POTUS 2017

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Justsit
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Justsit » Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:46 pm

pulga wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:04 pm
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs.
President Trump with his appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court bench has been a godsend for those who wish to practice their religion in accordance with their beliefs.
The issue is a very slippery slope. If the Court allows individual beliefs to supersede the Constitution and other laws, who decides where and when that is appropriate and "sincere?"

Will doctors then be allowed to deny patients' care because they don't agree with the patients gender or sexual orientation?
If I, a transgender person, am lying on a gurney in an ER having a heart attack, can a Christian cardiologist refuse to
treat me?
Will nurses be able to refuse to care for patients who are of a different religion than themselves?
Will landlords be able to refuse to rent to couples or who aren't married? Individuals who are HIV positive? Lesbian? Gay? Have children born out of wedlock?
Will store owners be able to refuse to serve patrons based on race, color, creed, national origin? Gender, sexual orientation, marital status?
Will a funeral director be able to refuse to bury people based on religion?
Will I finally be able to stop paying taxes to the American war machine without risk of going to jail? Killing is against my religion.
Say I'm a US citizen who happens to be Muslim and my sincerely held religious belief is that Christians are infidels? Can I legally murder them?
If a person hasn't been to church in 30 years, but claims to have "sincere religious beliefs," are they lying? Will attendance be taken at church? (just kidding here)
Do we really intend to cater the every whim of the individual conscience?

I sincerely hope the Justices, in their wisdom, come to a decision that does not produce catastrophic unintended consequences.

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by pulga » Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:29 am

Justsit wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:46 pm
The issue is a very slippery slope. If the Court allows individual beliefs to supersede the Constitution and other laws, who decides where and when that is appropriate and "sincere?"
Should an Orthodox Jew be compelled to cater a Ku Klux Klan rally?

Justsit
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Justsit » Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:21 am

pulga wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 2:29 am
Justsit wrote:
Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:46 pm
The issue is a very slippery slope. If the Court allows individual beliefs to supersede the Constitution and other laws, who decides where and when that is appropriate and "sincere?"
Should an Orthodox Jew be compelled to cater a Ku Klux Klan rally?
A similar case was adjudicated in 1968, when the owner of a barbecue restaurant — Piggie Park, in South Carolina — held that his religious beliefs gave him the right to withhold service from African-Americans. The owner, Maurice Bessinger, argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion, because “his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever.” He lost because the Court determined that his establishment was principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, and was therefore a place of public accommodation where all should be served equally per the provisions in the Civil Rights Act. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 1/2349546/

Masterpiece really has nothing to do with religious freedom. It’s about enshrining a freedom to discriminate. Historically, religious exemptions from the law have occasionally been granted to protect the person who holds the belief. But this case is different, in that it gives an individual the right to harm someone else. And that’s what the Masterpiece case is about: It would give individuals the right to discriminate. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/opin ... -cake.html

My personal opinion is that if a person opens a public business, they should serve the public equally. So far the courts have upheld that position based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by pulga » Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:40 am

Justsit wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:21 am

My personal opinion is that if a person opens a public business, they should serve the public equally. So far the courts have upheld that position based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Thank you for your thoughts. It'll be interesting -- and important -- to see the way the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case plays out.

chownah
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by chownah » Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:54 am

It is a difficult issue and I see merits for both sides.

Concerning the cake shop. It is my understanding that the shop declined to custom make a product. This is not the same as providing a "public accomodation". If the custom cake shop had (perhaps it does) some ready made cakes on display for sale and a customer came in and bought one then there would be a "public accomodation" and all members of the public would have to be accomodated without prejudice......but making a custom order I think is not a "public accomodation".
chownah

Justsit
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Justsit » Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:00 pm

chownah wrote:
Tue Mar 27, 2018 3:54 am
It is a difficult issue and I see merits for both sides.

Concerning the cake shop. It is my understanding that the shop declined to custom make a product. This is not the same as providing a "public accomodation". If the custom cake shop had (perhaps it does) some ready made cakes on display for sale and a customer came in and bought one then there would be a "public accomodation" and all members of the public would have to be accomodated without prejudice......but making a custom order I think is not a "public accomodation".
chownah
Yes, my reply was directed to Pulga's question; it's not directly applicable to this case.

