Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples

[emilynghiem]

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples
MSNBC ^ | 06/28/15 12:50 AM | Adam Howard

Sen. Ted Cruz is ready to rain on the parade of Texas citizens celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Friday to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.
On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country—it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Ted cruz is consistent in his beliefs. Not a flip flopper.
…

I thought he was supposed to understand the constitution?

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, your religious beliefs, according to SCOTUS and constitution, may not be used to violate others' beliefs in the public forum. Belief that ACA is bad is not a belief that rises to civil rights level. You abuse by creed when you try to make it such.

Dear JakeStarkey
and same with the other side
We actually agree that neither side can impose their creed to the point of violating the other.
I AGREE and I am saying it is both sides.
so that is why I am saying to either remove marriage from the state
or else reform the language so it is truly NEUTRAL and void of the references
either banning or implementing any references to orientation at all.

so that way neither side can argue their beliefs are either
discriminated against, excluded, imposed over the other, etc.

I AGREE with you Jake it is only that you think the
current laws resolve the conflict and I am saying they aren't, they went too far
and aren't NEUTRAL enough so it is causing the opposite backlash and isn't including both sides beliefs equally YET.

I think you also misunderstand and you think
I am saying to outright reject and void the judiciary.
No, I am saying to come up with an agreement among the people FIRST
and THEN go through the legal or legislative processes through
the state or federal govt and fix it second. Not bypass the Constitutional process
but use it to fix whatever is argued as imposing a bias in belief either way.

so I am still saying to USE the democratic process.
you think I am saying to override it but that is not what I mean at all.
Corrections are going to take using every available system we have.
They all have to work together, including the govt system to correct this conflict.

The parties, the media, all have to be used to SOLVE the conflict
alongside using the govt systems as well. The parties and media
aren't under govt either, but since they were used to divide and force problems to escalate,
they need to be used to unite and resolve conflicts to establish a working solution.

And then go through the proper GOVT channels to implement these corrections.
we aren't done yet, and that is why people are yelling because the ruling didn't
solve the root problems. it will take a lot more than that to work it out, and yes
this means using the legal, legislative and govt processes, not overriding them but
using them to CORRECT the biases in the laws and language that are still discriminating by creed.

 

[Debra K]

Emily doesn't understand that the issue was resolved....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Dear Seawytch As long as people don't consent to the law, something isn't resolved.
Your attitude is the same that justifies bullying, oppression and rape.
As long as YOU agree, that's good enough, but you don't consider
the equal rights of the persons whose beliefs and consent are violated.

. . .

Emily:

Seawytch is correct. The issue involved in the Obergefell case has been resolved by a majority ruling from the highest court in the land.

We are a nation of laws, not of men.

We have a hierarchy of laws, with the U.S. Constitution being the supreme law of the land.

Homosexual persons, as a class of persons, believed that state laws that allowed opposite-sex couples to marry and prohibited similarly situated same-sex couples from marrying deprived them of equal protection under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from depriving persons of equal protection under the law.

Lawsuits were brought in our courts to resolve the issue and lower courts ruled. Those rulings were appealed to Circuit Courts of Appeal. See: Introduction To The Federal Court System USAO Department of Justice

When a conflict arose among the Circuits, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to resolve the conflict.

The majority of the Justices in the Obergefell case held that depriving same-sex couples the right to marry violated the Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment).

Your consent to the ruling is not necessary to the resolution of the issue.

That's how our form of government works. We take our disputes to court. The facts are ascertained, the law is applied to the facts, and a ruling resolving the dispute is issued.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, we do not agree, Emily.

You cannot deny homosexuals the right to marry those consenting adults whom they love

You cannot violate others' civil rights, where CR trumps non-CR beliefs, such as that of a Christian wedding cake baker who offers her product to the public of Colorado. She can get around that by advertising she bakes wedding cakes but does not decorate the product beyond frosting, etc. If she bakes wedding cakes only in her church's kitchens for her church's ceremonies, then she would be fine.

Or she can advertise privately by word of mouth that she will make a Christian wedding cake.

 

[emilynghiem]

No, we do not agree, Emily.

You cannot deny homosexuals the right to marry those consenting adults whom they love

You cannot violate others' civil rights, where CR trumps non-CR beliefs, such as that of a Christian wedding cake baker who offers her product to the public of Colorado. She can get around that by advertising she bakes wedding cakes but does not decorate the product beyond frosting, etc. If she bakes wedding cakes only in her church's kitchens for her church's ceremonies, then she would be fine.

Or she can advertise privately by word of mouth that she will make a Christian wedding cake.

Dear JakeStarkey
we are WAY talking past each other because that is the opposite of what I believe.
I believe marriage is already protected under religious freedom
and did not require court rulings as if these depend on govt to establish.

Way beyond you on that point.

Where we seem to disagree is how to make our secular govt
system MATCH and EXPRESS and support the marriage equally for all people
WITHOUT causing political or beliefs in conflict.

I believe the push for DOMA and banning gay marriage
made the situation worse by passing equally unconstitutional laws
that had no place either!

I apologize for wherever or whatever I said to give you the
exact OPPOSITE impression and perception of what I believe.

Even the concept of depending on the Supreme Court to rule
is INSULTING to the automatic right someone has to marry as part of religious freedom.
It does not need to be spelled out and established as a separate right or rite.

An inalienable natural right is already that,
so that is not the issue, JakeStarkey

The issue is how this is written up and implemented through the state
where it does not cause conflicts with other people's beliefs.

I believe we can write the laws better to AVOID these conflicts.
And you are content to take shortcuts, and just assume
the opposition are either bigots, or "bypassing law and govt"
or something that isn't fair. There are certain beliefs and objections
that are valid and CAN be worked around WITHOUT infringing on anyone's equality under law.

Just political laziness, and trying to badmouth the opposition
instead of hearing and understanding where the conflicts are,
resolving them up front, and USING THE SYSTEM THE RIGHT
WAY INSTEAD OF INTRODUCING biases that violate beliefs of others.

It is simpler for you just to paint the objections as wrongful or unlawful
to dismiss them,
which is the mistake people make saying all homosexuality is a choice
of behavior and doesn't count as a protected class.

You make the same mistakes as the people you call bigots,
but please do not mistake me when my objections are different.

I am objecting because there are better ways to word, pass
and implement laws where they avoid these conflicts and don't impose on ANYONE.

So I believe those laws would be even more Constiutionally inclusive
because they would satisfy and resolve all interests and remove all objections.

And yes, I understand to go through the Legal and Legislative process
in order to propose laws. I am NOT saying to bypass govt.
I am saying it is easier to use the govt system properly
if all sides come together, agree how to resolve conflicts,
and how to word and implement laws where they aren't unfair to anyone,
BEFORE going through the legal processes to pass them. Big fat duh.

Sorry I kept giving you the wrong impression.

If your beliefs are so strong that anyone who wants a consensus
is really trying to coerce and bypass the democratic process instead of protect it as I believe,
all I can guess is that the FEAR from "bigots" abusing religious freedom to oppress others
is so great you are projecting that onto me and FEARING that a consensus process
would be abused by such "bigots" to coerce and exclude any opposition from those like you
defending the other side(s).

And my answer would be the same, then that isn't consensus.
If you are still objecting, then the process is already pressured and not by free choice
and participation.

Whatever is causing your continuing fear that this is bypassing Constitutional republican govt,
would have to be addressed or it will mess up the mediation process by injecting fear into it.

The same thing comes up when I mention a conference on political beliefs
to members of Tea Party groups so AFRAID the liberals will hijack the Constitutional convention
to push agenda, they won't agree to any discussions but just want all out secession from govt
unless they get certain ultimatums passed. They don't feel safe with a consensus process
they are too afraid the opponents will hijack to push their own agenda over everyone else!

Whatever fear this is coming from, I find it is mutual.

I guess too many people have abused the political process
to push their party agenda by majority rule, that even bringing up
including both sides in resolving conflicts evokes fears of the
other side dominating and forcing their views until they get their way.

That's not how mediation works. All the areas of emotional pressure being added
to the process are going to have to be addressed if people are going to communicate civilly.

There has to be trust that no decision is going to be enforced
if you don't agree to it. It's not a one way street.

I'm very sorry the political environment and history has pushed everyone
to this level of distrust. I surely hope the consensus building process will
work to bring out these fears to be addressed, so they no longer hamper the process.

What a mess. Thank you for sharing where you are coming from
JakeStarkey and sorry I cannot explain to you without coming across as the opposite.

I scare the Tea Party members who are just as afraid the liberals are
hijacking govt and pushing their own agenda the same way you are saying
I come across as wanting to do that.

Sorry but that is not what I mean. I understand the fears are greater
and even if my intent is not to derail the system, I think you are saying
other people with onesided intent WOULD abuse the consensus process
to push their agenda and exclude minority views from equal representation.

So even if that isn't my intent, I think you are saying it would happen anyway.
And I am naive for thinking we can resolve conflicts if the opposition isn't interested
and only want to push their beliefs on everyone else. I can only express to you
JakeStarkey that is how you and others come across who aren't hearing the other side.

I don't think it is fair to blacklist and blackball me from defending my views in isonomy
and consensus just because of the people who would abuse that to push their "bigotry."

