U.S. Politics - Indiana is super awesome

[TerraPrime]

Here be continue.

[The guy from the Vale]

If I hate pizza I think I am in the minority. I am not a minority under the law.

Well, but then being a pizza-lover doesn't incur you legal benefits the way being heterosexual is under the "one man, one woman" definition of marriage.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Once and Future King

If I hate pizza I think I am in the minority. I am not a minority under the law.

And the point is that to not include LBGT people as a protected class under the law is itself a form of bias.

But it doens't even matter. Libertarianism and small-government conservatism are both inherently and irreparably anti-minority. Talking about a pro-minority Libertarian is like trying to describe dry water.

But sure, do go on to imply that harassment and discrimination against LBGT people is quite comparable to one's favorite type of Italian cuisine. I'm fascinated.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question about whether your claim that the United States now is under dictatorship was made with the intention to equate the U.S. now with the Cuba of the 80s. I suppose that _is_ a difficult question to answer, isn't it?

[ThinkerX]

TP -

As somebody who dwells in 'Tea Party' country...

I suspect you are failing to make a distinction here:

Religious conservatives do detest gays and whatnot. Their holy rulebook requires it.

Non-religious conservatives are utterly indifferent to gays, unless a gay is being obnoxious. ('that sort of thing belongs in the bedroom - period' mentality).

[Cuellar]

These objections were all present before Pence signed the law. So it seems pretty clear that the real consequences -- boycott threats from GenCon, lost business from Salesforce, getting torn a new asshole by the Indy Star, the defiance from the mayor of Indianapolis, even boycotts by other states -- are what's driving Pence's newly discovered concern for being accurately perceived as a McJesus-pandering bigot.

I'd assume he got phone calls from major companies which weren't outspoken. You could imagine Anthem, Lily and Simon do NOT want to seem like bigots since the vast majority of their customers live in blue states, therefore were the first ones on the phone.

[Cuellar]

Non-religious conservatives are utterly indifferent to gays, unless a gay is being obnoxious. ('that sort of thing belongs in the bedroom - period' mentality).

I'd agree with you, but the non-religious conservatives generally have a "you scratch my back, I scratch your back" arrangement. They pass religious nutjob legislation in exchange for massive tax cuts for the wealthy (or their corporations).

[ThinkerX]

I'd agree with you, but the non-religious conservatives generally have a "you scratch my back, I scratch your back" arrangement. They pass religious nutjob legislation in exchange for massive tax cuts for the wealthy (or their corporations).

The sentiment is true at the personal/local level - non-religious conservatives do not care about gay's at all. Anti-gay types that make a fuss are...well, a minority. Local politicians across the spectrum are far, far more concerned about roads, schools, and fishing/development rights.

What you describe does happen at the state politic level, but even there, given any significant blowback, the non-religious conservatives will back out of the deal. It simply doesn't interest them.

And for what its worth, most of the Tea Party types around here are not exactly rich. Lots of them have SS as their major income (which they adamantly deny is socialism)

[The Once and Future King]

Re: Once and Future King

And the point is that to not include LBGT people as a protected class under the law is itself a form of bias.

But it doens't even matter. Libertarianism and small-government conservatism are both inherently and irreparably anti-minority. Talking about a pro-minority Libertarian is like trying to describe dry water.

But sure, do go on to imply that harassment and discrimination against LBGT people is quite comparable to one's favorite type of Italian cuisine. I'm fascinated.

By the way, you still haven't answered the question about whether your claim that the United States now is under dictatorship was made with the intention to equate the U.S. now with the Cuba of the 80s. I suppose that _is_ a difficult question to answer, isn't it?

Should foot or fat fetishes be a protected class?

[karaddin]

Orientation is not a fetish. Oops did I just disagree with the brave manly man veteran, I forgot that isn't allowed.

[TerraPrime]

Should foot or fat fetishes be a protected class?

Well I see we've been up-graded from culinary preference to a sexual fetish.