And definitely agree, this is a tricky question.

In this case, it seems that the cake shop owner makes custom cakes. Now if a person/persons come in and wants a custom cake for a wedding, that's part of what the shop normally provides. The problem comes when the owner refuses to make the cake because the couple is gay. It is not illegal to be gay, it does not harm the store owner in any way that the couple is gay - they are not attempting to seduce him, or "turn him gay," or solicit him or refuse to pay, or request special treatment or require him to approve of homosexuality. They just want a cake. He is refusing because he does want to serve gay people, evidently because his religion (not sure which one he claims?) says he should condemn gay people (thinks they are an abomination before the Lord??). Does he also refuse to serve all other so-called sinners?? Or only certain ones?

He does in fact refuse them based on their membership in a particular class of persons, which legally constitutes discrimination, thereby violating the law.

It will indeed be interesting to read the opinions of the justices, majority and dissenting.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2090
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by DooDoot » Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:29 am

:rolleye:


chownah
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by chownah » Sat Mar 31, 2018 4:23 am

....speaking of draining the swamp:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/exclusive-epa ... ories.html
I think that trump is master of the swamp.....he drains out the opposition's gators and installs his own.
chownah

Virgo
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Virgo » Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:16 am

This is extremely dangerous to our Democracy:


Justsit
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:41 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Justsit » Tue Apr 03, 2018 1:46 am

Virgo wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 12:16 am
This is extremely dangerous to our Democracy:
(video)
What's next, Two MInutes Hate?

chownah
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by chownah » Wed Apr 04, 2018 4:30 am

That swamp is just full of trump's 'gators and they are lying and pillaging....as usual:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/ ... n-unravels
It turns out that reducing the size of lands designated as natural and historic monuments was actually done to allow big companies to mine them and drill for oil.....BUT....when it was first suggest, Orin Hatch who is the head of the dept. charged with protecting these monumental lands specifically stated that it was NOT being done to enable mining and drilling.

Draining the swamp?......just a propogandist's ploy to persuade the ignorant masses....and it seems to have worked on some even here at dhammawheel.
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by Kim OHara » Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:04 am

A bit of perspective, i.e. fleeing the Nazis in childhood, apparently discourages optimism about Trump and co.
Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright describes herself as an "optimist who worries a lot." And lately, it seems, there has been much to worry about.

Albright's new book, Fascism: A Warning, starts by describing how Hitler and Mussolini came to power in the 20th century, then warns about today's authoritarian rulers in Eastern Europe, North Korea, Turkey and Russia.

Albright, who was born in Czechoslovakia and fled with her family after the Nazis occupied the country in 1939, notes that the United States has traditionally been viewed as a nation that opposes authoritarianism and supports democratic principles and human rights, but that perception is changing — in part because of President Trump.

While Albright does not call Trump a fascist, she says that he is "the most anti-democratic leader that I have studied in American history." ...
:reading: https://www.npr.org/2018/04/03/59912019 ... s-too-late

:namaste:
Kim

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by pulga » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:02 am

Madame Albright shares Hillary Clinton's penchant for aggressive U.S. foreign policy.

“If we have to use force, it is because we are America! We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall, and we see further into the future.”

Trump on the other hand seems more of a pragmatist, preferring dialogue and cooperation over coercion and ostracism. It's gotten him into trouble from the left, but it does seem to offer more hope for world peace and for dealing with the problems common to all the nations of the world, even those nations we have to be leery of.

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by lyndon taylor » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:06 am

yeah right!! your Mr. World Peace just appointed John Bolton in charge a national security.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

pulga
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: POTUS 2017

Post by pulga » Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:17 am

lyndon taylor wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 9:06 am
yeah right!! your Mr. World Peace just appointed John Bolton in charge a national security.
With the upcoming talks with Kim Jong-un it's a very shrewd move on Trump's part. The President likes a diversity of opinions when dealing with problems, so I don't think that he's suddenly become hawkish. Mattis is still the dominant advisor when it comes to North Korea. Clinton and Albright on the other hand are notorious for their aggressiveness in compelling other countries to meet our expectations.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests