Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Deep In the Heart of Texas


Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, mr6666 said:

 

The positive side here is that this should create the court case the ultra-conservative, Catholic anti-abortion justices said was needed for them to make a definitive ruling on the Texass law.  They now have someone who will suffer a loss if the law is enforced.

48 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

It would be illegal to refuse service to someone covering their face for religious reasons.   

 

Also for medical reasons and I suspect the ADA would support this.

32 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

So the couple could say they believe in Science, which tells them they must wear masks when not eating or drinking in public? That's crazy.

(Trial lawyer: Maybe it's just crazy enough to work.)

 

Science is not a religion.  It's a fact.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

The couple could say they are Muslim.   

As an atheist I find all religions exceptions as "crazy",     but they are allowed in many areas,  especially in the Red-States:  states with a high percentage of myth believers.

      

For them to say they are Muslim would be an insult to Islam and a mockery of the law. No, Science (with the capital S) is the new religion for the irreligious. That's their best shot. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

For them to say they are Muslim would be an insult to Islam and a mockery of the law. No, Science (with the capital S) is the new religion for the irreligious. That's their best shot. 

Science is NOT a religion.  For them to claim that it is their religion and that it requires them to wear a mask under certain circumstances and for this to legally require a restaurant owner to permit them to be served, laws would have to recognize it as a religion.  Capital S or small case s either one.  Unlike where this distinction has been made by the 14th Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1965, Americans with Disabilities Act and so forth this application of science as a recognized religion has not been made. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LuckyDan said:

For them to say they are Muslim would be an insult to Islam and a mockery of the law. No, Science (with the capital S) is the new religion for the irreligious. That's their best shot. 

You appear to be way behind the times;  It is the anti-vaxers that are using made-up religious excuses (BS)  to avoid requirements. 

Anyhow,  I was not talking about this couple specifically but just answering the general question you posed about if it would be illegal for a business to refuse service to someone with a face covering.         

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

You appear to be way behind the times;  It is the anti-vaxers that are using made-up religious excuses (BS)  to avoid requirements. 

Anyhow,  I was not talking about this couple specifically but just answering the general question you posed about if it would be illegal for a business to refuse service to someone with a face covering.         

I will try to do better. Thanks for enlightening me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LuckyDan said:

I will try to do better. Thanks for enlightening me.

Hey,   didn't mean to insult you but your reply makes me think that I did.    Just today the L.A.  Times has two articles about how police and firefighters are filling for religious exceptions and even their union is suspicious of the claims.      Of course it is impossible to verify if a religious exception is legit or not.

If one's point is that on one should have to file for a religious exception that is another topic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

Hey,   didn't mean to insult you but your reply makes me think that I did.    Just today the L.A.  Times has two articles about how police and firefighters are filling for religious exceptions and even their union is suspicious of the claims.      Of course it is impossible to verify if a religious exception is legit or not.

If one's point is that on one should have to file for a religious exception that is another topic. 

No offense taken and none meant. Trying to be light hearted. I'm aware of the anti-vax crowd but I didn't know about their claims of religious exceptions.  I don't take them seriously and I don't keep up with them. 

But I do take progressives deadly seriously  and I do get the definite vibe from them that "The Science" is their primary faith. I saw some writer not long ago use, "Science willing" in a piece. 

Also I was trying, originally, to illustrate why we should use the word discrimination carefully. There is legal discrimination and illegal discrimination. The Texas grill owner is most certainly discriminating, but not against a protected class and not for an outlawed reason. He sounds like a jerk and I would not do business with him, but it's his place. He should post a sign saying "no face coverings allowed," the way convenience stores used to on Halloween nights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

But I do take progressives deadly seriously  and I do get the definite vibe from them that "The Science" is their primary faith. I saw some writer not long ago use, "Science willing" in a piece. 

Like I said I'm an atheist so in that way one could say science is my primary "faith",  but I don't look at it that way.     I fall back on science to explain thinks like biology,  geology,  chemistry,   etc...  and have no belief\opinion of areas science can't explain;  e.g.  the concept of a  so called  afterlife.  