I guess the answer depends on if you'd consider a boobs and vagina fetish worthy of being protected from being denied jobs and housing and marriage. You seem to think that the word "fetish" automatically has some inherent devaluing property when attached to an act - it doesn't. We're all fetishists, with the difference that some fetishes are accepted by social norms and some aren't. A straight man's obsession with a woman's boobs (see: SI swimswuit edition or Hooters) is no more valid than my fetish for a rocking hard cock.

But, don't let that stop you. I am enjoying the evolution of your remarks that reveal to us how you see homo/bi-sexuality. It's rare that someone is this candid about their condescension.

[MerenthaClone]

Should foot or fat fetishes be a protected class?

Potentially, should there be significant attempts to deny people legal rights based on said "fetish", but that's utterly missing the point. Carry on being a hilarious caricature, though.

[The Once and Future King]

Well I see we've been up-graded from culinary preference to a sexual fetish.

I guess the answer depends on if you'd consider a boobs and vagina fetish worthy of being protected from being denied jobs and housing and marriage. You seem to think that the word "fetish" automatically has some inherent devaluing property when attached to an act - it doesn't. We're all fetishists, with the difference that some fetishes are accepted by social norms and some aren't. A straight man's obsession with a woman's boobs (see: SI swimswuit edition or Hooters) is no more valid than my fetish for a rocking hard cock.

But, don't let that stop you. I am enjoying the evolution of your remarks that reveal to us how you see homo/bi-sexuality. It's rare that someone is this candid about their condescension.

I am not denying there is bais against gays. I am saying that doesn't automatically make them a protected class. I dont think you can compare the gay struggle in this country to that of african americans. And when you throw them in as equal protected classes thats what you do.

I am not saying Rand is right. I am just saying that this particular line of his is not that morally reprehensible or non libertarian.

And the reason I compared orientation to food preference is I hold them as equal. I would as soon judge someone for who they want to fk as I would for what they want to eat.

[The Fallen]

The sentiment is true at the personal/local level - non-religious conservatives do not care about gay's at all. Anti-gay types that make a fuss are...well, a minority. Local politicians across the spectrum are far, far more concerned about roads, schools, and fishing/development rights.

What you describe does happen at the state politic level, but even there, given any significant blowback, the non-religious conservatives will back out of the deal. It simply doesn't interest them.

And for what its worth, most of the Tea Party types around here are not exactly rich. Lots of them have SS as their major income (which they adamantly deny is socialism)

Speaking of socialism.

I was thinking of how the wealthy only abhor socialism for the masses. I mean, they love socialism for things like having stadiums and arenas built. And the leagues themselves are socialist. All the revenue gets spread around; teams in weak markets get supported by teams in high revenue markets. And everybody does well.

But God forbid that the country operate in the same way.

ETA:

Not that I'm advocating socialism. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

[TerraPrime]

Re: The Once and Future King

I am not denying their is bais against gays.

Okay. I am glad we got that far.

I am saying that doesn't automatically make it a protected class.

So what are the criteria to qualify as a protected class, in your view?

I dont think you can compare the gay struggle to that of african americans.

Did you know that like black people, LBGT people were denied many opportunites to serve in the armed services?

Did you know that like black-white couples, LBGT people are denied the legal marriage to marry the people whom they love?

Did you know that like skin color, one's sexual orientation has frequently been used to discriminate against people at jobs?

Then, there are ways in which black people had been mistreated but which gay people have not experienced, e.g. there was never generational chattel slavery for gay people, and there were never formal policies for separate-but-equal doctrine affecting gay people's lives. Yet, at the same time, there are ways in which gay people have been mistreated but which black people never have to experience, e.g. black people didn't have to contend with having their skin coloration considered perversion or immoral, and black people weren't subjected to inhumane chemical and electrical treatments to cure them of their skin color. And, probably because there were very few black people in Germany, they weren't really targeted by the Nazis, and yet, homosexual people, along with Jews, the Roma people, socialists, and other social undesirables, were rounded up in the concentration camps during the Holocaust.

