kllindley Posted April 8, 2017 Posted April 8, 2017 4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: I'm happy to continue the dialogue, and hope you decide to continue. If you want to continue the dialogue, let's get back to your answer to our core question. How would you determine which classes should qualify? What are your criteria and were do you draw the line?
Daniel2 Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) On 4/7/2017 at 9:45 PM, kllindley said: If you want to continue the dialogue, let's get back to your answer to our core question. How would you determine which classes should qualify? What are your criteria and were do you draw the line? I agree with and support the definition of a "protected class" as "a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic." Since laws regarding anti-discrimination protections and due process/equal protection also consider the level of scrutiny applied to "protected classes" in consideration of their likewise being "suspect classes," I believe it's also helpful to compare how "suspect classes" are identified/defined from a legal perspective, namely: Quote The group has historically been discriminated against or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1] They possess an immutable[2] or highly visible trait. They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a "discrete" and "insular" minority.[3]) The group's distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4] I agree with and support the conclusions of the article I posted previously that sexual orientation should be included as a suspect class, with a moderate (intermediate) level of scrutiny being applied when identifying what level of scrutiny seems most appropriate for the designation of 'sexual orientation.' Since the characteristics of both "protected classes" and "suspect classes" are very similar, if not virtually interchangeable, it seems rational and logical that "sexual orientation" also qualifies as a "protected class." Edited April 12, 2017 by Daniel2 1
kllindley Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) I don't want to misrepresent or misunderstand you. If I understand you, you believe that the criteria for "suspect class" are or should be the criteria for "protected class." It's that correct? And you cite for evidence an article that does not once use the term "protected class." Is that accurate? Edited April 12, 2017 by kllindley
Daniel2 Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) As far as evidence demonstrating that members of the LGBT community have, indeed, experienced discrimination based on a common characteristic, it's fairly easy to do some research to find out this is the case. Here are a few links: L.G.B.T. People Are More Likely to Be Targets of Hate Crimes Than Any Other Minority Group--The New York Times, June 2016 It’s still dangerous to be gay in America. Here are the statistics that prove it.--Fusion, June 2016 History of violence against LGBT people in the United States--Wikipedia, current listing The Extraordinarily Common Violence Against LGBT People in America--The Atlanatic, June 2016 LGBT Bullying Statistics--NoBulling.com, Nov 2016 Gay and Transgender People Face High Rates of Workplace Discrimination and Harassment--Center for American Progress, June 2011 Human Rights: Why should sexual orientation be a protected class under discrimination law?--[Edited to correct source my citation error originally (wrongly) attributed to the LATimes, despite the link to Quora being correct]: Quora, 2011 Facts about Discrimination in Federal Government Employment Based on Marital Status, Political Affiliation, Status as a Parent, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity--EEOC (US Equal Opportunity Commission), current policy statement Finally, while not in the USA, this article from this very month--April 2017--certainly sheds plight on the need for LGBT protections internationally, summarized by Snopes by saying, "the U.S. State Department issued a statement on 7 April responding to what were termed “numerous credible reports” that the Republic of Chechnya had detained at least 100 LGBTI people, some of whom had allegedly been tortured and killed.": Report: Chechnya Opens ‘Concentration Camp for Homosexuals’--Snopes, April 2017 The above is just a fraction of what comes up when beginning to do a search on statistics regarding business and job discrimination, mistreatment, bullying, and hate crimes currently facing the LGBT population. I believe they speak for themselves when it comes to demonstrating that, regardless of comparing the severity of any group to the suffering historically endured by African-Americans in our nation, it's clear that LGBT members are also experiencing high levels of discrimination and damage. Edited April 12, 2017 by Daniel2 1
Daniel2 Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 3 minutes ago, kllindley said: I don't want to misrepresent or misunderstand you. If I understand you, you believe that the criteria for "suspect class" are or should be the criteria for "protected class." It's that correct? And you cite for evidence an article that does not once use the term "protected class." I that accurate? I don't believe they are the same. I think the definition of "protected class" speaks for itself. And while the article I cite doesn't use the term "protected class," as I mentioned, it's my belief that the criteria are so closely related in legal matters (given that even "protected classes" are subject to levels of scrutiny) that it's helpful to examine and consider the similarities, as well as the differences. From what I read, virtually all the "suspected classes" ARE "protected classes," and the levels of scrutiny inform--and sometimes temper--how the law applies to "protections." It seems like you view them as different enough to continue to point out that they are not the same. I'd love to understand better how you feel they are different enough so as to feel that the article I posted may not be applicable or helpful... Could you share your thoughts on that matter?
kllindley Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 I have. In depth. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I don't think the problem is comprehension. The only options I can see are that either: 1) You just don't like them, or 2) you really are closed off to the possibility that there are other valid opinions on this issue. Either way further discussion here seems unlikely to be productive. Thanks.
kllindley Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 It doesn't help me trust your sincerity when I try to follow your links and you cite the LA Times for a link to quora. Or start comparing the horrors in Chechnya to not being able to force someone to photograph a wedding. 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 19 hours ago, kllindley said: It doesn't help me trust your sincerity when I try to follow your links and you cite the LA Times for a link to quora. Or start comparing the horrors in Chechnya to not being able to force someone to photograph a wedding. Sophie's choice.
