RIP RBG

[Deleted User 310]

Maybe i live in a unique area (i don't really think so but...), but mask wearing here does not seem to be so much about political party. I see/know plenty of dems who don't wear masks and who are hanging out in bars restaurants....is it more clearly political in your areas?

In the rural areas/counties where i work mask wearing is probably at 20% max.

So do people wear "I am a Dem" signs around their necks where you live? How exactly are you coming to all this conclusions? Or are you just assuming that is what you're seeing?

And do you hang out in lots of bars/restaurants, providing you the ability to see the volume and political affiliation of these other people hanging out there?

Or are you just making this all up to support your point?

Yes we wear signs here.

Or maybe i know enough people to draw an anecdotal conclusion that mask wearing in my town isn't split right down party lines?

Many people are pretty vocal about their political beliefs these days. Many people also post their entire lives on social media. I know republican business owners and people who wear masks. I know vocal dems who don't.

Take it for what is worth, which is very little. I just don't believe that in some areas mask wearing is solely a political thing. It is a lifestyle thing for a lot of people imo.

[ousdahl]

Maybe she will make a good supreme court justice? We should give her a chance. She is far less problematic and creepy as Brett Kavanaugh.

the thing is, it’s a lifetime appointment

you can’t just “give them a chance” and hope...this isn’t fast food

Maybe she will be a good Justice, and maybe we should give her a chance...after a thorough and exhaustive hearing to get a better understanding of just why she would be a good justice.

But who knows whether that hearing will be thorough and exhaustive when the party with the deciding votes is in such a hurry about it...and now, also potential on sick leave to boot...

[Deleted User 89]

in utah, mask wearing is very much political

so, who’s anecdote are you gonna believe/trust more?

[Deleted User 310]

in utah, mask wearing is very much political

so, who’s anecdote are you gonna believe/trust more?

I believe/trust them equally. That is why i asked about your areas. It wasn't some master plan to end up with a "gotcha!".

[twocoach]

Maybe i live in a unique area (i don't really think so but...), but mask wearing here does not seem to be so much about political party. I see/know plenty of dems who don't wear masks and who are hanging out in bars restaurants....is it more clearly political in your areas?

In the rural areas/counties where i work mask wearing is probably at 20% max.

So do people wear "I am a Dem" signs around their necks where you live? How exactly are you coming to all this conclusions? Or are you just assuming that is what you're seeing?

And do you hang out in lots of bars/restaurants, providing you the ability to see the volume and political affiliation of these other people hanging out there?

Or are you just making this all up to support your point?

Yes we wear signs here.

Or maybe i know enough people to draw an anecdotal conclusion that mask wearing in my town isn't split right down party lines?

Many people are pretty vocal about their political beliefs these days. Many people also post their entire lives on social media. I know republican business owners and people who wear masks. I know vocal dems who don't.

Take it for what is worth, which is very little. I just don't believe that in some areas mask wearing is solely a political thing. It is a lifestyle thing for a lot of people imo.

The vast majority of people I am friends with on Facebook share nothing about their political opinions. And no one shares their entire lives on social media.

And yes, I know many Republicans who adhere to the mask mandates of their area but no, I am not aware of any of the vocal dems that I know who do not wear masks when mandated. The only people who I know personally who do not are all hard-core republicans.

[ousdahl]

Justices Thomas, Alito Blast Supreme Court Decision On Same-Sex Marriage Rights

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/05/92041635 ... age-rights

The two justices agreed with the decision not to hear the case but used the occasion to take a legal baseball bat to the court's 2015 decision Obergefell v. Hodges, which declared that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry under the 14th Amendment guarantee to equal protection of the law.

Writing for himself and Alito, Thomas said that the court's decision "enables courts and governments to brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots, making their religious liberty concerns that much easier to dismiss."

His words came in a case brought by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky, who in the aftermath of the same-sex marriage decision refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and was sued.

"Davis may have been one of the first victims of this court's cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision," Thomas and Alito wrote. But they agreed that the court properly decided not to take up Davis' case because, they said, it does not "cleanly" present the issues in the court's 5-4 decision five years ago.

Nevertheless, they said, the case "provides a stark reminder" of the consequences of the same-sex marriage decision. By choosing to endorse "a novel constitutional right over the religious liberty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment, and by doing so undemocratically, the court has created a problem that only it can fix," they said. "Until then, Obergefell will continue to have ruinous consequences for religious liberty." ...

