In The News Today...

Quote: Gandler

To your second point:

Republicans don't realize how great that Court decision was for them, it gives them an out to never talk about gay marriage again. And, yet they still mess it up. My guess is they want to appeal to their religious base and look tough on an issue that they know they cannot change.

For example there are several Republicans I would vote for on foreign policy alone if they were not insane on social policy. There are some rare Republicans like Dick Cheney who are great on both issues (even before most Democrats, look at the very first VP debates in 2000).

I agree about the SCOTUS decision and anything else along those lines.

The one area where Republicans get in trouble is the whole, "Denial of service," theoretical (and sometimes, actual) question. Interestingly enough, I actually side with the Republican company line that a business has the right to refuse a service if the owner/operator of that service sees it as violating their religion. In general, I think businesses have the right to refuse service, but not on the grounds of someone simply being gay, but you know, the whole wedding cake thing. I don't think that a business can advance the argument that serving a gay person at all violates their religion, but I think the argument can be made for specific types of services.

That doesn't make religion or refusing a paying customer any less stupid, of course, unless they think that such refusal is going to be advertising by way of virtue signal...but that's pretty gross behavior, if so, and is a cynical bridge too far even for me.

Besides, that's what boycotts are for, anyway. You're a baker and you want to hide behind Christianity as an excuse to not prepare a cake for a homosexual wedding ceremony? Cool. Well, I don't want your donuts and coffee anymore.

I do agree with the, "Look tough," theory, but I don't think it's at all necessary for them anymore---and especially not in General Elections. The Evangelical folks, I would think, would settle for a person just by virtue of them not being a Democrat.

The 538 article was pretty interesting, if you haven't read it yet. Obviously, you know and I know that homosexuality is but a small component of the total makeup of a person...but I think we can sometimes forget that when it comes to speech politic, so it's a good reminder that it is only rarely a key issue for those voters.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-some-lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-americans-are-loyal-to-the-gop/

Quote: Gandler

Republicans don't realize how great that Court decision was for them, it gives them an out to never talk about gay marriage again. And, yet they still mess it up. My guess is they want to appeal to their religious base and look tough on an issue that they know they cannot change.

For example there are several Republicans I would vote for on foreign policy alone if they were not insane on social policy. There are some rare Republicans like Dick Cheney who are great on both issues (even before most Democrats, look at the very first VP debates in 2000).

You have highlited the great divide in the US perfectly. Anyone that doesn't agree with your social policies is "insane". That is very inclusive language from the party that champions exclusivity.

Quote: kenarman

You have highlited the great divide in the US perfectly. Anyone that doesn't agree with your social policies is "insane". That is very inclusive language from the party that champions exclusivity.

He can think that their social policies are insane without infringing upon their right to have insane social policies. The Evangelical Right is all about infringing/restricting peoples' rights to do things...not merely saying that the things being done are, "Insane."

Gay marriage allowed, law of the land 2015. Just this year, same sex spouses can now receive SS survivor benefits like same sex marriages. More things still need to be done.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-allies-pressed-defense-department-to-help-overturn-election-new-book-says/ar-AAQLoyx?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

Wow
Flynn pressed the defense dept to overturn the election

Fascinating conversation

"Flynn told him to cut his trip short and get back to the United States immediately because there were big things about to happen," according to the book. Karl writes that Flynn told Cohen, "We need you," and told the DoD official that "there was going to be an epic showdown over the election results."

Flynn, according to the book, urged Cohen that "he needed to get orders signed, that ballots needed to be seized, and that extraordinary measures needed to be taken to stop Democrats from stealing the election."

"As Flynn ranted about the election fight, [Cohen] felt his old boss sounded manic," Karl writes in the book. "He didn't sound like the same guy he had worked for."

"Sir, the election is over," Cohen told Flynn, according to the book. "It's time to move on."

Flynn, according to Karl, fired back: "You're a quitter! This is not over! Don't be a quitter!"

Karl writes that after a heated few minutes, Flynn hung up the phone -- and that was the last time the two men talked.

Quote: Mission146

The one area where Republicans get in trouble is the whole, "Denial of service," theoretical (and sometimes, actual) question. Interestingly enough, I actually side with the Republican company line that a business has the right to refuse a service if the owner/operator of that service sees it as violating their religion. In general, I think businesses have the right to refuse service, but not on the grounds of someone simply being gay, but you know, the whole wedding cake thing. I don't think that a business can advance the argument that serving a gay person at all violates their religion, but I think the argument can be made for specific types of services.

Few businesses will deny service for *being* gay. Now, I may say "no thanks" to working a gig at a gay wedding or a baker may say they do not do gay cakes, do not stock same sex figurines, etc. But those are custom services.

Prohibiting gay behavior, OTOH, that is a different story. A bar may not want his bar to turn into a gay hangout driving straight business away. Any place may not want what we can call "flaming gay behavior" in their place. But the same businesses will probably not allow say someone with fascist or communist outfits hanging around, either.

If a business acts pro-gay I usually try to take my business elsewhere. They need to quit shoving politics in my face.

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/best-fact-checking-websites/

Funny, there's no conspiracy theory that non-official visits by high profile Americans who visit Russia get a microchip in their brain. Flynn, Trump. Steven Seagal, all did this.

All appear to have loose marbles.

Quote: kenarman

You have highlited the great divide in the US perfectly. Anyone that doesn't agree with your social policies is "insane". That is very inclusive language from the party that champions exclusivity.

Yes restricting consenting adults from being together is insane. And, it is done to appeal to religious extremists (which makes it even more insane).

There is no logical argument against gay marriage.

Don't get me wrong many Dems are/were wrong on the issue as well. Even Obama was against gay marriage until less than 5 years ago. Even on the left some (many) are afraid of the religious groups (to a lesser extent), and only change when it is politically safe to do so. But, the right is without dispute worse on this issue (by a large margin).

Quote: Mission146

He can think that their social policies are insane without infringing upon their right to have insane social policies. The Evangelical Right is all about infringing/restricting peoples' rights to do things...not merely saying that the things being done are, "Insane."

Exactly I have no problem with him taking the Bible literally, as long as it is not used to restrict the rights of others.