I guess you are saying that the bigotry against homosexual couples and marriage is so great,
that it takes using extra measures such as court rulings and state laws to protect that.

And it isn't enough to say you are already protected under religious freedom.
And that is why the push for gay marriage to be protected under the state is
argued as legally necessary. Because of the mass bigotry by others.

But I would equally argue the bigotry against Christians and the right,
has equally been perpetrated by the left. so the left and right are equally
responsible for this conflict, and can't be blamed on just the right.

So because of the CONFLICTS between liberal and conservative,
this causes a backlash against both the gay rights and the religious beliefs opposed.

How is it fair to blame just the bigots
and claim that gay marriage rights through the state are necessary for protection,
while as many liberals on the left have
rejected and discriminated against spiritual healing
and created this fear of pushing homosexual agenda
and DENIED even seeking to BAN therapy for changing orientation.

So if the discrimination against ex-gays for promoting healing therapy
is just as oppressive and fear-based as bigotry against homosexuality,
why aren't BOTH beliefs being equally protected if the gay rights need special protection?

 

[OKTexas]

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples
MSNBC ^ | 06/28/15 12:50 AM | Adam Howard

Sen. Ted Cruz is ready to rain on the parade of Texas citizens celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Friday to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.
On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country—it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Ted cruz is consistent in his beliefs. Not a flip flopper.
…

I thought he was supposed to understand the constitution?

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Debra K Seawytch and JakeStarkey
A. I guess I am giving you the wrong impression, that after courts make rulings people disagree with,
such as the ruling in the KELO case or Terri Schiavo, then the citizens go lobby for reformed legislation to try
to address the conflicts and fix the problem that way.

B. In this case Debra K it's more like after courts enforced slavery as property laws,
and you insisted this is a nation of laws, then that isn't fair because those laws
STILL aren't perfect, and aren't protecting people equally (with gay marriage it is the way
they are written that they aren't neutral or devoid of biased beliefs yet, and would need to avoid reference to the
orientation at all and maybe not specify the social relationship but just acknowledge the civil contract to be neutral)

C. another solution, besides removing marriage from the state and separating benefits and taxes by party,
could be for there to be an equal agreement not to sue to remove references to
God and Crosses, prayer or creation, etc, if there is going to be direct references to gay marriage.
Some Christians I know might agree to that, who knows.

There could be other ways the groups in conflict might agree how to resolve issues over public
institutions referring to thing they either don't believe in or are religiously opposed.

In my case, if either sides objects and argues their beliefs creed or interests/rights
aren't protected or included equally, I would argue that isn't constitutionally equal yet and
the conflicts/objections need to be resolved where all parties are satisfied the laws are properly written.

D. Debra K as for being a nation of law, not men.
a. the First Amendment also protects religious freedom from establishment of religious by govt;
the Fourteenth Amendment also claims equal protection of the laws for all citizens
and under Civil Rights laws the concept of not discriminating on the basis of creed was added.

b. you do not have to enforce laws in a way that violates other laws.
Defending the right of gay couples to marry does not have to go so far
as to be negligent in how laws are written and implemented where they impose on the beliefs of others.
If you do not make laws that are set up biased to begin with, then
you do not create a new class of violations that cause people to commit discrimination.
Then complain about bigots and discrimination that could have been avoided by not overcorrecting in the first place.
It is one thing to strike down bans against gay marriage, but another thing to establish it when
beliefs about marriage are faith based.

c. When laws about slavery kept getting enforced by courts, it took an amendment to outlaw involuntary servitude.

Because of the beliefs on both sides of health care, and now gay marriage through the state,
any laws passed would have to benefit and protect BOTH sides' beliefs equally in order to be
fully Constitutional.

I suspect we will need at least an agreement about political beliefs and parties,
and not sure if it will take an additional Constitutional amendment to protect people's beliefs from each other's
OR
if we can agree how to interpret the First and Fourteenth Amendments and "creeds"
without having to pass additional laws. If the parties in conflict over this cannot resolve the
issues any other way, I will recommend to State Congress and Senate officials the idea
of separating beliefs, benefits and tax/funding by party and allow equal exercise and protection of beliefs.

Not only to accommodate different beliefs on marriage, but also health care, voting rights, welfare for the poor, and managing taxes from businesses that could be invested in microloans to support business education
and govt training to reform welfare programs, so there is not this fear of promoting dependency on govt but independence (and also reforms on prison and immigration and collecting restitution from crimes to reimburse to taxpayers in order to fund health care education and services instead of the insurance mandates, etc.)

Marriage and social benefits are not the only issue of contention that could be resolved.
Separating by party may prove to be more cost effective because there are a LOT more other issues that could be resolved at the same time. By separating parties into tracks for developing administration systems for benefits managed, decided, funded and participated in democratically and voluntarily, this would not only stop the abuse of political bullying and dominance to push one agenda over another through govt, but would create TRACKS for educating, training and mentoring more citizens to participate directly in govt management so that people of all backgrounds
could gain the experience necessary to run for office instead of monopolizing elections and representation by monied interests.

There is much more to be gained by this proposal of organizing separate programs by party,
studying which solutions work, before proposing any more reforms to govt.

Emily doesn't understand that the issue was resolved....

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Dear Seawytch As long as people don't consent to the law, something isn't resolved.
Your attitude is the same that justifies bullying, oppression and rape.
As long as YOU agree, that's good enough, but you don't consider
the equal rights of the persons whose beliefs and consent are violated.

. . .

Emily:

Seawytch is correct. The issue involved in the Obergefell case has been resolved by a majority ruling from the highest court in the land.

We are a nation of laws, not of men.

We have a hierarchy of laws, with the U.S. Constitution being the supreme law of the land.

Homosexual persons, as a class of persons, believed that state laws that allowed opposite-sex couples to marry and prohibited similarly situated same-sex couples from marrying deprived them of equal protection under the law. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits a state from depriving persons of equal protection under the law.

Lawsuits were brought in our courts to resolve the issue and lower courts ruled. Those rulings were appealed to Circuit Courts of Appeal. See: Introduction To The Federal Court System USAO Department of Justice

When a conflict arose among the Circuits, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion to resolve the conflict.

The majority of the Justices in the Obergefell case held that depriving same-sex couples the right to marry violated the Equal Protection Clause (Fourteenth Amendment).

Your consent to the ruling is not necessary to the resolution of the issue.

That's how our form of government works. We take our disputes to court. The facts are ascertained, the law is applied to the facts, and a ruling resolving the dispute is issued.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples
MSNBC ^ | 06/28/15 12:50 AM | Adam Howard

Sen. Ted Cruz is ready to rain on the parade of Texas citizens celebrating the Supreme Court decision on Friday to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the country.
On Saturday, the 2016 Republican presidential candidate said he “absolutely” believes that his state’s country clerks should deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if they have a religious objection, in an interview with The Texas Tribune.
“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country—it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

Ted cruz is consistent in his beliefs. Not a flip flopper.
…

I thought he was supposed to understand the constitution?

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

 

[OKTexas]

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

Ted Cruz backs county clerks denying marriage licenses to gay couples
MSNBC ^ | 06/28/15 12:50 AM | Adam Howard
Ted cruz is consistent in his beliefs. Not a flip flopper.
…

I thought he was supposed to understand the constitution?

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

I thought he was supposed to understand the constitution?

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

I thought he was supposed to understand the constitution?

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Then I am agreeing with you, that another clerk or person can help.

I am also adding the proposal to shift marriage and benefits to be managed as social programs per state
through the different parties to handle their own members under terms they each agree to as a group.

Wouldn't that solve the problem of Democrats wanting single payer through a central system
and Republicans wanting free market health care? Couldn't they both get tax breaks or set up mandates
through their own respective party networks for 'their members" who CHOOSE to participate under
terms they decide democratically, and where they disagree, they don't impose on the beliefs of the other group.

Don't you think the parties are big and organized enough to take this on per state?
Manage their own systems and deduct from federal taxes and quit fighting through Congress
which system to use or not fund?

 

[OKTexas]

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Then I am agreeing with you, that another clerk or person can help.

I am also adding the proposal to shift marriage and benefits to be managed as social programs per state
through the different parties to handle their own members under terms they each agree to as a group.

Wouldn't that solve the problem of Democrats wanting single payer through a central system
and Republicans wanting free market health care? Couldn't they both get tax breaks or set up mandates
through their own respective party networks for 'their members" who CHOOSE to participate under
terms they decide democratically, and where they disagree, they don't impose on the beliefs of the other group.

Don't you think the parties are big and organized enough to take this on per state?
Manage their own systems and deduct from federal taxes and quit fighting through Congress
which system to use or not fund?

Oh right, more division, the dear leader would be proud.

 

[OKTexas]

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

He does, there's no law in TX that says these county clerks must violate their religious beliefs. the faghadist can find a clerk that will just as easily as they can find another baker or photographer.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Then I am agreeing with you, that another clerk or person can help.

I am also adding the proposal to shift marriage and benefits to be managed as social programs per state
through the different parties to handle their own members under terms they each agree to as a group.

Wouldn't that solve the problem of Democrats wanting single payer through a central system
and Republicans wanting free market health care? Couldn't they both get tax breaks or set up mandates
through their own respective party networks for 'their members" who CHOOSE to participate under
terms they decide democratically, and where they disagree, they don't impose on the beliefs of the other group.

Don't you think the parties are big and organized enough to take this on per state?
Manage their own systems and deduct from federal taxes and quit fighting through Congress
which system to use or not fund?

Here's another idea, how about the feds stick to the limited things delegated to them in the Constitution and leave the rest to the States, that way if you don't like the way your State does something you're free to move to one more of your liking.

 

[Debra K]

Hi Debra K Seawytch and JakeStarkey
A. I guess I am giving you the wrong impression, that after courts make rulings people disagree with,
such as the ruling in the KELO case or Terri Schiavo, then the citizens go lobby for reformed legislation to try
to address the conflicts and fix the problem that way.

Please try to understand that disputes fall into many, many, different categories. Whether the door is shut or left open for people to seek reform depends on the dispute that was resolved.

The Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell settled the issue: All state laws that prohibit same-sex marriages violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and are thus unconstitutional.

The Kelo case involved the takings clause under the Fifth Amendment, which is applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In the Kelo case, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws that allowed private property to be taken and given to other private parties for economic development did not violate the takings clause. Economic development was considered a public use and/or public purpose within the meaning of the constitutional provision at issue. Thus, the door was left open for state citizens to seek to pass state laws or to amend their state constitutions to prohibit these kinds of takings.

There is a difference between a ruling that says a state law is unconstitutional and one that says a state law is constitutional. A state is generally free to give its citizens more protection than the protection available under the U.S. Constitution.

B. In this case Debra K it's more like after courts enforced slavery as property laws,
and you insisted this is a nation of laws, then that isn't fair because those laws
STILL aren't perfect, and aren't protecting people equally (with gay marriage it is the way
they are written that they aren't neutral or devoid of biased beliefs yet, and would need to avoid reference to the
orientation at all and maybe not specify the social relationship but just acknowledge the civil contract to be neutral)

The Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott decision in 1857. At that time, slaves were property.

The Civil War took place in 1861-1865.

Following the Civil War, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteen Amendments were adopted. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery.

Our nation was not perfect in the Nineteenth Century. It was not perfect in the Twentieth Century. And it's still not perfect. But it is much better today than it was in 1857.

Despite all of your complaining, you haven't suggested a better form of government.

I don't understand your grievance with marriage. If you don't like marriages, don't enter one. I think that's fair.

C. another solution, besides removing marriage from the state and separating benefits and taxes by party,
could be for there to be an equal agreement not to sue to remove references to
God and Crosses, prayer or creation, etc, if there is going to be direct references to gay marriage.
Some Christians I know might agree to that, who knows.

Marriage is a civil contract between two persons that may only be entered, maintained, or dissolved in accordance with state law.

Marriage cannot be removed from state regulation. Any attempt to do so would deprive the people of "ordered liberty".

If you think you can get everyone in the nation to agree never to sue each other over their disputes, go for it.

But the fact remains that people have disputes and our state and federal courts were established for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

I think I have spent enough time responding to your posts. I wish you well.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Dear OKTexas
Shouldn't people have access to change jobs?

For example if a Muslim Hindu or Vegan doesn't believe in serving certain types of meat, isn't it better to get a job in the public schools somewhere else besides the kitchen if they serve those foods there.

I understand people could argue against being fired, but what about relocating them to equal pay jobs
that don't require things they don't believe in. Similar to people who can't serve in the military in combat
positions if they don't believe in killing in war, but they could serve in other areas instead.

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Then I am agreeing with you, that another clerk or person can help.

I am also adding the proposal to shift marriage and benefits to be managed as social programs per state
through the different parties to handle their own members under terms they each agree to as a group.

Wouldn't that solve the problem of Democrats wanting single payer through a central system
and Republicans wanting free market health care? Couldn't they both get tax breaks or set up mandates
through their own respective party networks for 'their members" who CHOOSE to participate under
terms they decide democratically, and where they disagree, they don't impose on the beliefs of the other group.

Don't you think the parties are big and organized enough to take this on per state?
Manage their own systems and deduct from federal taxes and quit fighting through Congress
which system to use or not fund?

Oh right, more division, the dear leader would be proud.

What do you mean more? Dear heart, the division already exists.
Just like atheists are separate from theists.
Why not acknowledge these groups aren't going to agree
to policies written biased toward one or the other. And don't force those language or terms.
Why not make sure the laws are written neutrally or else separate and keep
the policies in conflict private and out of public institutions.
This isn't introducing any new beliefs that weren't already there, OKTexas
it is trying to find ways to accommodate them so they don't step on each other's equal rights.

