-sell products (or functionally ready to sell with minimal preparation, such as ingredients for the afternoon in a restaurant) and stuff that is to be specially ordered. If the product is already there, there is an issue, but if there's need to specially order it (and likely being an unique product), I believe the business should have the right to outright reject without need for any further explanation.

This sounds pretty reasonable to me actually, unless there's some case where something 'specially ordered' is essential to the person's livelihood.

Remember people: I am a minority also. And I probably have more greivences than all the rest of you put together (being a Jew, we are universally hated). I know what discrimination is.

How about we don't make assumptions about how much discrimination people have or have not encountered in their lives?

[Life]

How about we don't make assumptions about how much discrimination people have or have not encountered in their lives?

I feel that this is important to throw out in the wake of a few comments that were levelled at me. Just to clear something up.

Discrimination is unacceptable when it comes from a governmental stance. We can all agree on that. But private businesses cannot and should not be forced to conduct business contrary to their wants.

Great example: Germany just banned all face veils. I don't like Islam and even I can't back this because it does infringe on personal freedoms.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

ignorant question here, wouldn't banning face veils bring more freedom to the women that are forced to wear them?

i mean i can see the downsides to this if Islam refuses to cooperate, but anything that treats women like humans is a plus in my book.

please correct me if anything i said in this post is wrong.

Edited August 20, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[eclipse]

How do you know a woman is being forced to wear a face veil?

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

How do you know a woman is being forced to wear a face veil?

i dunno, i guess that was a bad question in hindsight, my bad.

[SleepyTalker]

God dammit Klokinator, I wasn't going to intervene, but a little part of my history loving heart died a very painful death when you said that we ended slavery 150 years before everyone else. We were behind only Brazil in ending slavery in the Western World. The fucking Ottoman Empire ended slavery before we did. There's also the part where we did to the Indians exactly what Hitler wanted to do to the Soviet Union: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

So yeah, I'd say America has one of the most bigoted histories imaginable.

The British Empire and the Spanish conquistadors would like a word with you on bigotry.

America's history on bigotry is no different from most other large nations. Besides, it's over; What effect does this have on America today, besides people bringing it up? You want long lasting effects of racism? Go to somewhere where it actually is; there's no racism in the constitution.

Sure, colonialism hurt other parts of the world, but that wasn't america who caused that. And the actions of people who USED to live here must now be attributed to the innocents of today?

Edited August 20, 2016 by SleepyTalker

[eclipse]

The British Empire and the Spanish conquistadors would like a word with you on bigotry.

America's history on bigotry is no different from most other large nations. Besides, it's over; What effect does this have on America today, besides people bringing it up? You want long lasting effects of racism? Go to somewhere where it actually is; there's no racism in the constitution.

Sure, colonialism hurt other parts of the world, but that wasn't america who caused that. And the actions of people who USED to live here must now be attributed to the innocents of today?

. . .did you really have to dig up a quote from over a year ago?

[SleepyTalker]

. . .did you really have to dig up a quote from over a year ago?

What? What are you talking about? I didn't know i was quoting anyone. Besides you, but your post wasn't a year old

Edit: I'm stupid. I can't read, apparently. This is why i should drink coffee before going on the internet.

No hard feelings, right?

Edited August 20, 2016 by SleepyTalker

[Life]

ignorant question here, wouldn't banning face veils bring more freedom to the women that are forced to wear them?

i mean i can see the downsides to this if Islam refuses to cooperate, but anything that treats women like humans is a plus in my book.

please correct me if anything i said in this post is wrong.

You bring up a good point, actually.

Eclipse, we know that women in Islam are routinely forced to do what their husbands want. Again, I bring up Aynaz Anni Cyrus who will quote Sura after Sura to prove this.

However, this is not the case with everyone. Some women do choose to wear face veils. And... well shit, now I'm divided on the issue.

Something is telling me that this is against religious freedom but how much freedom actually exists in Islam? I'm still against it but again... shit.

[Crysta]

Women should be able to wear face veils if they want to.

[Soapbar]

Discrimination is unacceptable when it comes from a governmental stance. We can all agree on that. But private businesses cannot and should not be forced to conduct business contrary to their wants.