Daniel2 Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 20 hours ago, kllindley said: It doesn't help me trust your sincerity when I try to follow your links and you cite the LA Times for a link to quora. Or start comparing the horrors in Chechnya to not being able to force someone to photograph a wedding. To clarify... In my previous post in which I cite nine sources of discrimination here in the USA, one mistake on my part in misattributing the source (despite my having linked to the actual source itself, allowing anyone to see the actual source) caused you to fully gloss over the other 8 sources and resulted in you question my sincerity....? (Additionally, as soon as I saw your correction, I edited the post itself to a) acknowledge my mistake, and b) reflect the correction). Also, in addition to the nine links of LGBT discrimination in the USA, I provided one link to a current international event, which I fully acknowledged as, "while not in the USA, this article from this very month--April 2017--certainly sheds light on the need for LGBT protections internationally." Yet you distort that post and suggest I'm comparing concentration camps to refusals to bake wedding cakes. Kllindley, we haven't been discussing wedding cakes for the last several pages--we've been discussing protected classes and the levels of scrutiny which are applied to said protected classes. Additionally, you were the one who suggested you didn't believe gays and lesbians didn't experience "enough discrimination" to qualify as a protected class, so my post above was a direct response to that assertion as a demonstration that "sexual orientation" should qualify as a "protected class" according to the definition which we both had acknowledged as being "a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic." What we have NOT been discussing the last several pages is public accommodations law, so I am baffled that you so rapidly switched gears and attempted to suggest I was, in any way, equating concentration camps with failures to receive wedding cakes. Given your ongoing insistence in engaging in good faith dialogue, I just wanted to clarify what I have said, vs. what you've misconstrued my words to say. Thanks, D
Daniel2 Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, kllindley said: I have. In depth. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I don't think the problem is comprehension. The only options I can see are that either: 1) You just don't like them, or 2) you really are closed off to the possibility that there are other valid opinions on this issue. Either way further discussion here seems unlikely to be productive. Thanks. Once again, I am puzzled. You say you want to engage in respectful, productive, open dialogue. You've asked for clarification on my part, and I offer it. When I likewise ask for clarification on your part, including asking to understand the differences as you see them, you shut the dialogue down, apparently blaming me for it. If I were "closed off to the possibility that there are other valid opinions on this issue," why would I ask you to share info that you thus far haven't shared....? From my perspective, I feel the dialogue has been very productive, and still has potential to be. To add context: I've actually spent some time attempting to research what the differences are in how the law views/defines/treats "protected classes" and "suspect classes." I haven't found any sources going into detail or clarifying said differences. For example, when I search in Google under "what is the difference between protected classes and suspect classes," this comes up: Quote Suspect classification - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspect_classification Cached Similar In American jurisprudence, a suspect classification is any classification of groups meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection ... In contrast, because the United States Congress has the power to regulate ... Suspect class legal definition of Suspect class legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Suspect+class Cached Similar Suspect Classification. A presumptively unconstitutional distinction made between individuals on the basis of race, national origin, alienage, or religious ... Suspect Classes - Eben Moglen moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawContempSoc/MarcLegrandFirstPaper Cached Similar Defining Suspect Classes; The classification of sexual orientation, actual and ... upon to protect minorities,” sexual orientation may be rendered a suspect class by ... (17) It's hard to determine the difference between Romer's rational basis “with ... Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm Cached Similar The issue: When should courts closely scrutinize legislative classifications under the ... Classifications involving suspect classifications such as race, however, are .... of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, ... Suspect classification | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII ... https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/suspect_classification Cached A class of individuals that have been historically subject to discrimination. Any statute that makes a distinction between individuals based on any of the suspect ... Protected Classes - Shmoop www.shmoop.com › Civics › Equal Protection › Key Concepts Cached Similar Shmoop: Protected Classes, US government study guide. ... people exactly the same; laws can draw legitimate distinctions between different groups of people ... EEO: Protected Classes - HR Guide www.hr-guide.com/data/G714.htm Cached Similar HR Guide to the Internet: EEO: Protected Classes. Protected Classes Title VII prohibits discrimination on account of: Race or Color This category includes blacks, ... [PDF]Reevaluating Suspect Classifications - Seattle University School of ... digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=sulr Similar by M Strauss - 2011 - Cited by 63 - Related articles justify any legal distinction between individuals with a sufficient ratio- nale.3 In ..... guish between suspect and nonsuspect classes.19 Different courts em- portant” is ... less), or by the ability to be adequately protected by the political process. Suspect Classes classes.lls.edu/archive/manheimk/114d3/echarts/suspectx.htm Cached Text Assist for Suspect Classes Flowchart ... said that the Supreme Court will not interfere with State legislation unless it is to protect people who are either .... This is the difference between race or gender which cannot be easily changed and a ... Could you define suspect, quasi suspect, and non sus... | Chegg Tutors https://www.chegg.com › Tutors › Social Sciences › Political Science Cached Similar Could you define suspect, quasi suspect, and non suspect classifications and ... The Supreme court recognizes races, origins and religions as suspect classes. The above sources, and all others that I've come across, seem to demonstrate more similarities than differences, and thus far, I haven't found anything leading to significant differences, other than that the level of scrutiny of suspect classes informs how the law is applied to protected classes. So, when you said you've done extensive research and have found different answers than I, I was (and still am) interested and asked for more info. That is hardly a sign of being "closed off." It's frustrating that you continually question my openness or accuse me of a lack thereof. From my perspective, it seems that every time my response doesn't strike you the right way, you try to exit the discussion without defending your position or offering any clarity. If you choose to avoid further dialogue, I can respect your decision, but please know it isn't for a lack of attempting to continue in good faith on my part. Finally, should you choose to withdraw, could you please at least provide links to the sources that explain the differences, as you see them...? Thanks, D Edited April 12, 2017 by Daniel2
