Damned Jiggery Pokery

[LostLocke]

Woah woah woah... wait.
So according to Huckabee's plans, a business could refuse service to a gay person because of religious beliefs, but if a gay person (or even straight) refused service to a religious person who refuses to serve gay people because of religious beliefs, that would be illegal?

[Minimalist]

Sounds very xtian to men.

[Clueless Morgan]

Woah woah woah... wait.
So according to Huckabee's plans, a business could refuse service to a gay person because of religious beliefs, but if a gay person (or even straight) refused service to a religious person who refuses to serve gay people because of religious beliefs, that would be illegal?

That's sort of how it reads if you look at the business aspect of it.  He seems to be saying that if you, as a consumer, discriminate against a business that refuses services to gay people by not patronizing that business then you could be prosecuted for a hate crime... ?

Presumably, this means that if one didn't choose the marriage-inequality-believing bakery to purchase one's (hetero) wedding cake from because they don't accept or recognize marriage equality, then one could be persecuted for a hate crime?

[Tonus]

Kangaroos, Nazis, and more: Alabama court staffer begs governor to resist ‘homosexual sodomy’

Is there something he knows about the governor that we should be made aware of?

[Pyrrho]

I don't see a problem with jiggery-pokery, as long as it is with consenting adults.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The good news is that with three religious fuckheads in the field of fourteen, that vote (which is already a shrinking demographic), will be split.

You heard it here first: The Repubs will nominate Marco Rubio.

[Nope]

This is so weird that I think someone might have to explain it to me. Thom Tillis, who voted against same sex marriage, supported a bill to make certain that same sex couples in the military received their benefits. So Tillis did something reasonable on the issue of same sex marriage. Did he drop out of jiggery pokery school or has he eaten too much applesauce?

North Carolina Sens. Thom Tillis and Richard Burr were among 11 Republicans who voted with Democrats Thursday night for a non-binding budget amendment that would give legally married same-sex spouses Social Security and veterans benefits they have earned, and ensure them equal treatment under the law.

The measure passed 57-43 during the Senate’s “vote-o-rama” on more than 50 amendments put forward by senators to a Republican-backed budget outline.

Tillis has been a supporter of North Carolina’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

His press secretary, Meghan Burris, explained why Tillis voted as he did this way:

“The amendment was simply a matter of the fair application of the law. If a veteran has served our country and is in a relationship that is legally recognized by a state, the federal government - in fairness, and out of respect for the policies each state sets for itself - should apply the law the same way for each and every veteran, regardless of whether Sen. Tillis supports the decision made by another state relating to marriage,” she said.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politic...rylink=cpy

[Pyrrho]

This is so weird that I think someone might have to explain it to me. Thom Tillis, who voted against same sex marriage, supported a bill to make certain that same sex couples in the military received their benefits. So Tillis did something reasonable on the issue of same sex marriage.  Did he drop out of jiggery pokery school or has he eaten too much applesauce?

North Carolina Sens. Thom Tillis and Richard Burr were among 11 Republicans who voted with Democrats Thursday night for a non-binding budget amendment that would give legally married same-sex spouses Social Security and veterans benefits they have earned, and ensure them equal treatment under the law.

The measure passed 57-43 during the Senate’s “vote-o-rama” on more than 50 amendments put forward by senators to a Republican-backed budget outline.

Tillis has been a supporter of North Carolina’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

His press secretary, Meghan Burris, explained why Tillis voted as he did this way:

“The amendment was simply a matter of the fair application of the law. If a veteran has served our country and is in a relationship that is legally recognized by a state, the federal government - in fairness, and out of respect for the policies each state sets for itself - should apply the law the same way for each and every veteran, regardless of whether Sen. Tillis supports the decision made by another state relating to marriage,” she said.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politic...rylink=cpy

I think the explanation given in what you quote is adequate.  It would seem that he regards the matter as something for individual states to decide, and if a state decides in favor of gay marriage, the federal government should recognize that decision by the state.

[Minimalist]

No.  States do not get to determine what people's rights may be.

Give the southern shits that power and blacks would be enslaved again.

[Pyrrho]

No.  States do not get to determine what people's rights may be.

Give the southern shits that power and blacks would be enslaved again.

I am not saying that his opinion is correct.  I am saying that one can form a consistent opinion in voting as he has.

I think the idea of "states' rights" being somehow special is idiotic.  It is a government telling people what to do.  Why would it be that a government that has jurisdiction over a smaller territory is supposedly inherently better than a government with a larger jurisdiction?  If that were universally true, then it would be better to have all of our rules made by tiny towns rather than trusting states, since the territory is smaller still.

As things are, having laws different from one state to the next causes troubles.  People cross state lines and are not aware of all of the differences in the law, and so they accidentally violate the law because of this.

Also, in practice, I think the federal government is usually better about laws than most states.  So I think we would be better off if individual states had less power and if we had more uniform laws in this country.


So I think his opinion is silly.  But it need not be inconsistent as far as what Nope posted is concerned.