Prejudice Watch

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Mar 12, 2016.

  1. Huntn Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    We all know prejudice and racism evaporated in the 1960s with the Civil Rights Movement. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    Kentucky Senate Blocks Interracial, Interfaith Marriages (SB 180) Mar 3, 1816, 1916 2016
    Quote
    A Kentucky Senate committee has passed a bill that would allow store owners and other providers of services to refuse to serve interracial couples, interracial families, or couples of different faiths. In addition, the bill would prevent the refused couples from seeking redress through the courts.
     
  2. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #2
    well this will make trump happy. lets go back a few decades and pamper white christians cause you know they go and get their feelings hurt when they can't force their views on others.
     
  3. LizKat, Mar 12, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2016

    LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #3
    Yeah is this one of the translations of "religious liberty" that the far right candidates speak of now without elaborating too much on it during stump speeches? I think this goes way past what even they would advocate for.

    What about all the mainstream evangelicals who have adopted children of other nations including those of Asian and African nations? Leaving aside "couples of different faiths"... good grief. Let's out-Taliban the Taliban while we're at it.

    Certainly been awhile since we've seen legislation like that pop up for the simple reason it's unconstitutional. Maybe that state senate committee thinks having a four-four split in the Supreme Court right now means its bill wouldn't be shot down 8-0... if it ever even got passed and signed into law. Looks like the full senate blocked it.

    Trump's outspokenness seems to have encouraged people to bring a lot of nonsense out of the woodwork. I'm not saying Trump would support that bill but the way he speaks emboldens the wing nuts for sure.

    Edit (March 13): I misunderstood a related piece. The legislation has not been blocked, but passed for 2nd reading (to rules committee). I would maintain it won't reach the governor's desk...
     
  4. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #4
    we see laws against sharia law but here is the christian version of it.
     
  5. Huntn thread starter Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    They (you know who) are such damned hypocrites and they are smug enough to think most of us have the wool pulled over our eyes or it's just a blatant FU liberty-GOP style. This fits nicely with the Hobby Lobby Ruling, but this if it's ever gets signed, it will be overturned at the Federal level.
     
  6. LizKat, Mar 12, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2016

    LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #6
    I don't think it's going anywhere since their senate blocked it. Now it just becomes the basis for a state election campaign flyer.. . "I voted to keep 'murica pure" and all that.


    Edit (March 13): As posted elsewhere in this thread, I misunderstood a related piece. The legislation has not been blocked, but passed for 2nd reading (to rules committee). I would maintain it won't reach the governor's desk.
     
  7. A.Goldberg, Mar 12, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2016

    A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #7
    Promoting religious freedom by impeding religious freedom of others.

    Sounds reasonable :rolleyes:
     
  8. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #8
    Sounds like GOP religious politics.
     
  9. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #9
    Sounds like southern state incumbent politics in gerrymandered districts in a year when there's no such thing as too far right.
     
  10. mudslag macrumors regular

    mudslag

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    #10

    Sounds like Kentucky
     
  11. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #11
    Well it’s just not Kentucky, is it. This particular legislation may have been a sample of how radically fringe some of our state legislators can be compared to national legislative efforts, but I sure wouldn’t limit that observation to the state of Kentucky. New York State has its share of fringe...

    It’s too easy to generalize about lack of diversity in demographics and politics, I think. I’ll cop to doing it too often myself, even when I know better.

    Still, I’m a private citizen, not the head of a party’s state committee, and I reasonably enough fault those guys for perpetuating “establishment” politics in practice (and for doing it intentionally via protection of incumbents.) So at the state and local level, things can get pretty fringe and stay that way for decades.

    Even where there’s diversity in the demographics, establishment patterns of governance linger on via gerrymandered voting districts. Without taking a deep dive into census and political statistics, one can consider a state or political subdivision “a lost cause” when in fact it’s not. Both parties are guilty of trying to minimize effects of bottom-up activism all over voting districts in the USA today. And both parties forget they have opportunities they're wasting.

    Let’s have a quick look at Kentucky since we’re in a thread about its politics.

    Kentucky had two of the five least diverse counties in the USA per 2010 census. (State by state, however, Vermont was least diverse in the USA.)


