California Dreamin' bout LGBTQ

[flacaltenn]

That's quite a story you made up. Dare I say FAIRYTALE.

The rate of Overseas adoptions continues to drop, because of misbehavior, but there is an open market on babies. $25-$50 thousand and more is the selling price. The market far exceeds supply for children..

'Open Market'?

Waiting time for an adoption overseas is over a year- and prospective parents have to wade through paperwork there also- the biggest(and really main advantage) over adopting overseas are twofold:
a) parents are able to adopt infants (short in supply in the U.S.) and
b) parents can adopt from overseas with more confidence that the birth mother will not change her mind(a big concern among adoptive parents in the U.S.).

Meanwhile- in any given year there are over 100,000 kids in America awaiting adoption.

You want to reduce the pool of people who are able and willing to adopt these kids abandoned by their biological parents.

Why?

Let's get back to the draconian act of OUTLAWING travel to another state.

What is 'draconian' about an employer putting restrictions on employee travel?

Not as if the State of California is 'outlawing' travel for American citizens- say to Cuba- now that would be 'draconian'.

Here you are using a PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW to lecture people on adoptions. It can't get more absurd than that. And I don't waste time in the absurd. Especially when your Prog brain can't process the difference between FOREIGN travel and InterState Travel. You are just kinda messed up and wrapped around all 4 axles.

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia

Really?

What is 'unconstitutional' about a state restricting the travel of state employees?

Citizens have 'freedom of movement' within the United States without a doubt. Employees of States do not have the 'freedom to travel' at will on their employer's dime.

And you clearly do waste your time in the absurd.

Since you are the one who said:

only repressive dictatorships were THAT concerned over where their citizens travel.

And have carefully avoided addressing how Trump is that concerned over where our citizens travel.

Trump has nothing to do with this. You're a dolt. The points about the diff between FOREIGN and InterState travel went right thru your ears. As did the CONSTITUTIONALITY issue of a law like this when those instances arise where court cases get delivered for "unexpected consequences" of ATTEMPTING to muck with InterState relations and Government affairs.

PLEASE have the Governors meetings in those "restricted travel" states. PLEASE !!!!

 

[Syriusly]

[
Yeah DRACONIAN.. And childish. If a Cali State employee books a flight that stops in Dallas -FT Worth and buys a beer and a pizza and tries to put it on his expense account -- is he/she gonna be prosecuted?

How far you wanna take this Leftist Street Theater protest????

Childish? Nah. Ineffective? Probably.

Draconian? LOL.

Again: this is nothing compared to Trump's ban on travel by American citizens to Cuba. On the 'draconian scale'- California's 'ban' on travel by state employees to Tennessee is a '2' while the U.S. ban on all citizens traveling to Cuba for work or tourism is an '8'.

Guess which is the only one you will ever call 'draconian'?

And you really haven't read the law have you? No employee can be 'prosecuted' for buying a pizza in Texas.

In addition, the law prohibits California from approving a request for state-funded or state-sponsored travel to such a state

 

[Syriusly]

'Open Market'?

Waiting time for an adoption overseas is over a year- and prospective parents have to wade through paperwork there also- the biggest(and really main advantage) over adopting overseas are twofold:
a) parents are able to adopt infants (short in supply in the U.S.) and
b) parents can adopt from overseas with more confidence that the birth mother will not change her mind(a big concern among adoptive parents in the U.S.).

Meanwhile- in any given year there are over 100,000 kids in America awaiting adoption.

You want to reduce the pool of people who are able and willing to adopt these kids abandoned by their biological parents.

Why?

Let's get back to the draconian act of OUTLAWING travel to another state.

What is 'draconian' about an employer putting restrictions on employee travel?

Not as if the State of California is 'outlawing' travel for American citizens- say to Cuba- now that would be 'draconian'.

Here you are using a PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW to lecture people on adoptions. It can't get more absurd than that. And I don't waste time in the absurd. Especially when your Prog brain can't process the difference between FOREIGN travel and InterState Travel. You are just kinda messed up and wrapped around all 4 axles.

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia

Really?

What is 'unconstitutional' about a state restricting the travel of state employees?

Citizens have 'freedom of movement' within the United States without a doubt. Employees of States do not have the 'freedom to travel' at will on their employer's dime.

And you clearly do waste your time in the absurd.

Since you are the one who said:

only repressive dictatorships were THAT concerned over where their citizens travel.

And have carefully avoided addressing how Trump is that concerned over where our citizens travel.

Trump has nothing to do with this. You're a dolt.

Why are you so unwilling to stand by your own statement?

Here is what you said- in regards to Brown and California

only repressive dictatorships were THAT concerned over where their citizens travel.

I have pointed out that Donald Trump and the United States are far more 'concerned' about where their citizens travel- and you are okay with that.

Apparently it is only a 'repressive dictatorship' - or 'tyranny' - when it is a government you disagree with.

 

[Syriusly]

'Open Market'?

Waiting time for an adoption overseas is over a year- and prospective parents have to wade through paperwork there also- the biggest(and really main advantage) over adopting overseas are twofold:
a) parents are able to adopt infants (short in supply in the U.S.) and
b) parents can adopt from overseas with more confidence that the birth mother will not change her mind(a big concern among adoptive parents in the U.S.).

Meanwhile- in any given year there are over 100,000 kids in America awaiting adoption.

You want to reduce the pool of people who are able and willing to adopt these kids abandoned by their biological parents.

Why?

Let's get back to the draconian act of OUTLAWING travel to another state.

What is 'draconian' about an employer putting restrictions on employee travel?

Not as if the State of California is 'outlawing' travel for American citizens- say to Cuba- now that would be 'draconian'.

Here you are using a PROBABLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW to lecture people on adoptions. It can't get more absurd than that. And I don't waste time in the absurd. Especially when your Prog brain can't process the difference between FOREIGN travel and InterState Travel. You are just kinda messed up and wrapped around all 4 axles.

Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia

Really?

What is 'unconstitutional' about a state restricting the travel of state employees?

Citizens have 'freedom of movement' within the United States without a doubt. Employees of States do not have the 'freedom to travel' at will on their employer's dime.

And you clearly do waste your time in the absurd.

Since you are the one who said:

only repressive dictatorships were THAT concerned over where their citizens travel.

And have carefully avoided addressing how Trump is that concerned over where our citizens travel.

As did the CONSTITUTIONALITY issue of a law like this when those instances arise where court cases get delivered for "unexpected consequences" of ATTEMPTING to muck with InterState relations and Government affairs.

And what is unconstitutional about a State restricting the travel of its employees?

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - AB 1887

Maybe you should actually read about the law?

 

[P@triot]

 

[MaryL]

California used to be a great place. I haven't been there since 05', but I knew plenty of different people, and at least 2/3 of them were opposed to the liberal government in power there. I don't know how truly representative that figure is, it's just my sense. Of course, my family IN California is split on the gay agenda thing. I couldn't afford to live there, and many people have been forced out and have become economic refugees too. I will probably NEVER go back to Calii. The crazies are running the place. The state is becoming a pariah in my eyes.