Given that people have conveniently formed whole parties, from precincts to state level and national, organized by their beliefs in
* gun rights vs. gun control
* abortion rights vs. right to life
* marriage equality vs. traditional marriage
* amnesty vs. deportation
* mental treatment vs. death penalty
* nationalized health care vs. free market
The parties have made it very simple to separate voter policies and funding for them.
Why not use these structures to organize separate system of registering benefits
under the programs people already believe in, and let people manage their taxes
by party where it comes to SOCIAL legislation and personal values that differ per group.

For general policies that everyone agrees on, those can still be managed as is through
federal and state govt.

But for the issues of political beliefs where people have organized by "denomination"
why not let people congregate, contribute and comply with the policies of their religious free choice. We do this with churches and traditional religions, why not with political parties as political religions and beliefs. When are we going to get smart and figure out how to let people organize religious free exercise of political beliefs without clashing with each other or imposing?

 

[OKTexas]

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

False analogy, clerks are elected.

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Then I am agreeing with you, that another clerk or person can help.

I am also adding the proposal to shift marriage and benefits to be managed as social programs per state
through the different parties to handle their own members under terms they each agree to as a group.

Wouldn't that solve the problem of Democrats wanting single payer through a central system
and Republicans wanting free market health care? Couldn't they both get tax breaks or set up mandates
through their own respective party networks for 'their members" who CHOOSE to participate under
terms they decide democratically, and where they disagree, they don't impose on the beliefs of the other group.

Don't you think the parties are big and organized enough to take this on per state?
Manage their own systems and deduct from federal taxes and quit fighting through Congress
which system to use or not fund?

Oh right, more division, the dear leader would be proud.

What do you mean more? Dear heart, the division already exists.
Just like atheists are separate from theists.
Why not acknowledge these groups aren't going to agree
to policies written biased toward one or the other. And don't force those language or terms.
Why not make sure the laws are written neutrally or else separate and keep
the policies in conflict private and out of public institutions.
This isn't introducing any new beliefs that weren't already there,
it is trying to find ways to accommodate them so they don't step on each other's equal rights.

Didn't they already try that separate but equal crap? No one gets everything they want, that's why the concept of federalism is so great, States doing their own thing and a citizens right to move among them to find one that best suits them. Top down authoritarian one size fits all government isn't the answer.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott decision in 1857. At that time, slaves were property.

The Civil War took place in 1861-1865.

Following the Civil War, the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteen Amendments were adopted. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery.

Our nation was not perfect in the Nineteenth Century. It was not perfect in the Twentieth Century. And it's still not perfect. But it is much better today than it was in 1857.

Despite all of your complaining, you haven't suggested a better form of government.

I have suggested organizing separate social systems by party.
And this would remove the social programs causing conflicts
off federal govt where people don't agree by their political beliefs,
and shift this control of funding back to the people through state or by party
so everyone can have equal access to the programs they believe in funding.

To help set up equal administrations, I even suggested that the wealthy levels of citizens experienced with corporate or govt management get tax breaks for investing loans,
grants and donations to the parties willing to set up, manage and train members to run their own social programs, hospitals, schools, even prisons, districts and cities as needed to offer
equal opportunity in education, training and experience in govt and property/business/city management so that people can achieve equal political power and participation.

I have even suggested a SPECIFIC site as a pilot model to replicate elsewhere, for setting up schools, hospitals and training programs/internships so that all people especially minorities can access equal support, means and education to participate equally in democratic govt, and also set up tax breaks to reward citizens and businesses for investing in developing these programs to teach self govt and localized democracy WITHIN and ALONGSIDE the given system.

I propose to allow for a Republican Presidency and Democratic Vice Presidency
by dividing roles as External/Foreign Affairs-Military-International Economy and Global Security
and Internal/Domestic Issues and shifting democratic management back to people and states, and/or parties

I have urged setting up representation by Party to resolve conflicts over issues of BELIEFS
and to hash out solutions before presenting proposals and key points of agreement/disagreement
to officials in govt so that laws can be passed by consent without running into these conflicts of interests or beliefs

I have even expanded on this idea to include representation by media groups, by religious groups,
by corporate entities and issues, so that there can be commissions addressing each conflict
and reach a consensus, or else at least agree how to handle the differences, even by separating
policies and funding in order to prevent imposition or abuse by govt to favor one group's interest
at the expense of others excluded or discriminated against

I wrote out a plan compiled from multiple sources to replace welfare with sustainable education and training programs, convert prisons and sweatshops into medical treatment centers and work-study programs, and
to develop sustainable campus facilities, military bases and teaching hospitals, by city-states along the border.


