US Politics Thread

[tented]

Sigh.. Kramer Kramer Kramer... his career has never been the same

But you see my point right? Society ostracises those who do what he did. Our dear trans-activists are trying to create a world where we would HAVE to use their pronouns. Presumably if we don't they would have us socially terminated. Now it's possible that government institutions might try enforce these pronouns in the near future. Just look at the steps California's legislature is taking that takes us closer to that scenario? Well.. now after this SCOTUS ruling. It's not too far fetched to imagine someone using First Amendment rights to oppose State enforcement of such a hypothetical law... That was my point. Just thinking ahead...

Yes, I got your point — “Not yet, but who knows?”

The proposed California legislation is troubling. I agree with the woman in the video you posted elsewhere, in which she refuses to be called a “cis woman“ — don’t impose these terms on others who don’t want them, or make them use them if they don’t want to.

 

[Federberg]

Yes, I got your point — “Not yet, but who knows?”

The proposed California legislation is troubling. I agree with the woman in the video you posted elsewhere, in which she refuses to be called a “cis woman“ — don’t impose these terms on others who don’t want them, or make them use them if they don’t want to.

yes exactly. I don't think it's too far fetched to imagine these activists are trending towards fascism. I think we've all speculated about this. The whole purpose of what I thought was a fairly innocuous and non-controversial observation is that, it's just possible that this SCOTUS ruling, just might open the door to a first amendment challenge to any moves towards transgender fascism. That would be one positive outcome, even though I still maintain that SCOTUS activism is not optimal for US democracy

 

[tented]

yes exactly. I don't think it's too far fetched to imagine these activists are trending towards fascism. I think we've all speculated about this. The whole purpose of what I thought was a fairly innocuous and non-controversial observation is that, it's just possible that this SCOTUS ruling, just might open the door to a first amendment challenge to any moves towards transgender fascism. That would be one positive outcome, even though I still maintain that SCOTUS activism is not optimal for US democracy

Oh, I agree the SCOTUS ruling could have implications which veer into the trans issue: someone could use the same religious-beliefs claim for not calling certain people their preferred pronouns.

 

[Kieran]

Very well articulated nuances in the discussion. You rightly point out that working for a government institution encumbers the worker with obligations which are part of the expectation of service. If you run your own business then you get to determine what service you sell.

For the moronic progressives who fail to understand the subtleties, here's another...

There’s a difference between enforcing things people can’t say (like the N-word) and enforcing things that people HAVE to say (like forcing others to use made up pronouns). The latter is anti-free speech.

This is precisely why I suspect there might be some application with this SCOTUS ruling. I think this was probably obvious to most. Just clarifying for low IQ folk who might think the observation was ‘facile and reactionary’

I agree with this, and given how the word ‘woman’ is being steadily erased, along with women themselves, it’s not long before the left internalise these absences and spout the jargon of their oppressor, calling women ‘non-men’ etc, the way they commonly use terms like ‘cis’. Compelled speech is bound to follow, as a natural consequence of the way these bullies work.

But I’m just thinking of the first paragraph, and employees having to do things against their conscience. You know what? I think this is a wrinkle that might never straighten out. Imagine a Catholic works in a clinic and is asked to perform an abortion. Isn’t it better for the clinic to reflect the diversity of the country it’s in and make allowances in that area for religious sensibilities, and get somebody else to do the abortion? Or it might not be about abortion, it could be something else. Maybe they already do that, and I think they should. In itself, it’s a form of compelled speech if they don’t.

This isn’t really a hypothetical, because although employees sign up for service knowing the full extent of what the service involves, but there’s a test here for a truly liberal society. How do you include people who hold wildly differing beliefs? We see this already quite clearly in health systems when it comes to pronouns. Now this story took place in the UK, and we’re discussing US politics here, but you can see where my thoughts are going..

 

[tented]

Theoretically the Bill of Rights supersedes State’s rights and is suppose to protect basic individual freedoms such as 1s amendment freedom of speech, freedom of worship, etc, specifically when local or state statues encroach on them.

As mentioned, SCOTUS has to balance conflicting “rights” at times and the tricky line between a private & public service.

What I find interesting is the “Trans” issue that is redmeat baiting is bleeding over into “gays” issue as the Colorado web designer was about (theoretically) a same sex couple.

Under the LGBTQ unbrella, do conservatives really nuance between say Trans rights versus Gay rights? IMO some on the left have a hard time parsing so I’m guessing the right have the same issue.