    On the other hand, the comment below by a Louisville, KY pastor probably resonates in many more places than just Kentucky, where lack of demographic diversity is sometimes incorrectly assumed to be the main or sole reason behind sparse representation of minorities in politics:


    “Despite the myth that Kentucky lacks diversity, we boast more diversity than nine other states that have discovered meaningful avenues for civic engagement for all of their citizens in ways that we haven’t. According to the American Immigration Council, Kentucky’s immigrant population has grown by more than 140 percent in the past decade, and nearly 150,000 new Americans now call Kentucky home. It’s often said that our best resource is our people — not “some of” our people. So, why then do we continue to turn to only one subset of our population for new solutions in government?”
    That guy’s entire commentary is a pretty good read. The thing is, the people who may be taking him up on the challenge probably tend to be Republicans, thanks to evangelicals' serious focus in recent years on putting their beliefs into political activism. The Democrats are doing a really terrible job at working from local precincts upward as far as I can tell. We like to hammer on the fraught state of GOP politics, but there’s even more of a thrashing coming for the Democratic Party in years ahead if the Dems don’t put some focus back on diversity in local politics going forward.
     
  12. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    No chance at redress? If that's not fascism imposed...

    It is proof that devolution is real, unfortunately.
    --- Post Merged, Mar 13, 2016 ---
    Why not? Nowadays, the only way to get rich is to exploit and extort everyone else, keep wages down, eliminate competition and jobs, and so on. Using the same tactics with religion seems a natural extension. Or is it? Either way?
     
  13. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #13
    Here's the opposition's point of view.

    LEXINGTON, KY–The Family Foundation today called on State Senators to pass SB 180, a bill that would ensure that businesses owned by religious individuals are not forced to provide a service that would directly involve them in an activity that violates their religious convictions.

    “SB 180 would put a stop to the anti-religious bullying we are starting to see that forces people to violate their religious beliefs by directly enrolling them in certain activities they have religious objections to,” said Martin Cothran, spokesman for the group. “The increasing aggressiveness and intolerance we are seeing from certain groups in our society is going to produce more Kim Davises unless we act now to draw clear boundaries that protect people from being bullied for exercising their First Amendment rights.”

    http://www.kentuckyfamily.org/?p=777
     
  14. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #14
    because intolerance from christians is so much better and not a bad thing. not sure where in the bible it says it is ok to give others the cold shoulder.
     
  15. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #15
    This is basically about commerce whether the proponents of the bill want it to be about "religious liberty" or "first amendment rights" or just driving away people of other religious or social views. If they want to conduct business with the public, then they need to conduct business as if they were actually professional business managers.

    In other countries, even where religion is a matter of state, it's common enough that entrepreneurs find ways around personally conducting business which may not jibe with one's religious constraints:

    You can get someone else to conduct business of your establishment temporarily, whenever doing so yourself is (or seems to you to be) in harsh conflict between your personal or religious views and your business practices.

    You can choose to devote a percentage of your profits from such transactions to a charity of your choice, establishing a personal variant of a "sin tax".
    I said earlier in this post that "this is basically about commerce." Now the unstated actual purpose of the Kentucky SB180 legislation in 2016 may be to drive out of Kentucky any and all the people whose way of life offends certain people in the state, therefore rendering the bill an example of the "religious liberty" movement from the right.

    But the effect, indeed the means to execution of that unstated purpose of the Kentucky bill is a reduction in general commerce in the state. I cannot readily think of anything more economically or socially self-destructive for the people of Kentucky or any state to decide to do:

    The state loses tax revenue. The state loses stature in the eyes of people whose money is green but whose social views are at variance with the legislation. The state can lose federal contracts and its block-grants for social safety nets. Is Kentucky that rich from winding down its coal mining days and selling mint juleps at the Kentucky Derby once a year?
    At some point the governors and local legislators have to stop saying "so what?" and say "stop this nonsense" to the legislature. The Supreme Court would eventually say that as well.

    As the state of Kentucky operates businesses which conduct interstate transactions or which depend upon tourism or people entering the state for other transient purposes (the Kentucky Derby does come to mind), then probably the state or local chambers of commerce in Kentucky -- and elsewhere across the country-- will take a dim view of this legislation. If not, then it will indeed land on a Supreme Court docket at some point, if it ever gets that far.