Debra K maybe you haven't read all the millions of posts I have explained this over and over.
Here is one summary but there are tons of emails and letters I have written to apply this idea to other areas:
Earned Amnesty

So much that JakeStarkey got the impression I am trying to BYPASS and create things outside of govt,
that's how comprehensive some of these ideas are.

The proposal to reorganize federal programs argued as unconstitutional
by shifting them back to States and people by Party would require reforming and rewriting legislation.

Just because it RESPECTS the given systems doesn't mean it doesn't involve such radical changes
in govt that JakeStarkey accused me of NOT respecting the Constitutional republican govt.

Debra K to recognize political beliefs, and redress the issues of health care by reforming prisons,
and also marriage laws by separate benefits and policies by party IS proposing massive reform in how
we approach conflicts instead of merely fighting politically to overrule opposition or objections.

I am talking about resolving the conflicts, answering the objections, and making policies that all parties respect as Constitutional when it comes to beliefs that neither side agrees to compromise.

How can that NOT radically change govt by using it more effectively?

P.S. One of the best ideas someone posted on another site, was to introduce a law
requiring a vote by Congress on whether or not a bill is Constitutional BEFORE voting or passing it,
instead of waiting until after a contested bill passes to argue through Courts to try to check it AFTERWARDS.

There are many ways to address these issues.

Just because I don't believe in dictating my own ideas, but only offer them
and let people work out their own solutions, doesn't mean I haven't written up and proposed reforms.

Another idea I posted was to issue federal reserve credits back to taxpayers
for each case of corporate abuse of govt that can be assessed and tracked back to the wrongdoers.
Then pay a commission to a legal team, charged to wrongdoers, to collect back on the debt
and create settlements and financial plans for the WRONGDOERS to pay back those debts,
instead of charging them to taxpayers. And in the meantime, while there is a debt being paid back,
hold the property or program where the corrections to the problem are being administered through
as COLLATERAL on the debt. So either the wrongdoers have to pay back taxpayers if the govt
is going to remain in charge of that program, or the citizens investing in the solution can claim
shares in owning the property or program if taxpayers pay back the debt who weren't responsible for the wrongs.

I gave two examples that could be used as pilot models to study to see if this restitution plan works
* Millions of dollars in damages and abused tax money spent to destroy Freedmen's Town
national historic district, which I proposed to invest at least 10 million in restoring the district as a campus for
training Vet and minority leaders in govt, financial and legal management, health care and civics education
* 1.6 billion in taxes abused in the corporate take over and destruction of Headwaters Redwood forest in CA
which I proposed to reclaim and pay back into creating internships to restore the natural wildlife and ecosystems, where the cost of the work over the years would be assessed as the value of the region, and use that value to issue notes against the debts and damages to refinance jobs and economy in the state of California

Debra K are you and JakeStarkey disappointed that these ideas don't involve overthrowing govt.
It seems you want to criticize me for not having any ideas for reform at all,
while Jake was worried my ideas were against the given system of govt.

Are you both disappointed that the reforms I propose would change things but keep the system intact?
Is that why you are so disturbed with me, that it doesn't fit the type of change you think I should argue for?

 

[ninja007]

7 black robed judges, 4 of which are hard left should not decide on gay marriage when the vast majority are against it.

 

[emilynghiem]

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

So when the laws change, and if clerks have a religious conflict,
can they be changed to other positions or allow other people or clerks to do that.

What if I am a clerk, someone speaks Bangladesh and I need someone else to handle that person.
What if someone just got robbed or assaulted, I happen to resemble the attacker,
and they don't want to look at me because I trigger PTSD and anxiety attacks.*

Can't someone else help or assist without it becoming a federal issue?

*I had one Vet tell me I freaked him out wearing black and giving him flashbacks of VietCong.
He was showing me and my bf an apartment, but had to stop because I made him so nervous.
If people have issues, I'd rather be honest, and not force them to do business if they have personal problems.
I had another job application get turned down because I was Asian and the Asian businessman wanted
an American secretary to help him with his English and was too embarrassed and uncomfortable with another Asian.

Why does this have to be a big deal? If people aren't comfortable, can't this be worked around?

If people are going to be this picky about marriage, why not separate it by party and reward
citizens for managing their own benefits under the terms of their choice. Like breaking up a trust
and allowing different companies to provide the same services. Can't the civil contracts be
administered through the state, as neutral business and legal agreements between two parties and not get into the personal details of their social relationship, and leave the other social and financial terms to the parties.

