Texas decide to take a few steps back into 18th century

[psionl0]

Almost correct, except that you can't use religious freedom as an excuse for disobeying any law, including anti-discrimination laws.

That's not what the constitutions says.

Yes, but many of the "religious freedom" Right wingers will complain about Sharia law while trying to pass laws with a Christian bent to them. They complain that Muslims want to control their women, while trying to outlaw abortion and contraceptives.

I am not of the "religious freedom right wing". Those who would force Christian values on the population are acting just as unconstitutionally as those who would force any other religious or non-religious values on the population.

 

[uke2se]

That's not what the constitutions says.


I am not of the "religious freedom right wing". Those who would force Christian values on the population are acting just as unconstitutionally as those who would force any other religious or non-religious values on the population.

Nobody is forcing any religious or non-religious values on anyone. A public servant is simply expected to act as a public servant (i.e, non-religious due to the separation of church and state.).

 

[stevea]

How about a religion that requires virgin sacrifices? Are you familiar with the expression, "Your rights end where mine begin."

SCOTUS ruled more than a century ago that Mormons could believe any damned-fool thing they like, but that couldn't practice polygamy, as it violated neutrally enforced criminal law.

That's not what the constitutions says

I see your problem. You are trying to interpret the Constitution without the aid an an ouija board and the cabal in black robes.

The Constitution also clearly says that I ".. shall be secure in my person .... papers ... no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, ...", however ~1.7 million ppl have that clearly expressed right violated in airports every single day.

The Constitution is openly ignored & violated with impunity. We now have that wonderous "living Constitution", the Left has promised us for so long. Seems more dead than alive to me; Patriot Act, NDAA, Secret FISA courts, mass data collection, an unanswerable EPA revising property rights by edict are just coffin nails.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That's not what the constitutions says.


I am not of the "religious freedom right wing". Those who would force Christian values on the population are acting just as unconstitutionally as those who would force any other religious or non-religious values on the population.

Isn't that what Texas is doing?

 

[psionl0]

Nobody is forcing any religious or non-religious values on anyone. A public servant is simply expected to act as a public servant (i.e, non-religious due to the separation of church and state.). in accordance with the religious values of the state.

ftfy.

Isn't that what Texas is doing?

Texas is allowing employees to act in accordance with their conscience.

 

[uke2se]

ftfy.

Do you find the first amendment to the US constitution to be the religious values of the state? If so, sure. I don't think that's very controversial.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Smartcocky lives in New Zealand, a country which is objectively more civilized than the US.

The Death Penalty is barbaric - which is why America is one of the few developed nations that still has it. Even Russia has stopped. Russia! Smartcocky would be perfectly justified in finding the US system objectionable.

Except for journalists and those critical of putin, that is still a death sentence.

 

[stevea]

I'm missing where the US Government has the constitutional authority to do that.

They don't. The state should never be allowed to discriminate, but private citizens and the associations they form (even those serving the public) clearly should be allowed to, no matter how abhorrent.

I think the Tx ACLU has a point that state funds shouldn't by used to fund a private adoption agency that discriminates ... if that's actually the case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Strawman.

The members of the EU are countries; they are sovereign states. Individual States of the USA are not sovereign, they are simply provinces of the USA. The USA IS a sovereign state

Um not exactly. There has been a gradual increase in federal power but the constitution is written with the idea that the states are sovereign. Originally individual states could do things like ban catholics, like massachusetts did for the first several decades of the USA. Then after the civil war it was added that the constitution limited the states as well as the federal government.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Texas is allowing employees to act in accordance with their conscience.

But only because those are "Christian" objections. Adoption agencies should not be picking and choosing who they think are qualified parents based on religion or gender identity.
This bill is giving people work work for the government the "right" to discriminate and marginalize minorities.

Acting accordance to conscience should be limited to acts that do not damage others.

 

[marplots]

Yesterday, oral arguments before the 4th District Appeals court were held and we got an interesting look at an issue that applies to this bit of lawmaking. While the arguments were about the injunction against Trump's latest executive order on immigration, one item raised was how far the courts should "look behind" what motivated a law/regulation in the first place.

Let's assume Texans want this law (I don't think they do, or won't when they find out the consequences). And let's assume it passes Constitutional muster on its face - that is, the law is written in such a way that it sets out to protect certain Constitution rights and ranks them against other rights.

The question is then whether the legislators are merely constructing laws to promote a certain agenda - inserting Christian values along with anti-gay and anti-abortion. Should the courts "look behind" what the consequences of the law are, even if the law itself is "legal"?

In the Trump executive order injunction, it comes up because of Trump's rhetoric on the campaign trail. He's entitled to review policies on immigration, but is he only doing it for certain countries to punish them in particular? We suspect as much, but remember, this is the second bite at the executive order apple and purports to repair the poorly worded first version.

In Texas, is the Republican legislature trying to step around equal treatment under the law (anti-discrimination) by serving up a plate full of "protection" for religious freedom?

We can say they probably are, but it's not clear that knowing their motivation is enough to say the law itself is bad or unconstitutional.

