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

[uke2se]

I think that's the point of the legislation, isn't it? To allow an exception for faith-based organizations to discriminate in circumstances where secular organizations are not allowed to do so.

And, while not "public servants" per se, these outfits do receive public funding and are highly regulated. But it would be the same for a doctor who accepts Medicaid patients, but not if the patient is gay (hypothetical). So long as the doctor could show she based the preference on her religious values.

At least, that's how I read the legislation. If I misunderstood, straighten me out.

Probably right. It's the problem with having privatized health care. In Sweden, businesses aren't allowed to discriminate either, but apparently there's different rules in the US. If that's what you want, have at it.

 

[marplots]

Probably right. It's the problem with having privatized health care. In Sweden, businesses aren't allowed to discriminate either, but apparently there's different rules in the US. If that's what you want, have at it.

It's not what I want, but I don't live in Texas. (My daughter does.)

 

[Spindrift]

Not a strawman. The US is a federation of semi-sovereign states. It is not now, and has never been, a single sovereign entity.

No. The Articles of Confederation ceased to be in force in 1787, it's the UNITED States of America. United as in becoming one. It is not the Federated or Confederated States.

The states are not semi-sovereign any more than Topeka is semi-sovereign.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. The Articles of Confederation ceased to be in force in 1787, it's the UNITED States of America. United as in becoming one. It is not the Federated or Confederated States.

The states are not semi-sovereign any more than Topeka is semi-sovereign.

10th Amendment...

The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Spindrift]

10th Amendment...

Very good and so what? Doesn't make the states semi-sovereign nor does it make the United States a federation.

 

[Ziggurat]

Very good and so what? Doesn't make the states semi-sovereign nor does it make the United States a federation.

So what indeed. Why does that matter? The 10th amendment gives states the right to have their own laws on a wide range of subjects. Why is this a bad thing? smartcookie declared it was bad, but provided no real argument in support. Do you have an argument for why states shouldn't be able to make their own laws? I can give two for why they should: first, because conditions (and the desires of citizens) vary between states, and second, because it allows for experimentation.

 

[ahhell]

Very good and so what? Doesn't make the states semi-sovereign nor does it make the United States a federation.

You are right of course, its the main body of the constitution that makes the states semi-soviereign and the United States a federation. Not only states are semi-sovereign entities within the United States but many Native tribes are also semi-sovereign.

The US is a federation if for no other reason than the Federal government can't disband a state government or. The feds can't even set rules for electing federal congressman. The States get to decide what system of laws they use as noted previously, LA's is based on Roman law rather than English common law for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism#United_States

 

[Minoosh]

Slightly off topic... it has not been my experience that Catholics, in general, would be considered 'extreme religious fundamentalists'. There may be a few small sects within Catholicism that qualify, but in general, Catholics are rarely in the fundy camp. Baptists, on the other hand...

I wasn't talking about Catholics, or even Christians in particular. I was talking about ideological rigidity that might harm a child. Plenty of people think circumcising baby boys is mutilation, yet it is quite common and predictable if an adoptive family is Jewish or Muslim. If you then say it's OK to circumcise boys, is it OK to "circumcise" girls? The two are not IMO analogous - removing a clitoris is not the same thing as removing a foreskin - but I can't really defend male circumcision on its merits, either.

I am not caught up on the thread but as far as I've read the situation where no public funds are involved hasn't been addressed.

 

[dudalb]

Anyway we can force Mexico to Take Back Texas?

 

[ddt]

I have learned something of Germany. Now I wonder what the point of German federalism is, a legal fiction to maintain Prussian* egos?

*Probably not Prussians, they're likely fine, probably the egos of those in the lesser known states, you know, they ones I can't name. Probably galls them that I can name Prussian but not becky shecky burg.

That's an interesting question, but it certainly isn't to maintain Prussian ego, as (East) Prussia lies completely outside the current German borders. More to satisfy Bavarian ego, I suppose. But Germany in all its incorporations has been a federal or confederal state, so I think it's also a matter of tradition. On top of that, when (West) Germany was founded, it was divided between three Allied occupation zones. And the Allies had formed those states at that time.

Anyway, you can find the division between federal and state responsibilities in Germany's constitution from article 70 on.

Anyrate, I meant to comment on the notion that a federal system of shared sovereignty is barbaric which I find odd.

I don't agree with "barbaric", but as someone from a unitary state I find it decidedly odd that things like family law, contract law or what constitutes a crime, strictu senso, vary from place to place within a sovereign state.

 

[Polaris]

Anyway we can force Mexico to Take Back Texas?

I'm down. Probably would improve my health care.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

So what's the deal? Do you want to increase tax on the wealthy? Do you want to help the poor? Or do you want to increase tax on wealthy republicans and redistribute those funds to poor democrats? Are people who live in red states just not the right kind of poor people for you? Is it only poor people in blue states that merit your compassion, and the rest can go rot because they don't think the right way?