So, clearly, being gay and being black are not identical experiences, and you will never hear me argue otherwise. But the way that oppression works on each respective group shares a lot of common factors and a lot of similar manifestations (alienation, othering, scape-goating, etc.). This is not an Oppression Olympics where each gorup vies for the honor of coming out at the bottom of the heap. Even if we accept that gay people are *less* ill-treated than black people have been, it still falls short of justifying the refusal to account for the historical and documented biases against LBGT people. After all, if only the winner of the Oppression Olympics deserves full legal protection, then I'd say indigenous Indians probably win the game and the rest of us sould just pack up and go home. Yet, we have a First Amendment to protect both religious minorities and mainstreatm Christians, and we all know that mainstream Christians are, by far, lesser ill-treated than LBGT people are. So, are you contending that the First Amendment's protection of religion is invalid because Christians, as a whole, suffered a lot less than black people, as a group, has? Or, to put it another way: since being a follower of Methodist faith protects one from being denied marriage based on that fact, does that mean that being a Methodist in the U.S. leads to more persecution and more discrimination than being gay, to the level where being a Methodist is comparable to being black?

And, honestly, unless you're black, there's a strong whiff of appropriating the oppression of a class of people for your own political argument here.

And when you throw them in as equal protected classes thats what you do.

That's one bizarre piece of logic. Being a woman is also a protected class. Are we then saying that being a woman is categorically the same as being black? Or as I mentioned above, being a Catholic is the same as being a woman, etc.? How does this reasoning even work?

[The Once and Future King]

Re: The Once and Future King

Okay. I am glad we got that far.

So what are the criteria to qualify as a protected class, in your view?

Did you know that like black people, LBGT people were denied many opportunites to serve in the armed services?

Did you know that like black-white couples, LBGT people are denied the legal marriage to marry the people whom they love?

Did you know that like skin color, one's sexual orientation has frequently been used to discriminate against people at jobs?

Then, there are ways in which black people had been mistreated but which gay people have not experienced, e.g. there was never generational chattel slavery for gay people, and there were never formal policies for separate-but-equal doctrine affecting gay people's lives. Yet, at the same time, there are ways in which gay people have been mistreated but which black people never have to experience, e.g. black people didn't have to contend with having their skin coloration considered perversion or immoral, and black people weren't subjected to inhumane chemical and electrical treatments to cure them of their skin color. And, probably because there were very few black people in Germany, they weren't really targeted by the Nazis, and yet, homosexual people, along with Jews, the Roma people, socialists, and other social undesirables, were rounded up in the concentration camps during the Holocaust.

So, clearly, being gay and being black are not identical experiences, and you will never hear me argue otherwise. But the way that oppression works on each respective group shares a lot of common factors and a lot of similar manifestations (alienation, othering, scape-goating, etc.). This is not an Oppression Olympics where each gorup vies for the honor of coming out at the bottom of the heap. Even if we accept that gay people are *less* ill-treated than black people have been, it still falls short of justifying the refusal to account for the historical and documented biases against LBGT people. After all, if only the winner of the Oppression Olympics deserves full legal protection, then I'd say indigenous Indians probably win the game and the rest of us sould just pack up and go home. Yet, we have a First Amendment to protect both religious minorities and mainstreatm Christians, and we all know that mainstream Christians are, by far, lesser ill-treated than LBGT people are. So, are you contending that the First Amendment's protection of religion is invalid because Christians, as a whole, suffered a lot less than black people, as a group, has? Or, to put it another way: since being a follower of Methodist faith protects one from being denied marriage based on that fact, does that mean that being a Methodist in the U.S. leads to more persecution and more discrimination than being gay, to the level where being a Methodist is comparable to being black?

And, honestly, unless you're black, there's a strong whiff of appropriating the oppression of a class of people for your own political argument here.

That's one bizarre piece of logic. Being a woman is also a protected class. Are we then saying that being a woman is categorically the same as being black? Or as I mentioned above, being a Catholic is the same as being a woman, etc.? How does this reasoning even work?

the article qouted him in a speech about the civil rights act. The way I understood it he felt it should not apply to gays. I was trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to rationalize that argument.