kllindley Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: In my previous post in which I cite nine sources of discrimination here in the USA, one mistake on my part in misattributing the source (despite my having linked to the actual source itself, allowing anyone to see the actual source) caused you to fully gloss over the other 8 sources and resulted in you question my sincerity....? (Additionally, as soon as I saw your correction, I edited the post itself to a) acknowledge my mistake, and b) reflect the correction). I admit I was already feeling irritable prior your comment last night. I also admit that where those articles cited the SLPC, I immediately had a strong negative reaction due to that organization's history of persecuting others. 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Also, in addition to the nine links of LGBT discrimination in the USA, I provided one link to a current international event, which I fully acknowledged as, "while not in the USA, this article from this very month--April 2017--certainly sheds light on the need for LGBT protections internationally." Yet you distort that post and suggest I'm comparing concentration camps to refusals to bake wedding cakes. Kllindley, we haven't been discussing wedding cakes for the last several pages--we've been discussing protected classes and the levels of scrutiny which are applied to said protected classes. Are you seriously saying you didn't have any intention at all to use the emotional aversion to the concentration camps to bolster your argument? Maybe it was just a coincidence. Your comment that we haven't been discussing wedding cakes is absurd. On the previous page your post full of questions cites denial of services and turn downs. Incidentally, that is the post responding to my very dispassionate attempt to explain my thoughts about protected classes and anti-discrimination law. Rather than acknowledging that sharing of my thoughts, you responded with a series of questions expressing outrage at what you (incorrectly) perceived to be my opinion. 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Also, in addition to the nine links of LGBT discrimination in the USA I still see that the majority of what your list talked about is already illegal. The first five are about violence and bullying. Violence is already illegal. Harassment is also illegal. I don't understand the argument that "because these already illegal bad things are happening, the best solution is to make any and all discrimination against this group a crime." 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Once again, I am puzzled. You say you want to engage in respectful, productive, open dialogue. You've asked for clarification on my part, and I offer it. When I likewise ask for clarification on your part, including asking to understand the differences as you see them, you shut the dialogue down, apparently blaming me for it. If I were "closed off to the possibility that there are other valid opinions on this issue," why would I ask you to share info that you thus far haven't shared....? From my perspective, I feel the dialogue has been very productive, and still has potential to be. Once again I wonder where this interest is in response to my explanations, rather than responding with outrage about how picked on the LGBT community is. You might not have noticed that I did not say they weren't. I doubted whether that is appropriate justification for creating a protected class. You have also failed to acknowledge that I have expressed repeatedly that I do not support most of the current protected classes, including religion. 5 hours ago, Daniel2 said: To add context: I've actually spent some time attempting to research what the differences are in how the law views/defines/treats "protected classes" and "suspect classes." I haven't found any sources going into detail or clarifying said differences. All of these citations you list from the google search have to do with suspect classes and levels of scrutiny. This idea of suspect class is based on the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment. This part of the constitution is designed to prevent the GOVERNMENT from taking any action (whether laws, civil service hiring, etc) that infringes on the fundamental rights or due process of an individual on the basis of a characteristic of a class. You've cited the criteria for suspect classes well. "Protected Class" comes from legislation that prohibits individuals and businesses from discriminating on the basis of membership in a protected group. Protected classes are named in anti-discrimination legislation (which generally include housing, hiring, and public accommodations). This distinction between the entity prohibited from discriminating: individual (protected class) or government (suspect class) is what I find very important. I believe there is and should be a higher standard for governmental actions than individual actions. So that is why I think it matters whether we are talking about a suspect class (can a law discriminate against gays) and protected class (can an individual choose not to provide a service or accommodation). http://www.shmoop.com/equal-protection/state-discrimination-private-discrimination.html Note the quote: "14th Amendment does not empower federal government to stop private acts of discrimination." also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class Edited April 13, 2017 by kllindley
kllindley Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 4 hours ago, Daniel2 said: It's frustrating that you continually question my openness or accuse me of a lack thereof. From my perspective, it seems that every time my response doesn't strike you the right way, you try to exit the discussion without defending your position or offering any clarity. I can appreciate that. I acknowledge that I greatly prefer exiting the discussion rather than defending myself. Like I wrote in response to you post with a) b) c) and d), I don't really feel the need to convince anyone that my perspective is valid and reasonable. When I get no response to a post, or portion of a post, that is open and vulnerable only to be told that I have not shared that information later, or when that response is a lot of questions that feel designed to have only one logical answer (gotcha questions), I struggle to justify the time and effort of continuing the conversation. So, yes I do respond by questioning the openness and intent of the discussion when your responses strike me as rhetorical jabs rather than attempts to understand. I can see how that would be frustrating. Some examples: 1) in this post you did not answer the question about where you would draw the line, but in this post you tell me you are just trying to figure out where I draw the line. 2) I wrote here: Quote The 14th amendment has nothing to do with protected classes. It's due process clause was the basis for the Obergefell v Hodges decision that right to marry was a fundamental right that could not be infringed upon in relation to same-sex couples. The idea of Protected Class is much more recent, being based in Federal Law beginning in 1964. Each protected class is identified in a specific Federal Law. This is also different from ruling whether a class is suspect (in relation to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.) Whether new federal law should be introduced naming sexual orientation as a protected class is completely ideological at this point. The fact that some states have already included it in their anti-discrimination laws is relevant, but not proof of correctness. I still think this is fairly clear in sorting out the differences between protected class and suspect class, their different sources, and different scope. But you didn't respond to this part of the post, maybe you missed it. 3) Given the above quote about the difference between suspect class/14th Amendment/government discrimination and protected class/anti-discrimination law/private discrimination/public accommodations, and the understanding I have of that distinction (which may be wrong-I'm not a lawyer), I was under the understanding that we were, in fact, discussing which classes should be protected from private discrimination by anti-discrimination law, which does include public accommodations. With a lot of reflection, I can see how this paragraph might makes sense if you see protected class as somehow being separate from public accommodations law. My understanding was and is that the protection offered to a protected class is exactly the protection from being turned down by a photographer. 4 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Additionally, you were the one who suggested you didn't believe gays and lesbians didn't experience "enough discrimination" to qualify as a protected class, so my post above was a direct response to that assertion as a demonstration that "sexual orientation" should qualify as a "protected class" according to the definition which we both had acknowledged as being "a group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from discrimination on the basis of that characteristic." What we have NOT been discussing the last several pages is public accommodations law, so I am baffled that you so rapidly switched gears and attempted to suggest I was, in any way, equating concentration camps with failures to receive wedding cakes. If you mean that the protection offered should be protection from being beaten, killed, or harasses/bullied, I fully agree. It's just that I don't think that is what protected class means. The law already prohibits that behavior. This is why I was so off put by your list of citations about violence, and concentration camps. Especially where the link to the EEOC explains that discrimination based on sexual orientation is already against federal policy. It seemed that you were just using the severity of these crimes to prove what to me is a totally unrelated point. 4) really I would just think you missed this entire post, but for the fact taht you later do cite portions of it. Though, I feel like those are taken out of context, so maybe you really did miss it. Primarily, I don't think you sense or honor the distinction that I can agree that something is legal or illegal according to current law and not be rabid about changing it while at the same time believing that the current law is not ideal or necessarily consistent with my views of how government "should" function.