I also don't see progressives adopting science as their faith;  If they did,  they wouldn't support the unscientific concept being applied to gender;    gender is biological.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

Hey,   didn't mean to insult you but your reply makes me think that I did.    Just today the L.A.  Times has two articles about how police and firefighters are filling for religious exceptions and even their union is suspicious of the claims.      Of course it is impossible to verify if a religious exception is legit or not.

If one's point is that on one should have to file for a religious exception that is another topic. 

Why?  The military has a system for determining whether conscientious objector claims are valid.  Of course, not really an issue with an all-volunteer military.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

I also don't see progressives adopting science as their faith;  If they did,  they wouldn't support the unscientific concept being applied to gender;    gender is biological.   

Right. Which is why, when you hear them say, "I believe in Science!" you should ask them how many genders there are. Intersectionality and relativism has made their various stances incompatible but they don't see it. It is every bit as illogical as faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LuckyDan said:

Right. Which is why, when you hear them say, "I believe in Science!" you should ask them how many genders there are. Intersectionality and relativism has made their various stances incompatible but they don't see it. It is every bit as illogical as faith.

And why is this important to you?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LuckyDan said:

Right. Which is why, when you hear them say, "I believe in Science!" you should ask them how many genders there are. Intersectionality and relativism has made their various stances incompatible but they don't see it. It is every bit as illogical as faith.

Regardless of opinions on people changing their gender identity later in life, the gender issue still is valid because there are people that are born with characteristics of both male and female (chromosomal, ****, hormonal).  In a binary system of male/female, what gender bin do you put them in?  Neither?  Both?  Create other labels?

Used to be that intersex people were assigned a gender by their doctors and/or parents shortly after birth, and then underwent surgeries, hormone therapy and other treatments to try to get them to fit into one bin or the other.   Most of the time it's not completely successful.

The binary language is insufficient for those born intersex.

What's your solution?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Regardless of opinions on people changing their gender identity later in life, the gender issue still is valid because there are people that are born with characteristics of both male and female (chromosomal, ****, hormonal).  In a binary system of male/female, what gender bin do you put them in?  Neither?  Both?  Create other labels?

Used to be that intersex people were assigned a gender by their doctors and/or parents shortly after birth, and then underwent surgeries, hormone therapy and other treatments to try to get them to fit into one bin or the other.   Most of the time it's not completely successful.

The binary language is insufficient for those born intersex.

What's your solution?

 

I don't see a problem. You're talking about people with birth defects. They used to be called hermaphrodites. They are rare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

I don't see a problem. You're talking about people with birth defects. They used to be called hermaphrodites. They are rare. 

The point is that they don't fit into the two-gender category system.   The language we use is insufficient to cover all cases.  Whether they are rare or not is irrelevant.   Their existence shows that there are people born male, people born female, and people that are born other.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

The point is that they don't fit into the two-gender category system.   The language we use is insufficient to cover all cases.  Whether they are rare or not is irrelevant.   Their existence shows that there are people born male, people born female, and people that are born other.  

 

There are two genders. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, txfilmfan said:

The point is that they don't fit into the two-gender category system.   The language we use is insufficient to cover all cases.  Whether they are rare or not is irrelevant.   Their existence shows that there are people born male, people born female, and people that are born other.  

 

There is a term for them and that is the term that should be used and not transgender.     AND it does matter how rare they are since the term transgender is being used for the 99.9% that were not born-that-way (having characteristics of both genders) and the entire social justice movement is about those with psychological issues and not those born with birth defects.

Clearly those with said birth defects may need medical treatment,  especially when they hit puberty.   A just society should do all it can to assist them (just like the blind etc...).

But those with  psychological issues should not be given hormones or surgically "treatment".    They need intense counselling. 

PS:  I'm sure you're aware of  all this.   We are not trying to make this political,  but instead the focus was on the science.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

There is a term for them and that is the term that should be used and not transgender.     AND it does matter how rare they are since the term transgender is being used for the 99.9% that were not born-that-way (having characteristics of both genders) and the entire social justice movement is about those with psychological issues and not those born with birth defects.