The fact is (and while not technically African American I have mixed blood and am far from Caucasian) Blacks have had it worse in this country than anyone else. Even post slavery, jim crow, lynch mobs, open discrimination, leading to the self imposed ghetto lifestyle leading to the disproportionate amount of black men in jail and shot by police today.

The civil rights act was made to target one specific major issue in out history and present political debate. While gays have had it bad in this country and I feel for their plight, saying they should be a protected group same as sons of former slaves is improper.

Also and I am not advising it is possible to hide being gay. Its harder to hide being a woman or being black. So while that should be a protected class by his logic, gay which is a behavior you can avoid in public and hide should not be

The CRA was about survival. Thats not what gays are fighting for.

[TrackerNeil]

The CRA was about survival. Thats not what gays are fighting for.

You had better be f*cking gay to say this. You had better be.

[Jaxom 1974]

The CRA was about survival. Thats not what gays are fighting for.

Part of me wants to believe you're not actually deliberately being obtuse. A small part. But I don't actually believe that.

[Shryke]

Ugh, we don't need more of this shit. Let's talk about the circus instead.

The stench-pond of Christie's career continues to bubble:

Chris Christie’s administration, criticized for the skyrocketing fees that New Jersey has paid private financial firms to manage the state’s billions of dollars of pension investments, tried a novel way to defend itself this week: It disputed the data that Christie officials themselves had published.

At the same time, recent statements by New Jersey investment officials suggest that additional fees -- perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars -- have been paid to financial firms during the Republican governor’s tenure but gone undisclosed.

On Monday, testifying to state legislators about the annual budget, New Jersey Treasurer Andrew Sidamon-Eristoff said Christie officials have been “very frustrated with the distortions and misrepresentations” about fees. “The amount of total standard fees” that New Jersey is paying for its investments in private equity, hedge funds, venture capital and other “alternative investments,” he said, is “about $265 million” --- which he asserted is “very competitive.” The governor's treasury department spokesman, Chris Santarelli, echoed that testimony, saying it is "simply not factual" to say that New Jersey is now spending "$600 million to run the pension fund."

Those declarations don’t square with figures from the Christie administration's own documents.

According to Christie administration financial statements released in January, New Jersey paid out $600.2 million worth of fees to financial firms in 2014. That includes $265.4 million in management fees -- along with $334.8 million in performance fees that Christie officials abruptly and without explanation renamed "allocations." Some of those fees have been paid to firms whose executives madedonations to Republican groups backing Christie’s election campaigns. In all, New Jersey has reported spending more than $1.5 billion on financial fees since Christie took office.

The New Jersey Treasury Department did not respond to International Business Times' request for comment.

http://www.ibtimes.com/chris-christie-officials-suggest-new-jersey-paid-millions-undisclosed-fees-1864514

Really makes you appreciate the rumours that Romney's campaign looked into the guy for anything that could be a liability if they had him on the ticket and then ran screaming.

[TerraPrime]

The CRA was about survival. Thats not what gays are fighting for.

Oh I see. So what are gays fighting for?

[karaddin]

The civil rights act was made to target one specific major issue in out history and present political debate. While gays have had it bad in this country and I feel for their plight, saying they should be a protected group same as sons of former slaves is improper.

Also and I am not advising it is possible to hide being gay. Its harder to hide being a woman or being black. So while that should be a protected class by his logic, gay which is a behavior you can avoid in public and hide should not be

The CRA was about survival. Thats not what gays are fighting for.

On the bolded, given your comment about thinking orientation is comparable to food preferences on the very same page as your post, I very much fucking doubt that you "feel for our plight", even when you are spouting this shit you still try and pretend that you aren't being anti-gay.

Meanwhile I'll just sit here and watch trans women continue to be murdered and little to nothing be done about it, but hey...its not like being brutally and horifically tortured then murdered is about survival. Or on the rare case a trans woman manages to defend herself, SHE gets arrested and charged for having the temerity not to just lie down and accept death. And it's great when Christian parents abuse their child into suicide, seeming so unsurprised by it that they have a bullshit facebook post pretending she was in an accident ready to go the day she died, almost like her suicide was their intent. No fight for survival here.