Just as some feminists have distanced themselves from what they feel are excessive pandering to Trans identity, will Gay advocates do the same thing regarding Trans identity, as some have said, the agendas are not identical and in some ways Trans identify more as Straight.

There’s no question a not-insignificant percentage of gays/lesbians don’t think the T’s should be grouped together, however I’ve seen evidence that those who have spoken out have been attacked (of course), so unfortunately fewer are saying it.

IMO, they never should have been grouped together to begin with, and, yes, some on the left and right are having a hard time differentiating between LBG and T, which is having a detrimental effect on the former group. It’s upsetting because things were going well for gays/lesbians in terms of general societal acceptance and laws, but now I’m sensing a backlash, thanks to the trans population.

 

[Kieran]

Theoretically the Bill of Rights supersedes State’s rights and is suppose to protect basic individual freedoms such as 1s amendment freedom of speech, freedom of worship, etc, specifically when local or state statues encroach on them.

As mentioned, SCOTUS has to balance conflicting “rights” at times and the tricky line between a private & public service.

What I find interesting is the “Trans” issue that is redmeat baiting is bleeding over into “gays” issue as the Colorado web designer was about (theoretically) a same sex couple.

Under the LGBTQ unbrella, do conservatives really nuance between say Trans rights versus Gay rights? IMO some on the left have a hard time parsing so I’m guessing the right have the same issue.

Just as some feminists have distanced themselves from what they feel are excessive pandering to Trans identity, will Gay advocates do the same thing regarding Trans identity, as some have said, the agendas are not identical and in some ways Trans identify more as Straight.

‘Conflicting rights’ is the big test for a liberal society - and that mainly includes and involves its citizens. We can’t leave everything to the courts. In fact, we should leave little to the courts and even less to the government. They can’t be trusted to be fair. People themselves have to be fair. People themselves have to learn how to not be offended by differing beliefs.

As for conservatives, I’ve not yet heard of one who believes in or champions trans. They tend to know it’s a lie (apart from gender dysphoria, which is a different thing to modern gender ideology). Conservatives tend not to be gullible for new ideas. They're generally slow to accept change. Sometimes too slow, but they’re a necessary brake on false progressivism. I know of many who are gay and stand for gay rights, but aren’t too much into the Nuremberg Rally Pride flag waving, or mixing up the letters in the alphabet..

 

[Kieran]

There’s no question a not-insignificant percentage of gays/lesbians don’t think the T’s should be grouped together, however I’ve seen evidence that those who have spoken out have been attacked (of course), so unfortunately fewer are saying it.

IMO, they never should have been grouped together to begin with, and, yes, some on the left and right are having a hard time differentiating between LBG and T, which is having a detrimental effect on the former group. It’s upsetting because things were going well for gays/lesbians in terms of general societal acceptance and laws, but now I’m sensing a backlash, thanks to the trans population.

I would hope that the LGB groups are considered different to the T, and that they don’t face any backlash or negative reaction based on whatever the T is doing. But the T targets gays as well as women. It’s almost like they’re working undercover for all the worst homophobic and misogynistic types of people…

 

[Federberg]

I would hope that the LGB groups are considered different to the T, and that they don’t face any backlash or negative reaction based on whatever the T is doing. But the T targets gays as well as women. It’s almost like they’re working undercover for all the worst homophobic and misogynistic types of people…

the support for gay marriage has declined recently in the wake of all this transgender nonsense. Rather unfairly an association has been made between homosexuality and underage promotion of sexuality. This is nothing do with homosexuals, who are just as appalled as heterosexuals. It's these nutty transgender activists

 

[Federberg]

yes exactly. I don't think it's too far fetched to imagine these activists are trending towards fascism. I think we've all speculated about this. The whole purpose of what I thought was a fairly innocuous and non-controversial observation is that, it's just possible that this SCOTUS ruling, just might open the door to a first amendment challenge to any moves towards transgender fascism. That would be one positive outcome, even though I still maintain that SCOTUS activism is not optimal for US democracy

Clearly starting to happen in the private sector already…

 

[tented]

Clearly starting to happen in the private sector already…

It’s stunning how this relatively tiny percentage of the population has had such a huge effect, so quickly. I can’t recall anything like it.

 

[Jelenafan]

There’s no question a not-insignificant percentage of gays/lesbians don’t think the T’s should be grouped together, however I’ve seen evidence that those who have spoken out have been attacked (of course), so unfortunately fewer are saying it.