Daniel2 Posted April 13, 2017 Author Posted April 13, 2017 (edited) Thanks for the responses. I very much appreciate the references, as well. My schedule has been and will continue to be somewhat erratic over the next few days/weeks, which is why there is sometimes a delay in my responses, but I will spend some time reviewing your links and digesting your posts before I respond--but I will respond. Regards, D Edited April 13, 2017 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted May 2, 2017 Author Posted May 2, 2017 I haven't posted much in the last several weeks due to priorities in events offsite, and have just started getting around to studying your references, Kllindley. I will continue to review and respond to those that you've listed, as well as my thoughts on your argument that protected classes and suspect classes serve different purposes and are distinctly different. In the meantime, current events continue to forecast a clash this very week (on Thursday) along the perceived divide between religious liberty and LGBT equality: On one side: Democrats Re-Introducing LGBT Rights Bill While on the other: White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order I can't help but wonder, given the recent track record of President Trump's Executive Orders, if this new one will be yet another example of the Law of Unintended Consequences (namely, being quickly overturned by a federal judge, thereby speeding up LGBT equality nationwide, similar to the events leading up to nationwide Marriage Equality....)?
Daniel2 Posted May 2, 2017 Author Posted May 2, 2017 Looks like the ACLU has already spoken out on the impending E.O.: ACLU Statement on Reports of Impending “Religious Freedom” Executive Order May 2, 2017 NEW YORK — Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, issued the following statement in response to reports that President Trump will sign an executive order later this week that creates religious exemptions that open the door to discrimination: “The ACLU fights every day to defend religious freedom, but religious freedom does not mean the right to discriminate against or harm others. If President Trump signs an executive order that attempts to provide a license to discriminate against women or LGBT people, we will see him in court.”
Daniel2 Posted May 2, 2017 Author Posted May 2, 2017 (edited) Aaaaaand, there's more news today--Kim Davis is back in the news! (is there a full moon?!): From Reuters: Quote U.S. | Tue May 2, 2017 | 3:04pm EDT Same-sex couple can seek damages from Kentucky clerk: U.S. appeals court Rowan County clerk Kim Davis is shown in this booking photo provided by the Carter County Detention Center in Grayson, Kentucky September 3, 2015. REUTERS/Carter County Detention Center/Handout via Reuters By Jonathan Stempel A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a damages lawsuit against Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who in 2015 refused to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it conflicted with her Christian beliefs. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said a lower court judge erred in finding that damages claims by David Ermold and David Moore became moot, after a new state law last July excused clerks like Davis, from Rowan County, from having to sign marriage license forms. While the couple eventually did get a license, a three-judge appeals court panel said they could sue over Davis' initial refusal to grant one, after the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2015 said the Constitution guaranteed a right to same-sex marriage. "The district court's characterization of this case as simply contesting the 'no marriage licenses' policy is inaccurate because Ermold and Moore did not seek an injunction-they sought only damages," Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote. "The record does not support an argument that (their) damages claims are insubstantial or otherwise foreclosed." Ermold's and Moore's case was sent back to U.S. District Judge David Bunning in Covington, Kentucky. "The ruling keeps the case alive for a little while but it is not a victory for the plaintiffs," Mat Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a Christian advocacy group representing Davis, said in a statement. "We are confident we will prevail." Michael Gartland, a lawyer for Ermold and Moore, called the decision a "no-brainer," saying damages claims based on past harm often survive mootness challenges. His clients are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. "Do I think it's a million dollar case? Probably not," Gartland said in an interview. "The next step will be to go to discovery and go to trial, where I am confident we will obtain a judgment against Davis." The refusal of Davis to issue licenses made her a national symbol for opposition to Obergefell v Hodges, the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The case is Ermold et al v. Davis, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 16-6412. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Lisa Shumaker) Edited May 2, 2017 by Daniel2
Calm Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 (edited) While I actually do think they should be able to sue because she refused to do the job she first sought after and then swore she would do because of a personal stance, I find the use of a booking photo when there are many other photos available out there to be highly inappropriate and prejudicial. Very concerning in a news article from an international and reputable company. Off topic derail, just shocked so posting my feelings on that. Edited May 2, 2017 by Calm 2
Kenngo1969 Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 I love how people say (speaking generally, not speaking of anyone here or anyone in particular), "She must be guilty! Just look at that mugshot!" Here's a clue (and remember, this is coming from one of the most pro-police, pro-prosecution people you will ever meet): Nobody looks good/not guilty in a mugshot. Nobody. 2
USU78 Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 On 4/11/2017 at 7:27 PM, kllindley said: It doesn't help me trust your sincerity when I try to follow your links and you cite the LA Times for a link to quora. Or start comparing the horrors in Chechnya to not being able to force someone to photograph a wedding. 😂
Kenngo1969 Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 Here's the last time Kim Davis and her antics were discussed on this Board. I haven't reread the thread exhaustively, if memory serves, save for a couple of posters, most of whom were not on board with allowing Ms. Davis's personal views to impact her performance in office such that she should be allowed to refuse to perform those duties on religious grounds and to retain the office: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66243-elder-oaks-speaks-on-the-boundary-between-church-and-state-merged/
