Kansas Crimson

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:45 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:05 am 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?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:42 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 6:23 pmMaybe 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

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:19 pm in utah, mask wearing is very much political

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

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 12:10 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 11:45 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:05 am 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 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." ...

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:35 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:48 am 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"

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 11:09 am 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...

ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 8:12 am Beav: “Barrett’s wearing a mask...kinda surprising Republicans would confirm someone with such disregard for personal rights”