IMO, they never should have been grouped together to begin with, and, yes, some on the left and right are having a hard time differentiating between LBG and T, which is having a detrimental effect on the former group. It’s upsetting because things were going well for gays/lesbians in terms of general societal acceptance and laws, but now I’m sensing a backlash, thanks to the trans population.

OK Tented, but isn't it also possible that the Trans backlash in part is just homophobia disguised and using that issue as a cover?

1st amendment interpretations go both ways, and this country has an extensive history of politicized conservative religious movements.

 

[tented]

OK Tented, but isn't it also possible that the Trans backlash in part is just homophobia disguised and using that issue as a cover?

Yes, that’s true. I’m sure it’s a component, otherwise it wouldn’t be happening, right? The trans issue has allowed homophobes to feel free to express themselves within the context of LGBT.

1st amendment interpretations go both ways, and this country has an extensive history of politicized conservative religious movements.

Also true, especially after the Reagan amplification of born-again leaders.

 

[Moxie]

I see you’re adopting full Gen Z. I’m actually quite amused., but also a little sad for you. Father Time is undefeated, so don’t even try.

You don’t get to determine what’s relevant. I know that’s what you progressives would love - Control what folks should think or say. Still a free world. Whether you like it or not SCOTUS made a decision about LGBTQ, last I recall the T is part of it. So this is appropriate for the US Politics thread. You might not want to explore the First Amendment implications of forced speech but some of the rest of us do.

Moderate your behaviour, you might think that calling someone’s writing ‘facile and reactionary’ is ok. Agree with my point or not that’s fine. Less of the editorialising. And don’t act like the entitled girl who slaps a dude then gets butt hurt when they get hit back

You may not like "facile" or "reactionary," (though I do think your position on the trans issue favors a return to the status quo, so it qualifies.) But I didn't call you "butt-hurt," or a little girl. Or suggest you come back when you're all "growed up." I'm not quite sure why you think I'm adopting "full Gen Z," because there's nothing especially 21st C. about my positions. But I'll work on my editorializing, if you'll work on the insults. Deal?

 

[Moxie]

Well now, I didn’t say that the majority of Americans are in favour of abortion! I don’t know the numbers on that, and I had hoped that Roe being overturned would open up a sensible talk over there about abortion, but like everything else, that seems unlikely.

Neither did I say that. I said that the majority of Americans favor the right to abortion, which they do. The polling is fairly consistent, and has been for a long time, though support has grown since the overturn of Roe. You inadvertently stumbled into wording, though, that the pro-choice movement has been fighting against for decades. No one "favors" abortion. The Choice movement has been about keeping it legal and safe. Most Americans seem to come down on the side of privacy and personal choice.

Maybe there will come sensible talk about it, when the consequences of Dobbs start to be felt. But I'm afraid that what the Supreme Court has done can't be easily undone.

I didn’t know that the Supreme Court was ever less partial, basically for the same reason that I don’t spend too much time on American politics. But your country has become more tribal and less reasonable about politics - on both wings - and so it doesn’t surprise me how it’s gotten. It was bound to happen, actually, given the power the Supreme Court has. That’ll probably be difficult to change?

It will be difficult to change, but there are big rumblings. Confidence in SCOTUS fell to historic lows last summer, prior to the overturn of Roe, and I don't imagine it has improved of late, with recent allegations of extravagant gifts accepted and not reported. There absolutely was a time when they were considered apolitical, and above the fray of partisan politics. No more, starting with Bush v. Gore (on the election in 2000.) I think they will soon be subjected to judicial ethical oversight, which they are not, currently. And term limits might be in the cards before too long.

 

[Moxie]

Or, if the job you’re applying for, the profession you’re seeking, or the business you’re opening would require you to do something which goes against your religious views, don’t do it. It’s like that woman who refused to give marriage licenses to gay couples even though they were perfectly legal and she worked in a government office: why was she even in that job?

Should she have been allowed to deny marriage licenses to interracial couples if she had been a member of the KKK? Wouldn’t that have been allowing her to exercise her freedom of speech of her “different views”?

There is a difference between running a private business, and working in a public office, though, right? If you work in the bureau of marriage licenses, and gay marriage is legal, it's not for you to decide who gets a marriage license. If it's against your beliefs to give a marriage license to gay couples, you resign your post. Or you do it, and stay in your job, because it's the law. Separation of church and state. That seems clear.

If you're a caterer, or a web designer, you can turn down a job. It all gets a little sticky in here, though. Your example of the public servant who is KKK doesn't hold water as to "free speech." That's a government job, and they are bound by laws.