Daniel2 Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: I love how people say (speaking generally, not speaking of anyone here or anyone in particular), "She must be guilty! Just look at that mugshot!" Here's a clue (and remember, this is coming from one of the most pro-police, pro-prosecution people you will ever meet): Nobody looks good/not guilty in a mugshot. Nobody. 2 hours ago, Calm said: While I actually do think they should be able to sue because she refused to do the job she first sought after and then swore she would do because of a personal stance, I find the use of a booking photo when there are many other photos available out there to be highly inappropriate and prejudicial. Very concerning in a news article from an international and reputable company. Off topic derail, just shocked so posting my feelings on that. I agree with you both... they certainly could have used a better photo of Ms. Davis. I did a search of pro-Kim Davis sites, but it looks like they haven't updated anything as of yet. For example: http://libertycounsel.com/tag/kim-davis/ But I would agree that their most recent post from November of 2016 certainly does use photo with a observably different tone, style, and approach than that in Reuters, so in the interests of fair representation: Edited May 3, 2017 by Daniel2 1
Calm Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: I love how people say (speaking generally, not speaking of anyone here or anyone in particular), "She must be guilty! Just look at that mugshot!" Here's a clue (and remember, this is coming from one of the most pro-police, pro-prosecution people you will ever meet): Nobody looks good/not guilty in a mugshot. Nobody. Yep. Good choice of picture, Daniel. Edited May 3, 2017 by Calm
Daniel2 Posted May 3, 2017 Author Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) It will be interesting to see how/if the dynamics shift within the Supreme Court of the United States with the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch (though he replaced a judge with a fairly similar outlook/ideology). This week, SCOTUS went ahead and rejected (for the second time, although the first time since Gorsuch's addition to the court) an appeal asserting that statewide bans on conversation therapy for minors violate religious freedoms, allowing California's ban on such practices to stand: Quote Supreme Court upholds California’s ban on gay ‘conversion therapy’ By Amy B Wang The Washington Post; May 2, 2017 The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to a California ban on “conversion therapy” for minors, letting stand a lower federal court ruling that upheld the state law passed in 2012. The appeal challenging the ban was filed by a Christian minister in San Diego and others, who argued that the law violated their rights to religious freedom. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco had previously upheld the California law as constitutional. The Supreme Court justices did not comment Monday in refusing to hear the appeal, according to the Associated Press. It was the second time the Supreme Court has turned away a challenge to the California law. Conversion therapy, also referred to as “reparative therapy” or “ex-gay therapy,” are treatments that historically have targeted the LGBT community and claim to be able to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Highly controversial, the practice has been decried by dozens of mental health, medical and LGBT rights groups as harmful and misleading. Nevertheless, attempts to ban it at the state or national level have repeatedly been met with resistance from conservative religious groups, which argue that such bans would infringe on their First Amendment rights. The debate over conversion therapy is likely to remain in the spotlight after Democratic lawmakers last week introduced a bill that would ban the practice nationwide for those younger than 18 years old. The Therapeutic Fraud Prevention Act of 2017 was introduced April 25 by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), along with Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). About 70 other members of Congress, all Democrats, have said they support the bill, which would allow the Federal Trade Commission to classify conversion therapy and its practitioners as fraudulent. “The bill is very simple,” Lieu told The Washington Post. “It says it is fraud if you treat someone for a condition that doesn’t exist and there’s no medical condition known as being gay. LGBTQ people were born perfect; there is nothing to treat them for. And by calling this what it should be, which is fraud, it would effectively shut down most of the organizations.” Conversion therapy emerged as far back as the mid-19th century, when being gay was viewed as “either a criminal act or a medical problem, or both,” according to a 2009 report by the American Psychological Association. In 1952, homosexuality was included as a mental illness in the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (better known as the DSM), and a variety of approaches to changing one’s sexual orientation was born. Some therapists used electric shock treatments or induced nausea, vomiting or even paralysis when their patients had “same-sex erotic” thoughts. Other individuals were told to wear a rubber band around their wrist, snapping it whenever he or she was attracted to a member of the same sex. In 1965, Time magazine ran an article with the headline “Homosexuals Can Be Cured.” In it, professor and psychiatrist Samuel Hadden claimed to have successfully changed the sexual preferences of gay males who participated in group psychotherapy. “Over the course of four to eight years, Hadden explained, patients shared and interpreted each other’s dreams, cast aside their ‘flamboyant’ clothes and manners, worked through their hostilities and neuroses, and began dating women,” the magazine wrote in 2015, in a look back to the original story. “Marriages were saved and made.” Despite resistance from gay rights leaders at the time, these types of treatments persisted through the 1960s and 1970s. Meanwhile, psychiatric groups were reevaluating the literature, and in 1973, homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the DSM. Since then, dozens of major mental health, medical and LGBT rights groups have publicly come out against conversion therapy, from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the National Association of Social Workers. The American Psychological Association found that efforts to change sexual orientation harmed some people rather than helping them, leading to increased distress and depression, as well as negative self-image. Similarly, a San Francisco State University study found that, compared to LGBT youth who are accepted, young people who experience rejection based on their sexual orientation or gender identity were eight times more likely to have attempted suicide, nearly six times more likely to report high levels of depression and more than three times as likely to use illegal drugs, according to the nonprofit Human Rights Campaign. “There is no single model because this is not a science, but it’s all incredibly harmful,” said Xavier Persad, legislative counsel for the gay rights group. “It’s a quack science. It’s not based on science. We’ve heard and seen so many things, everything from folks being encouraged to not speak to their mothers and sisters, because somehow that is affecting their sexuality, all the way up until very incredibly inappropriate interactions between therapists and patients in various states of undress.” Seven states and the District of Columbia have successfully passed legislation to ban or restrict conversion therapy in some way. California was the first to do so, banning the practice outright in 2012; others are New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont and, just this month, New Mexico. Although New York does not have an outright ban, the state effectively prohibits conversion therapy through administrative regulations. “The mere promise that you can somehow change someone’s gender identity or sexual orientation is, in it of