Absolutely disagree, especially when it comes to smaller towns around the country where there are fewer stores and business outlets in general, discriminating someone from your store based on race or skin color would be absolutely asinine.

and honestly it's just stupid in general. It shouldn't matter that you don't want to serve someone because they're going to come and go with very few words said between, so just grit your teeth and go through with it. I promise it won't be that bad. Promise.

[ping]

ignorant question here, wouldn't banning face veils bring more freedom to the women that are forced to wear them?

i mean i can see the downsides to this if Islam refuses to cooperate, but anything that treats women like humans is a plus in my book.

please correct me if anything i said in this post is wrong.

That's actually the main argument that's being made here, although it's not the only one. Reading through an article in a conservative german newspaper...:

Being fully veiled violates the human dignity of the woman since she is yanked out of human and social interaction.

It is clear that no woman would ever wear a burka voluntarily.

It's not a religious symbol, but a symbol for the suppression of the wearer.

Still, I'm opposed to that law, if only because I don't think it will actually be of any use. If a man used to force his wife to wear a burka/nikab/tschador/whatever, chances are that he will now forbid her to leave the house alltogether. A swiss author (Sibylle Berg) has put it quite nicely: It's not about protecting the muslim women, it's about protecting us from being reminded that our world is still unjust and foolish.

I might add that it's also about the government showing that they're totally doing something about the radical Islam, which is really super helpful, we swear, now please stop voting for the AfD, ok?

Edited August 20, 2016 by ping

[eclipse]

What? What are you talking about? I didn't know i was quoting anyone. Besides you, but your post wasn't a year old

Edit: I'm stupid. I can't read, apparently. This is why i should drink coffee before going on the internet.

No hard feelings, right?

Nope! Just don't go digging way back when for posts, 'cause the topic's probably moved on.

You bring up a good point, actually.

Eclipse, we know that women in Islam are routinely forced to do what their husbands want. Again, I bring up Aynaz Anni Cyrus who will quote Sura after Sura to prove this.

However, this is not the case with everyone. Some women do choose to wear face veils. And... well shit, now I'm divided on the issue.

Something is telling me that this is against religious freedom but how much freedom actually exists in Islam? I'm still against it but again... shit.

If there was a magical solution that was able to discern whether or not a woman was wearing a face veil due to her own desire, I'd vote for that in a heartbeat. I don't think religion should be forced on anyone, but I also think that religious expression should be respected, up to a degree. The best a government can do is compromise, but I get the feeling that those who are forced aren't going to get a driver's license or open a bank account in their own name.

It's a tricky issue, and I can't think of a good way of legislating it without doing one of the following:

1. Screw someone who's trying to escape their religion

2. Screw over those who wear face veils voluntarily

Even if there was legislation banning face veils in public, what's to stop our hypothetical woman from never appearing in public?

[Life]

Absolutely disagree, especially when it comes to smaller towns around the country where there are fewer stores and business outlets in general, discriminating someone from your store based on race or skin color would be absolutely asinine.

and honestly it's just stupid in general. It shouldn't matter that you don't want to serve someone because they're going to come and go with very few words said between, so just grit your teeth and go through with it. I promise it won't be that bad. Promise.

I agree that it's asinine. But that's the beauty of capitalism. If I refuse you service as the owner of a private business, I suffer the monetary consequence. That should be my right even though I personally will always choose the money.

Do you believe that I should have that right or not? Even if it is asinine?

Edited August 20, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[-Cynthia-]

In the United States at least, if a women is being forced to do things against her will for religious or any other reason that could qualify as domestic abuse and be handled that way. Banning face veils seems entirely unecessary, because women do wear them vountarily.

[Life]

In the United States at least, if a women is being forced to do things against her will for religious or any other reason that could qualify as domestic abuse and be handled that way. Banning face veils seems entirely unecessary, because women do wear them vountarily.

Women in Syria in towns that ISIS has been kicked out of would disagree.

The beauty of a face veil is that it hides signs of physical abuse. And women cannot ask for divorce in Islam. There is no religious law that protects them from it.

[Soapbar]

I agree that it's asinine. But that's the beauty of capitalism. If I refuse you service as the owner of a private business, I suffer the monetary consequence. That should be my right even though I personally will always choose the money.

Do you believe that I should have that right or not? Even if it is asinine?

I don't think giving people the constitutional right to be a dumb-ass, making life even harder for many people even if just for a short while, all for the sake of simply having the right is a good thing.