However, say I'm an orthodox Jewish caterer, or a Muslim one. If you asked me to provide ham and cheese sandwiches, I could say we don't offer that. You opt for the menu I have. But say I'm a caterer who also happens to be a white supremacist. And a black couple asks me to cater their event. What is different from the lunch counter? I'm refusing service for race-based reasons. Is that not prohibited, or is that in peril now? Does speech trump civil rights in access to services?

I get Kieran's point, and I think many have made it: why go to a vendor who is disinclined? I actually think most wouldn't...problem solved. For web design, it can be done virtually, so that's easy. But what about services that can only be local? What if there's only one caterer, or the best one, in your small town, and they won't cater your gay wedding? That IS discrimination, isn't it? What if the best dressmaker in Jackson, MS won't make my dress because I'm black? Does she have the freedom of speech right to be a racist? Are we really going to go back to this?

 

[britbox]

It’s stunning how this relatively tiny percentage of the population has had such a huge effect, so quickly. I can’t recall anything like it.

If it doesn't feel organic, then that's because it isn't organic. It's driven top-down, and at speed. The incoming economy has been defined around ESG. It's all in black and white on the UN and WEF websites. The likes of the BBC, Fox and CNN aren't going to tell you - go and look at the text in the treaties, and the other legislation passed or finalised. The puppets are in a rush to meet certain 2025 and 2030 deadlines by any means necessary. That's why the same things are happening in the "Western" nations regardless of "perceived" political leanings. As a Klaus Schwab said himself - it's a Tsumani of change.

Sign up, login and do some research:

The World Economic Forum

Welcome to the United Nations

www.un.org

 

[tented]

There is a difference between running a private business, and working in a public office, though, right? If you work in the bureau of marriage licenses, and gay marriage is legal, it's not for you to decide who gets a marriage license. If it's against your beliefs to give a marriage license to gay couples, you resign your post. Or you do it, and stay in your job, because it's the law. Separation of church and state. That seems clear.

Yes, you’re right— it’s a key distinction. But what if the person doesn’t resign? Should they be fired?

If you're a caterer, or a web designer, you can turn down a job. It all gets a little sticky in here, though. Your example of the public servant who is KKK doesn't hold water as to "free speech." That's a government job, and they are bound by laws.

However, say I'm an orthodox Jewish caterer, or a Muslim one. If you asked me to provide ham and cheese sandwiches, I could say we don't offer that. You opt for the menu I have. But say I'm a caterer who also happens to be a white supremacist. And a black couple asks me to cater their event. What is different from the lunch counter? I'm refusing service for race-based reasons. Is that not prohibited, or is that in peril now? Does speech trump civil rights in access to services?

I get Kieran's point, and I think many have made it: why go to a vendor who is disinclined? I actually think most wouldn't...problem solved. For web design, it can be done virtually, so that's easy. But what about services that can only be local? What if there's only one caterer, or the best one, in your small town, and they won't cater your gay wedding? That IS discrimination, isn't it? What if the best dressmaker in Jackson, MS won't make my dress because I'm black? Does she have the freedom of speech right to be a racist? Are we really going to go back to this?

Yes, those examples are good, and I agree it would be discriminatory not to make the black bride’s dress, or to cater the gay wedding.

I just read the dissent which Sotomayor made the rare decision to read aloud at SCOTUS. It’s lengthy (38 pages in pdf form) but I’ll quote the first few paragraphs (I’ve eliminated legal footnotes, but those interested can read them in the pdf):

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.

Five years ago, this Court recognized the “general rule” that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if“ purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying "no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.” Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website-design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.”

“What a difference five years makes.” And not just at the Court. Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.

Now the Court faces a similar test. A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner's religious belief that same-sex marriages are “false.” The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong. As I will explain, the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group. I dissent.

 

[Moxie]

Yes, you’re right— it’s a key distinction. But what if the person doesn’t resign? Should they be fired?

Absolutely yes, they should be fired. With bureaucrats, I don't even see how it's a question. The laws exist, and their job is to uphold them.

Yes, those examples are good, and I agree it would be discriminatory not to make the black bride’s dress, or to cater the gay wedding.

I just read the dissent which Sotomayor made the rare decision to read aloud at SCOTUS. It’s lengthy (38 pages in pdf form) but I’ll quote the first few paragraphs (I’ve eliminated legal footnotes, but those interested can read them in the pdf):

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.