 

[uke2se]

They don't. The state should never be allowed to discriminate, but private citizens and the associations they form (even those serving the public) clearly should be allowed to, no matter how abhorrent.

I don't see why they should. They aren't conducting private business. They are an agent of government. As such, they are non-religious.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't see why they should. They aren't conducting private business. They are an agent of government. As such, they are non-religious.

Exactly. A government agent can be as homophobic, racist and bigoted as they want as long as they do their job without such considerations. What they do outside of the workplace is of no concern, assuming it is legal.

 

[marplots]

I don't see why they should. They aren't conducting private business. They are an agent of government. As such, they are non-religious.

I think it's more complicated than that. Child welfare organizations may include non-profits which are at arm's length. They would have to follow the regulations laid down, but they wouldn't be directly employed by the government. It's not incorrect to say they are "agents" but misleading.

Here's my analogy. Suppose I provide meals to the children I have in foster care. I get money from the government to do it (and everything else I do for the kiddles). There may be regulations about what constitutes a healthy meal (so many calories, maybe breakfast/lunch/dinner has to be offered, etc.). But whether or not the food itself is Kosher probably isn't regulated.

If there is a shortage of services available (or even a demand for cheap services in a fiscal crunch situation), then overlooking my food choices is in the government's interest. Same with vegan, I suppose.

Regulate the important stuff but not the tangential stuff and get the best services for the kids in need you can.

 

[uke2se]

I think it's more complicated than that. Child welfare organizations may include non-profits which are at arm's length. They would have to follow the regulations laid down, but they wouldn't be directly employed by the government. It's not incorrect to say they are "agents" but misleading.

Here's my analogy. Suppose I provide meals to the children I have in foster care. I get money from the government to do it (and everything else). There may be regulations about what constitutes a healthy meal (so many calories, maybe breakfast/lunch/dinner has to be offer, etc.). But whether or not the food itself is Kosher probably isn't regulated.

If there is a shortage of services available (or even cheap services in a fiscal crunch situation), then overlooking my food choices is in the government's interest. Same with vegan, I suppose.

Regulate the important stuff but not the tangential stuff and get the best services for the kids in need you can.

As I said, this isn't very complicated. If you work as a public servant, you are by definition in the employ of the state as an agent thereof. If you do not work as a public servant, the same rules do not apply. I say this being a public servant myself.

 

[smartcooky]

You must be reading a different constitution. The one I read has a tenth amendment.

Under International Law a sovereign state is a non-physical juridical entity represented by a single centralized government, and which has exclusive sovereignty over a geographical area.

International law defines sovereign states as

► Having a permanent population
► Having defined territory
► Is Governed by One government
► Possessing the capacity to enter into doplomatic relations with other sovereign states
► being neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.


So I ask you, who is the North Carolina representative to the UN? Who is the West Virginia ambassador to South Korea? Who is the President of Nebraska? Who is the Australian High Commissioner to Utah?

Of course, there aren't any such positions, because the individual states of the USA are not sovereign... they might claim to be sovereign; 10A might imply that they are, but none of that has any standing or relevancy internationally

By the way, 10A doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means...

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...10th-amendment-protects-states-rights/241671/

 

[marplots]

As I said, this isn't very complicated. If you work as a public servant, you are by definition in the employ of the state as an agent thereof. If you do not work as a public servant, the same rules do not apply. I say this being a public servant myself.

Are we still talking about adoption agencies?

 

[uke2se]

Are we still talking about adoption agencies?

Is the adoption agency a private business?

 

[fuelair]

Texas decides to take a few steps back into 18th century !

Always several steps behind when you get right down to basics!!!!! Like a lot of the flyover land. Just cannot or will not catch up with the intelligent part of the country!!!!

Thus the idiots falling for trumpf and his fecality!!!!!!

 

[psionl0]

Under International Law a sovereign state is a non-physical juridical entity represented by a single centralized government, and which has exclusive sovereignty over a geographical area.

International law defines sovereign states as

► Having a permanent population
► Having defined territory
► Is Governed by One government
► Possessing the capacity to enter into doplomatic relations with other sovereign states
► being neither dependent on nor subjected to any other power or state.


So I ask you, who is the North Carolina representative to the UN? Who is the West Virginia ambassador to South Korea? Who is the President of Nebraska? Who is the Australian High Commissioner to Utah?

Of course, there aren't any such positions, because the individual states of the USA are not sovereign... they might claim to be sovereign; 10A might imply that they are, but none of that has any standing or relevancy internationally

By the way, 10A doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means...

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...10th-amendment-protects-states-rights/241671/

Most of that is irrelevant. You claimed that the states were merely "provinces" - as if the state governments were merely regional arms of the federal government.

That is not what the constitution says. The various powers are split between the federal government and the state governments. If the federal government does not have a specific power (whether expressed or implied) then it has no authority to make laws in that regard. Nor does it have the power to overrule a state government or direct a state government in regard to making laws on that matter.

I seriously doubt that you would actually want it otherwise. If Trump were to attempt to force Texan style policies on California (for example) then I'm sure that you would be among the first to defend the right of the Californian government to tell the federal government where to go.