    I love how Republicans favor business interests except at election times deep in the bowels of local politics, when they may encourage their religiously inclined right wing to act out in ways that completely contradict the country's equal protection stipulations. Red meat for red states?
     
  16. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #16
    The article seems to take the bill much farther than it is intended to go, which may be a sign that the language needs to be modified to be a bit clearer. However at the same time why would you want someone to be involved in your wedding that hates you? Those views are nowhere near widespread enough to make it impossible for people to get married, and personally I'd rather not give a bigot my money.
     
  17. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #17
    Cute thread. I'm provoked to think. Meh, maybe not. :rolleyes:
     
  18. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #18
    You can add East Texas to the list of places where you can't be too far right. The sad irony of a supremely ignorant bigot in a runoff election for the Texas State Board of Education.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/u...ner-pushes-the-boundary-of-the-far-right.html
     
  19. Huntn, Mar 14, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2016

    Huntn thread starter Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #19
    The linked article curls my stomach giving me a feeling of despair. I'm having a hard time believing that living in a hate filled fantasy has always been the mark of religious conservatism, believing it's a twisted falling down approaching mental illness. Most sick, is that these people truly believe their loving God would embrace them as warriors for Jesus when in actuality they've corrupted the words of their savior., and too blind to see it.

    Quote:
    MINEOLA, Tex. — On Super Tuesday, Dale Clark voted for a local Republican who claimed on social media that President Obama had worked as a gay prostitute in his youth, that the United States should ban Islam, that the Democratic Party had John F. Kennedy killed and that the United Nations had hatched a plot to depopulate the world.
    Mr. Clark, 75, was unaware that the candidate he had supported — Mary Lou Bruner, 68, a former kindergarten teacher running for a seat on the State Board of Education — held such views. But as he sat with his wife eating lunch in this East Texas city, Mr. Clark was ready to give Ms. Bruner the benefit of the doubt.
    “I would not discount her on the basis of having those beliefs,” said Mr. Clark, a retired pilot. “It convinces me, though, that she’s quite conservative, and if I were going to err either way, I would want to err toward the side of the conservative.”


    What this man fails to recognize is that his high ideal conservatism if not backed up by valid moral principles morphs into the tool of the Devil. (Stated in such terms he might relate to.)
    --- Post Merged, Mar 14, 2016 ---
    This is the basis of today's religious freedom argument coming from the right:
    What is the point of this, the worst-written bill in the history of legislation? To allow persons to refuse service to anyone, at any time, as long as they can say that the persons requesting the services offend their religious beliefs.

    How do you feel about refusing service to interracial couples? Btw does the Bible speak of the inappropriateness of interracial mixing? It's a BS prejudicial, self serving standard that in the way conservatives express it has no limits or more likely is an idea crafted for specific benefit to Christian beliefs. I'd like to see how acceptable blood rituals and human sacrifice would be promoting religious freedom. :rolleyes: In their zeal to get their way, these people have lost sight of big picture.
     
  20. maxsix Suspended

    maxsix

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2015
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #20
    Hussein may shy away from a great number of his Presidential Responsibilities, but one can count on his deep seated intrinsic needs to cause civil unrest amongst the various races. Much like his mentor Reverend Wright, Hussein thrives on being the instigator, the cop hater, the sh*t disturber. Highly adept at manipulation bordering on black magic, he puts on a good show.
     
  21. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #21
    I hope I'm never forced to live in the vile society conservatives wish to create. Sick people.
     
  22. Huntn thread starter Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    Thanks for this enlightening reply that reinforces exactly what I'm talking about.
     
  23. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #23
    Your home attendant must have forgotten to remind you to take your meds again.

    Something something Hussein...something something AGENDA!!!:mad::mad:
     
  24. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #24
    Personally I think that people who are against it are idiots. And even though I wouldn't be effected by their decision not to serve interracial couples I would not spend money at a store owned by someone that I knew to hold that view.

    As to what the Bible says about it there are verses discouraging the Israelites from mixing with pagan nations, but that is more religious than racial seeing how they all were the same race.
     
  25. Huntn thread starter Suspended

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25

Share This Page