Five years ago, this Court recognized the “general rule” that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if“ purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying "no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.” Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website-design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.”

“What a difference five years makes.” And not just at the Court. Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities. New forms of inclusion have been met with reactionary exclusion. This is heartbreaking. Sadly, it is also familiar. When the civil rights and women’s rights movements sought equality in public life, some public establishments refused. Some even claimed, based on sincere religious beliefs, constitutional rights to discriminate. The brave Justices who once sat on this Court decisively rejected those claims.

Now the Court faces a similar test. A business open to the public seeks to deny gay and lesbian customers the full and equal enjoyment of its services based on the owner's religious belief that same-sex marriages are “false.” The business argues, and a majority of the Court agrees, that because the business offers services that are customized and expressive, the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment shields the business from a generally applicable law that prohibits discrimination in the sale of publicly available goods and services. That is wrong. Profoundly wrong. As I will explain, the law in question targets conduct, not specch, for regulation, and the act of discrimination has never constituted protected expression under the First Amendment. Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group. I dissent.

Thank you for publishing the dissent.

 

[Kieran]

Neither did I say that. I said that the majority of Americans favor the right to abortion, which they do. The polling is fairly consistent, and has been for a long time, though support has grown since the overturn of Roe. You inadvertently stumbled into wording, though, that the pro-choice movement has been fighting against for decades. No one "favors" abortion. The Choice movement has been about keeping it legal and safe. Most Americans seem to come down on the side of privacy and personal choice.

Well, I didn’t say the majority of Americans favour the right to abortion either but to be inadvertently correct is better than nothing at all, so I’ll take it! As for the difference between being in favour of the right to abortion, and being in favour of abortion, that’s the actual battle ground. Even the good Popes are in favour of the right to abortion, under certain circumstances.

Maybe there will come sensible talk about it, when the consequences of Dobbs start to be felt. But I'm afraid that what the Supreme Court has done can't be easily undone.


It will be difficult to change, but there are big rumblings. Confidence in SCOTUS fell to historic lows last summer, prior to the overturn of Roe, and I don't imagine it has improved of late, with recent allegations of extravagant gifts accepted and not reported. There absolutely was a time when they were considered apolitical, and above the fray of partisan politics. No more, starting with Bush v. Gore (on the election in 2000.) I think they will soon be subjected to judicial ethical oversight, which they are not, currently. And term limits might be in the cards before too long.

Your political system owes a lot to the ancient world, in that you have checks and counterweights to stop one side from having too much power. Sparta was a diarchy, they had two kings so one wouldn’t have total control. Annually the Romans elected 2 consuls for the same reason, and of course, America wisely decided not to give full power to the president, and your electorate seems to fall in favour of collaboration between the parties, when it doesn’t give all the power to one party. But I don’t know what level of trust or collaboration you have now, to be able to change SCOTUS, or even what the procedures might be. I certainly wish you all luck in this because a Supreme Court should never have so much power…

 

[Kieran]

I get Kieran's point, and I think many have made it: why go to a vendor who is disinclined? I actually think most wouldn't...problem solved. For web design, it can be done virtually, so that's easy. But what about services that can only be local? What if there's only one caterer, or the best one, in your small town, and they won't cater your gay wedding? That IS discrimination, isn't it? What if the best dressmaker in Jackson, MS won't make my dress because I'm black? Does she have the freedom of speech right to be a racist? Are we really going to go back to this?

This all falls into interesting territory for liberal societies, because there are endless scenarios we can imagine for services which might be only available locally. The religious might suffer equally in this place too. We tend to see whether or not somebody is truly liberal when they’re faced with choices they don’t like. To say - as I have said - that people should be kinder to each other, doesn’t apply when there are people who think our questions are violence, and our disagreement is bigotry.

If somebody faces racism through a refusal to make a dress for them because they’re black, then we’d all hope the law would catch up to this.

I don’t know if there are such easy solutions to every scenario though because although it would be easy to say that somebody should move from a local place if they’re not provided the full range of services there, or don’t feel welcomed there, or that they should be fired from a job they need because their conscience tells them that the task they’re being ordered to perform is deeply immoral, these are not straightforward things. It’s difficult to move, and a person might find that they desperately need that job. They may want to be accommodated.

On the other hand, if we allow the employees conscience to be the ultimate arbiter in what gets done, we end up like some modern publishers who are often held captive by their woke staff. We’re treading into illiberal times, actually, with far left overreach, and this is the test for all liberal societies: how to stay liberal in such times, and still get the job done..