Either agree on terms, or create separate tracks.
Given the environment in Texas, I would think both parties would love to run their own machines
and decide their own policies by their own members democratically. They'd have full control that way.
Would love to see something like that work, and might solve other problems with
disagreement over prison and immigration, amnesty and restitution, education, lots of areas
might benefit by separating by party and rewarding citizens for investing in the programs they believe in.
Instead of having to fight other parties and waste billions of dollars that could be invested directly in solutions.

What is it you didn't understand when I said they could easily find another clerk, just as they could find another baker or photographer? That's not what they want, they want to force acceptance and destroy anyone who disagrees. Is the the America you want to live in?

Then I am agreeing with you, that another clerk or person can help.

I am also adding the proposal to shift marriage and benefits to be managed as social programs per state
through the different parties to handle their own members under terms they each agree to as a group.

Wouldn't that solve the problem of Democrats wanting single payer through a central system
and Republicans wanting free market health care? Couldn't they both get tax breaks or set up mandates
through their own respective party networks for 'their members" who CHOOSE to participate under
terms they decide democratically, and where they disagree, they don't impose on the beliefs of the other group.

Don't you think the parties are big and organized enough to take this on per state?
Manage their own systems and deduct from federal taxes and quit fighting through Congress
which system to use or not fund?

Oh right, more division, the dear leader would be proud.

What do you mean more? Dear heart, the division already exists.
Just like atheists are separate from theists.
Why not acknowledge these groups aren't going to agree
to policies written biased toward one or the other. And don't force those language or terms.
Why not make sure the laws are written neutrally or else separate and keep
the policies in conflict private and out of public institutions.
This isn't introducing any new beliefs that weren't already there,
it is trying to find ways to accommodate them so they don't step on each other's equal rights.

Didn't they already try that separate but equal crap? No one gets everything they want, that's why the concept of federalism is so great, States doing their own thing and a citizens right to move among them to find one that best suits them. Top down authoritarian one size fits all government isn't the answer.

RE: Top down authoritarian one size fits all government isn't the answer.

You just cited why this system only goes so far. it works for policies that people AGREE to go along with whatever is voted on as best for the collective good. But it falls apart when it comes to BELIEFS that aren't the govt's place to decide or dictate for everyone.

The only place I saw any separate but equal was by race, and there isn't equal education resources or support for that even to this day.

What I propose by separating social programs by party is to set up EQUAL support so all people CAN access training and resources to build, develop and manage their own systems. This has never been set up or tried before.

Although the black citizens were set hundreds of years behind on the social learning curve of owning and managing property, because of the black slaves who were property themselves and didn't even own their own bodies much less their own houses, businesses or schools,
not all people have the same background and experience owning and managing property, much less
schools and cities they built themselves. So how can people be equal in empowerment and exercising authority, if we don't have even equal means of equal education in knowledge of the laws or experience in government.

Never been tried before, and this is what I propose to set up by party.

If the minorities are organized under the Democratic party who have been lobbying for support and help of govt, then let that be the party that represents people who want to RECEIVE help to become independent.

If the Republican party attracts people who already want to fend for themselves without govt telling them how to manage their own affairs, if this is the party that all the corporate interests want to use to reduce govt, then
why not use that party to set up a tax system for LENDING money to govt and to the social programs the Democrats and Socialist/Collectivists want to set up to serve and teach members of all classes while they work toward independence. Let the socially oriented groups manage the members they represent with this philosophy of shared ownership, and the people or parties who believe in funding free market enterprise can invest freely in the groups they feel do the most cost-effective job in training citizens and communities to be self-sufficient.

The experienced business and govt leaders can even Mentor the upcoming leaders so they can learn faster without fear of making mistakes that not everyone can afford. If you are learning property management, for example, the average person can't afford to recover from losing a house the same way someone with more experience and credit might survive a major business loss. And same with learning to manage govt.

My point is why not use the party system to organize means of representing the different groups, and setting up the different tracks that each one needs for the level of govt and stage of development they are in.

How else do we ever expect citizens to be equal if we don't set up means to teach all people the laws, and to access training for govt, and credit for learning property and business management.

Because this hasn't been done, that's why we aren't equal in access to education and protection of the laws.

 

[emilynghiem]

7 black robed judges, 4 of which are hard left should not decide on gay marriage when the vast majority are against it.

ninja007 I would take it a step further.
Whether or not the majority or minority supports X belief or Y belief about marriage,
because marriage is a matter of belief, then govt should not dictate for the people.

I agree with people on here arguing it is the CIVIL marriage being fought for, and
they aren't TRYING to impose on the spiritual or religious marriage. But as long as
people don't agree on the terms or language, then similar to removing references
to God that people don't agree on, the references to marriage should either be
removed or written so neutrally they don't discriminate for or against any creed, on either side.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We do use the party system to represent groups and needs.

It's called elections.