itself, inherently deceptive and false,” said New Mexico state senator Jacob Candelaria, who sponsored the new legislation there. As the only openly gay man in the state legislature, Candelaria said he understands how “frightening and stressful” the process of coming out can be, both for the individual and the family. “Unfortunately what you have is these providers who prey upon that … and make a false promise that if you do X, Y and Z, you can just get rid of ‘the problem,’ ” Candelaria said. Support for conversion therapy remains fueled by conservative Christian groups, and in recent months, some in the LGBT community have questioned whether those groups would hold greater sway during Donald Trump’s presidency. On Tuesday, a group called the National Task Force for Therapy Equality announced it had filed a Federal Trade Commission complaint against three groups that have lobbied for conversion therapy bans — including the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Human Rights Campaign and the National Center for Lesbian Rights. The complaint accused the three groups of committing “mass fraud” and “actively distorting the scientific research by promoting the ‘Born Gay’ hoax,” among other allegations. “It’s shocking that these gay activists have actually been able to deceive six states and several cities with their pseudoscientific claims of ‘harm’ to ban psychotherapy,” Christopher Doyle, a co-coordinator for the task force, said in a statement. Earlier this year, Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, a conservative lobbying group that supports conversion therapy, told ABC’s “20/20” that he felt confident Vice President Pence and other Republicans would support the FRC in fighting the “gay lobby.” “I see it as unlikely that any sort of legislative — federal legislative attack upon sexual reorientation therapy will … go anywhere,” Sprigg said on the program, adding that he supported only “ordinary talk therapy” and would not tolerate physical abuse. “As a Christian, I believe that the Bible teaches that to choose to engage in homosexual conduct is a sin.” Pence has been frequently accused of having supported conversion therapy in the past, in large part owing to a 2000 campaign website from when he was running for Congress that stated “resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.” Pence’s press secretary, Marc Lotter, told The Post in an email that such accusations misrepresented Pence’s views. “Any assertion that Vice President Pence supported or advocated for conversion therapy is patently false and is a mischaracterization of language from a 16-year old campaign website,” Lotter said in a statement. “As a candidate for Congress in 2000, the Vice President’s website advocated that public funding in the Ryan White CARE Act be directed to groups that promoted safe sexual practices in the hopes of reducing the spread of HIV.” Lotter did not answer a question sent by email about whether Pence would support the new bill seeking to ban conversion therapy, adding later that the vice president “does not offer his opinion on any proposed legislation outside of the official position of the White House.” During her confirmation hearings for education secretary, Betsy DeVos was called out by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) for her family’s alleged donations to groups such as Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian organization that pushes conversion therapy. DeVos said that Franken had mischaracterized her “core” family’s donations and that she did not support conversion therapy. “I’ve never believed in that,” DeVos told Franken. “First of all, let me say I fully embrace equality, and I believe in the innate value of every single human being. And that all students, no matter their age, should be able to attend a school and feel safe and be free of discrimination.” “That was the hardest bill I ever did,” Lieu said. “It almost failed in the very first committee. And a lot of folks were uncomfortable with, in their view, getting in the way of the parent-child relationship. And so we did have a lot of initial resistance. But once it passed basically the floor, everyone thought oh, what a great idea.” He also was heartened when, in 2013, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie became the first Republican governor to sign a state bill banning conversion therapy for minors. In a statement then, Christie said he had reservations about the bill because he felt the government was limiting parental choice when it came to raising their children. “However, I also believe that on issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine the relative risks and rewards,” Christie said. “I believe that exposing children to these health risks without clear evidence of benefits that outweigh these serious risks is not appropriate. Based upon this analysis, I sign this bill into law.” In a statement, Human Rights Campaign president Chad Griffin applauded the new congressional proposal. “So-called ‘conversion therapy’ is nothing more than child abuse and those who inflict it on others must be held accountable,” Griffin said. “HRC thanks Senators Murray and Booker and Representative Lieu for their efforts to outlaw this dangerous and inhumane practice. Now more than ever, we must send a clear message to the LGBTQ community — and especially LGBTQ young people — that who you are is not something that needs to be fixed.” Edited May 4, 2017 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted May 5, 2017 Author Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) I listened with interest to the live feed of The National Day of Prayer ceremony conducted in the Rose Garden at the White House this morning. Interesting that Evangelical, Catholic, and Jewish Ecclesiastical leaders were asked to each offer a prayer, though I didn't see other Faiths represented, at least on the official program. The Daily Herald summed up the LDS Church's response: Quote LDS Church responds to President Trump's religious liberty executive order Genelle Pugmire Daily Herald Saying he was fulfilling one of his campaign promises, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on religious liberties Thursday in the White House Rose Garden. The signing was well-timed to be on the same day as the annual National Day of Prayer, with several religious leaders in attendance for the signing. While the executive order will allow churches to freely back one political candidate over another without fear of retribution, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said it will not change its current policy. "We are always grateful for the efforts of leaders to safeguard religious freedom and protect the beliefs and religious exercise of all people," said Eric Hawkins, church spokesman. "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been and remains committed to political neutrality. Today’s executive order will not affect that longstanding policy.” While the LDS Church stays committed to political neutrality, it appears it will not stop its current tradition of lobbying for issues that represent the morals and values of the church and that reflect the beliefs of members of the church. The Washington Post reported the president saying, “For too long the federal government has used the state as a weapon against people of faith.” Speaking to leaders of faith he continued, “You’re now in a position to say what you want to say. … No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors.” Thursday’s order stated the policy of the administration is to protect and vigorously promote religious liberty. During the president’s political campaign, he was given strong support on the matter by those professing to be evangelical Christians. Current law, under the Johnson Amendment, says that churches can promote political candidates of their choice but can’t be involved in actively promoting candidates without losing tax-exempt status with the Internal Revenue Service. It appears the president is using his power to direct the IRS to "exercise maximum enforcement discretion to alleviate the burden of the Johnson Amendment." Only Congress can repeal the legislation of the Johnson Act. Legislation is seemingly being organized in the House of Representatives to do just that — to repeal the Johnson Act, as it is applied to tax legislation. It is expected to face strong push back by some members of Congress. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, chairman of the subcommittee on health care, benefits and administrative rules, noted in a press release, "Since our founding, nonprofits like churches have had the ability to speak freely and educate their membership about candidates or policies that align, or contradict, their interests and values. That was until 1954 when as a political retribution, then Sen. Lyndon Johnson, with no real debate, had inserted language into a tax law that would bar nonprofits from speaking in a political manner. "Since then, churches and other (c)(3)s have had to decide whether or not to directly violate the law and risk potentially losing their tax status all together, or to practice a 'studied vagueness' or 'self-censorship,' trying to carefully navigate what would or would not draw the attention of the IRS speech cop. Today we begin what I hope will be a series of hearings on the First Amendment and where government agencies may, in fact, be infringing and limiting individuals' First Amendment liberties." For some time, the owners of Hobby Lobby, a favorite national crafting store, have been fighting the need to comply with the Affordable Care Act, which requires them to provide for women's contraception through its insurance. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that some employers can opt out of paying for employees' birth control based on religious concerns. The Obama administration allowed for the insurance company to pay for the contraception instead. Trump’s order calls for regulatory relief, but is not specific as to what that entails. Concerns an earlier draft of the order would allow discrimination against LGBT employees based on beliefs were seemingly not a part of the final version. The president said his administration would be "leading by example" on religious liberty in the United States. "We are giving our churches their voices back," he said. Pastor Mark Burns, a longtime Trump supporter who attended the White House signing and a White House dinner for religious leaders Wednesday evening, celebrated the move, telling NBC News on Thursday morning that it was a "great day for religious freedom in America." It appears most of the mainstream evangelical religious conservative lobbying groups were not happy with President Trump's Executive Order on Religious Liberty, especially as it relates to LGBT issues. Christianity Today sums up many of their reactions: Quote Trump’s Religious Liberty Order Doesn’t Answer Most Evangelicals’ Prayers Prayer breakfast pledge to ‘totally destroy’ Johnson Amendment comes up shy; conscience exemptions from LGBT anti-discrimination rules missing. Kate Shellnutt| May 4, 2017 In his biggest religious liberty push since taking office, President Donald Trump officially laid out in an executive order some of the protections he has promised faithful supporters for months. The move came on the same day that evangelical leaders gathered in Washington for the annual National Day of Prayer. One problem: This is not the executive order many evangelicals had been praying for. Gone are the exemptions for religious groups faced with accommodating LGBT antidiscrimination regulations that conflict with their faith convictions. Instead, the order—titled “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty”—extends political speech protections for pastors and religious organizations, aiming to let them to talk about politics without penalty. It also requests “regulatory relief” for religious groups, including evangelical universities, caught in a court battle over the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. “I am signing today an executive order to defend the freedom of religion and speech in America, the freedoms that we wanted, the freedoms that you fought for so long,” the president said in a Rose Garden ceremony. “The federal government will never ever penalize any person for their protected religious beliefs.” Trump spoke most about the implications for the Johnson Amendment—legislation that has regulated nonprofits’ political activity for six decades. “This financial threat against the faith community is over,” he said “You’re now in a position to say what you want to say. … No one should be censoring sermons or targeting pastors.” While the White House’s broad vision to “protect and vigorously promote religious liberty” holds promise for people of faith, it lacks some of the specific conscience safeguards many conservative Christians wanted to see. “Religious conservatives will take comfort from the generally positive attitude toward their religious liberty claims. But in its operative effects, this nowhere goes out on a limb for them,” said Thomas Berg, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. “The issues concerning LGBT/religious-liberty conflicts remain, and this gives little indication Trump will go out on a limb on those.” Trump’s promise to repeal the Johnson Amendment excited some of his closest evangelical allies like Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. Yet, according to surveys, the majority of evangelicals do not see this issue as a priority, or even on their agenda. Most have major concerns about bringing more politics into their churches. Earlier this year, the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) reported in its monthly Evangelical Leaders Survey that 90 percent of its board of directors, including the leaders of major denominations and ministries, oppose using the pulpit for political endorsements. Other surveys show that nearly 3 in 4 evangelicals are also against it. “When it comes to challenges to religious liberty, the Johnson Amendment is just about the least important issue I can think of,” said John Inazu, a professor at Washington University School of Law. “More important than whether pastors can speak politics is whether everyone can live their convictions in [the] public square,” tweeted John Stonestreet, president of the Colson Center for Christian Worldview. An earlier draft of a religious liberty order, leaked in January, focused on balancing religious convictions with LGBT protections. By directing the attorney general to ensure all federal agencies comply with religious liberty protections, the order represents a promising move for evangelicals, said Johnnie Moore, an evangelical adviser and consultant. “This is the single most important religious liberty action taken by the White House in a very long time,” said Moore, who spent hours with Trump and his fellow faith advisers the night the order was drafted. Under the order, “conservative people of faith will feel