[Deleted User 89]

i particularly liked RBG’s take o the constitution

“We the people” needs to be interpreted to include everyone, not just the “we” that was intended when the document was written, or any iterations since...but EVERYONE

[ousdahl]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

my initial reaction was something like, if you don't like same-sex marriage then don't get one.

but does that extend to "if you don't like same-sex marriage then don't get a public official job that has to issue them" ...?

should the 14th amendment and equal protection mean a county clerk should have to just suck it up, or get a new job? Or should the 1st amendment and religious freedom extend to disallowing gay marriage just in case a county clerk doesn't wanna have to issue the license?

I imagine where this will end up being challenged is with like a religious school or something that doesn't wanna have to provide benefits to a same-sex spouse?

but to me, that more than anything else is an argument to just do away from the whole employer-provided model of health insurance...

[ousdahl]

where do my rights end and yours begin?

[Deleted User 318]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this.

my initial reaction was something like, if you don't like same-sex marriage then don't get one.

but does that extend to "if you don't like same-sex marriage then don't get a public official job that has to issue them" ...?

should the 14th amendment and equal protection mean a county clerk should have to just suck it up, or get a new job? Or should the 1st amendment and religious freedom extend to disallowing gay marriage just in case a county clerk doesn't wanna have to issue the license?

I imagine where this will end up being challenged is with like a religious school or something that doesn't wanna have to provide benefits to a same-sex spouse?

but to me, that more than anything else is an argument to just do away from the whole employer-provided model of health insurance...

Very Illy of you.

Just think of this.

If you don't like black people, you don't get to say I won't hire black people. No matter what your position is. Same-sex marriage is being protected by the same clause.

[ousdahl]

in an alternate universe, Merica grows up with a much different reading of the 1st amendment, and "no law respecting an establishment of religion" is interpreted more broadly than "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

and instead of making it all the way to scotus, the Kim Davises of the world are instead regarded as the kooky mystics they are, and are politely thrown out of the lower courts when they show up with a legal argument "under God's authority..."

[Deleted User 89]

too much god is the problem

there is a reason the founders wanted separation if church and state

[Deleted User 318]

in an alternate universe, Merica grows up with a much different reading of the 1st amendment, and "no law respecting an establishment of religion" is interpreted more broadly than "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You are misinterpreting. The government is not making a law to prohibit the free exercise of religion by protecting gay marriage. It's the complete opposite, not forcing religious views, that would infringe on others' religious views, no matter how mainstream. (church/state thing). You don't get to force your religious views on others, which would be what Kim Davis is doing. Otherwise, we would have (obviously hyperbolic) waiters refusing to serve people pork because they were Jewish or Muslim.

Kim Davis can yell all day about how she hates the gays, but she cannot force that on others.

Also, the US has a long history of infringing on religious rights, even Christians. You just have to do it across the board that isn't targeting a single religion.

[ousdahl]

thanks for the breakdown.

but then what is Davis, and/or Thomas and Alito, even trying to argue, then? that is IS a law prohibiting free exercise?

the pork analogy don't even seem that hyperbolic. I mean we have county clerks refusing marriage licenses cuz they're Christian. is it really that far off?

and you forgot to mention the part about how Kim Davis is also a closeted carpet muncher...

[Deleted User 318]

thanks for the breakdown.

but then what is Davis, and/or Thomas and Alito, even trying to argue, then? that is IS a law prohibiting free exercise?

the pork analogy don't even seem that hyperbolic. I mean we have county clerks refusing marriage licenses cuz they're Christian. is it really that far off?

and you forgot to mention the part about how Kim Davis is also a closeted carpet muncher...

Christians, who rule 90% of the world, want to rule 100%. People want to have power over people. You thin the pool (you need to be straight and/or white and/or male and/or Christian and/or ...) you get that power by default. There is literally no reason to disallow gay marriage, except for a select reading from a fake book written by people who want power over people. The same book says slavery is okay, no tampons, and silk and cotton cannot be blended together.

[Deleted User 89]

lotsa truth there

not to mention all the biblical contradictions

[ousdahl]

Who’s watching the hearings today?

[ousdahl]

Graham: “RBG was confirmed 96-3, but those days are long past, and I regret that. I don’t know what happened”


motherfucker YOU happened!

[ousdahl]

Beav: “Barrett’s wearing a mask...kinda surprising Republicans would confirm someone with such disregard for personal rights”

[Deleted User 310]

Beav: “Barrett’s wearing a mask...kinda surprising Republicans would confirm someone with such disregard for personal rights”

Hasn't she already contracted and recovered from covid19?

Also: we know "beav" doesn't exist....but i will play along...it is a personal right to wear a mask, just like it is a personal right not to....but it is also a business owners personal right to not allow people in their establishment without a mask. And people who don't like that have the personal right now to frequent that establishment.