Egads. The disconnect between the profoundly held belief that money should be redistributed from the wealthy to the poor and the complaint that poor states get more money redistributed to them from wealthy states is just mind boggling.

Not at all; I just think that it is hypocritical to complain about the "nanny state" when people from every political strata benefit from the system. Signs espousing "get your hands off my Medicare!" come to mind.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't agree with "barbaric", but as someone from a unitary state I find it decidedly odd that things like family law, contract law or what constitutes a crime, strictu senso, vary from place to place within a sovereign state.

Just for consideration... The Netherlands is smaller than West Virginia. The US is over 200 times the size of the Netherlands. We have significantly broader diversity, both in terms of ethnicity and in terms of culture.

Is it really so hard to understand that the people in Italy might have a different enough culture from the Netherlands to justify different laws?

Yes, I know - "one government!". But it's NOT one government. It's 50 different cultures with 50 different histories and 50 different sets of influences and 50 fairly independent governing bodies, all of which have representation to the federal "oversight committee" that acts in much the same way as the EU. Not identical, but a lot of similarities.

 

[smartcooky]

The right is nothing but a bunch of stupid, idiotic, liars who constantly preach their independence of the government who are entirely dependent upon the government.

... and the first ones to start braying when their Social Security check doesn't arrive!

 

[quadraginta]

There's an ironic note here. Texas just enacted a state law meant to tighten up what their member cities are allowed to do. They want laws and enforcement to be equalized across the state - one of this "sanctuary city" nonsense and no "lowering enforcement priority" for minor drug offenses.

By the same token, NC's HB2 "standardized" minority protections by forbidding any local governments from enacting rules which provided more protections than the state already did.

Which meant, for example, that a city couldn't require its contractors to guarantee equal employment protection for LGBT rights, since the state doesn't do that.

Conservatives don't seem to have a problem with that sort of standardization as long as it prevents minorities from getting any more protection from bigotry and prejudice than they have managed so far.

It seems that it is only those statutes which might provide them with more protection that they see as a threat.

 

[quadraginta]

Maybe but the 1st amendment clearly says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...".

Requiring somebody to act contrary to their religious beliefs seems about as unconstitutional as it gets.

There are other alternatives such as refusing funding or certification to somebody who declares that they would not follow policy.

Reasonable people would not try to get a job which requires them to do things that their religious beliefs find morally objectionable.

Demanding that anti-discrimination laws be changed so that they can engage in the bigotry their religion requires of them no matter what kind of work they are doing is nothing but an end-run into theocracy.

 

[quadraginta]

Anyway we can force Mexico to Take Back Texas?

I'm down. Probably would improve my health care.

Why would Mexico want to pay to support all those lazy, shiftless gringos?

 

[marplots]

Reasonable people would not try to get a job which requires them to do things that their religious beliefs find morally objectionable.

I don't think it's quite that clear. In the cases I've seen (including the notorious Kim Davis case), the act was incidental to the job, not a primary or even anticipated function.

Demanding that anti-discrimination laws be changed so that they can engage in the bigotry their religion requires of them no matter what kind of work they are doing is nothing but an end-run into theocracy.

There's another view here. How far should secular society be able to push against "sincerely held" religious beliefs? Should I lose my job because I won't participate in sologamy?

 

[quadraginta]

I don't think it's quite that clear. In the cases I've seen (including the notorious Kim Davis case), the act was incidental to the job, not a primary or even anticipated function.

Kim Davis was the County Clerk. Issuing marriage licenses wasn't just "incidental" to her job. She was the only person in the county who was assigned that responsibility. By law. And it was a position she sought out. She had to run for the office and get elected.

I don't know what world you are from to think it was "incidental".

There's another view here. How far should secular society be able to push against "sincerely held" religious beliefs? Should I lose my job because I won't participate in sologamy?

The issue here isn't what you are made to do, but what you are preventing other people from doing.

Nobody was trying to force Kim Davis into a same-sex marriage.

 

[marplots]

Kim Davis was the County Clerk. Issuing marriage licenses wasn't just "incidental" to her job. She was the only person in the county who was assigned that responsibility. By law. And it was a position she sought out. She had to run for the office and get elected.

I don't know what world you are from to think it was "incidental".

She was elected 6 months before SCOTUS ruled on Obergefell v. Hodges.

The issue here isn't what you are made to do, but what you are preventing other people from doing.

Nobody was trying to force Kim Davis into a same-sex marriage.

They were forcing her to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples. As far as I can tell, this went against her "sincerely held religious beliefs."

There really is a conflict here between different views. Texans have a right to determine where they think the best balance is, providing they manage to do it without going beyond the bounds already set by federal law.