very, very free that they won’t have to set their conscience aside and be fearful of the law.” For Trump supporters waiting for the Johnson Amendment to be repealed, it’s a well-timed victory. His executive order coincides with a congressional committee meeting on the amendment as well as his participation in the National Day of Prayer. A strong majority of white evangelicals are pleased with Trump’s performance as president so far, and dozens of evangelical leaders, including advisers Robert Jeffress and Paula White, gathered at the White House for a dinner with Trump and vice president Mike Pence Wednesday night. The ceremony at the White House featured a welcome by White; prayer by Jack Graham, Cardinal Donald Wuerl; and Rabbi Marvin Hier; and music by singer Steven Curtis Chapman. (Both Pence and White quoted 2 Chronicles 7:14, which was the most-tweeted verse of Trump’s election.) Trump pledged to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment when he spoke at another annual prayer gathering, the National Prayer Breakfast, in February. And during the campaign, he framed the move as a significant part of his religious liberty agenda, saying: … My greatest contribution to Christianity—and other religions—is to allow you, when you talk religious liberty, to go and speak openly, and if you like somebody or want somebody to represent you, you should have the right to do it. But the victory may be mostly symbolic. Legal experts question the impact of Trump’s order, which falls short of the promised repeal. It doesn’t specifically allow for pastor endorsements, as the president implied. The order requests the Treasury Department not deny any “tax deduction, exemption, credit, or benefit” to groups and leaders for speaking about “moral or political issues from a religious perspective.” The IRS rarely investigates such regulations in the first place—even blatant ones like the hundreds of pastors who preach politics on Pulpit Freedom Sunday, organized annually by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a religious liberty advocacy group. “It says only that [religous organizations] should not be found guilty of implied endorsements on facts where secular organizations would not be,” said church-state expert Douglas Laycock. “I have heard no stories of that happening. But the IRS does jawbone churches in a way that it does not appear to jawbone secular non-profits. Maybe that’s what it’s supposed to be about.” Besides churchgoers’ hesitancy over pulpit politicking, several prominent evangelical leaders, including the general superintendent of the Assemblies of God and the president of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, told the NAE they worry that speaking about candidates during a sermon or service would distract from their primary message of preaching the gospel. “Many pastors know their parishioners have diverse political opinions and fear being pressured to choose and endorse some while alienating others,” NAE president Leith Anderson said in February. “They are grateful for rules that keep them out of political endorsement differences and battles.” One alternative solution is the Free Speech Fairness Act. A congressional bill introduced in February, it proposes reforming the Johnson Amendment to allow pastors to maintain their free speech and political speech rights in their day-to-day roles, but restricting additional spending on political messaging—the kind that could turn churches into tax-free shelters for political fundraising. A significant congressional advisory group, the Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations (led by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability), recommended such changes in a 2013 report. Laycock made a similar case in the Christian Century earlier this year. “Wholly repealing the Johnson Amendment would protect both the sermons (part of a church’s ordinary operations budgets) and the full-page ads (which require significant spending). It would create pressure on churches to let themselves be used for tax-deductible campaign spending,” wrote the University of Virginia law professor. “A far better solution: repeal the Johnson Amendment with respect to things that cost no money, and leave it in place for the things that do.” ADF calls the bill a “first step” toward fixing the amendment: “We remain hopeful that the Free Speech Fairness Act will become law and America’s pastors will once again be free to speak from the pulpit on all matters of life without fearing government censorship or punishment.” LifeWay Research reported in September that just 29 percent of Americans with evangelical beliefs thought it was appropriate for pastors to endorse political candidates. Still, few evangelicals (33%) indicated that churches should lose their nonprofit status over a violation of the rule, which isn’t that common (last year, 1 in 10 regular churchgoers said they heard their pastor discuss the candidates, according to a Pew Research Center survey). Protestant clergy had even stronger opinions: Only 14 percent of evangelical pastors and 9 percent of mainline pastors approved of pulpit endorsements. At the ceremony, Trump nodded to Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, activist Alveda King, as he celebrated the African American church “as an agent of social progress” in its willingness to address politics from the pulpit. The legacy plays out in Pew data, with black Protestants three times more likely to hear candidates mentioned during a church service. The order asks the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments to “consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections” to Obamacare. Just last week, the Justice Department prolonged the appeals court fight over the contraception requirement. “The President’s order makes clear that all federal agencies and lawyers must obey the law and respect religious liberty," said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at Becket, the firm that represents the Little Sisters and others challenging the HHS Mandate. “As the Supreme Court’s orders show, it was unnecessary and illegal to impose this mandate on the Little Sisters and other religious organizations. Our country has enough real problems without picking pointless culture wars against women who spend their lives caring for the elderly poor. America is better than that.” A statement from the NAE concluded, “Anything done by executive order can be undone by a future president. Threats to religious freedom in America need to be addressed through legislative action that protects religious liberty for all Americans. Wecall on President Trump to work with members of Congress to pass legislation that strengthens the rights of all Americans and allows the organizations they form to operate in ways that are consistent with their beliefs.” Does anyone know if LDS leadership was represented by those in attendance...? Edited May 5, 2017 by Daniel2 1
Calm Posted May 5, 2017 Posted May 5, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Daniel2 said: Does anyone know if LDS leadership was represented by those in attendance...? Seems unlikely given this DN article doesn't mention it, but it doesn't talk about the ceremony that much: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865679214/Trump-to-ease-political-restrictions-on-churches-with-new-executive-order.html Will keep looking. added: nothing on lds.org or mormonnewsroom It wasn't that big of a group, imo. Edited May 5, 2017 by Calm 1
Recommended Posts