Pandering to, or legitimizing, gender identity disorder, now termed gender dysphoria (which sounds nicer). Those in the medical and psychology fields are under the same political pressures as are politicians and bakers. Sometimes they cave, and we get the crap you see in a return of results on the search question "how many genders are there." 4. 5. 58. 64. 12. 

God help the progressive who answers that question with 2. 

This is what I meant when I said progressives have made a faith of science, which unlike tenets of established faith, they have learned they can influence to leverage changes in public policy. You see it in identity politics and in climate change discussion.  During the SSM debates, way back when, they would say "Sexual identity is immutable. I was born this way." They won that debate and then the gender identity stuff started. Born with a ****, but feel like a natural woman? You don't need counseling, you need access to the ladies room. They don't use the "born this way" stuff anymore. 

Edit: Can't say peeniss? Wow. Okay wee-wee then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

Pandering to, or legitimizing, gender identity disorder, now termed gender dysphoria (which sounds nicer). Those in the medical and psychology fields are under the same political pressures as are politicians and bakers. Sometimes they cave, and we get the crap you see in a return of results on the search question "how many genders are there." 4. 5. 58. 64. 12. 

God help the progressive who answers that question with 2. 

This is what I meant when I said progressives have made a faith of science, which unlike tenets of established faith, they have learned they can influence to leverage changes in public policy. You see it in identity politics and in climate change discussion.  During the SSM debates, way back when, they would say "Sexual identity is immutable. I was born this way." They won that debate and then the gender identity stuff started. Born with a ****, but feel like a natural woman? You don't need counseling, you need access to the ladies room. They don't use the "born this way" stuff anymore. 

Edit: Can't say peeniss? Wow. Okay wee-wee then. 

Well we can disagree that progressive have made a faith of science.     Again,  if they did they wouldn't have such an anti-science stance on issues like gender identity.  

But I do wish to note that I don't believe that there are any inherent behavioral differences between the genders other than those related to biology; E.g. child birth,  breast feeding etc...

How one dresses,  what their hobbies are,  their hair style, etc..   are gender neutral in my world.    Also what gender someone has sex with doesn't concern me at all.   

I.e.  there are no inherent masculine or feminine traits.     Instead they are social norms and in my view they need to be eliminated. 

So I feel the progressive movement in their mission eliminated these bogus social norms,  decided that they needed to corrupt science.      People should feel free to dress  as they wish, etc... without having to get surgery to make it "OK" to themselves or anyone else in this  world.

   

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

Well we can disagree that progressive have made a faith of science.     Again,  if they did they wouldn't have such an anti-science stance on issues like gender identity.  

That is my point. They claim scientific bases but lack them entirely. They use certain arguments (immutability for example) while it serves their purpose, then move on when it's no longer useful, and cook up something else. 

You are assuming intellectual honesty on their part, while I am pointing out their dishonesty. 

There are two kinds of leftists: Those who lie and know they're lying and justify it as being a dishonest means to a noble end, and those who believe the lies, parrot them, and help propagate them.

There is no intellectual rigor on the left. It's mainly sloganeering and social pressure. That's why it's so easy to BE a leftist. It doesn't require much thought and people are nicer to you.

(MAGA does much the same on the right now, but MAGA is a reaction to leftism.)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LuckyDan said:

That is my point. They claim scientific bases but lack them entirely. They use certain arguments (immutability for example) while it serves their purpose, then move on when it's no longer useful, and cook up something else. 

You are assuming intellectual honesty on their part, while I am pointing out their dishonesty. 

There are two kinds of leftists: Those who lie and know they're lying and justify it as being a dishonest means to a noble end, and those who believe the lies, parrot them, and help propagate them.

There is no intellectual rigor on the left. It's mainly sloganeering and social pressure. That's why it's so easy to BE a leftist. It doesn't require much thought and people are nicer to you.

(MAGA does much the same on the right now, but MAGA is a reaction to leftism.)

Like I said we will just have to agree-to-disagree.    For one I don't really know what a "leftist" is;   I.e. it is too broad of  a term and,  like a lot of labels,  tends to be used by people to scapegoat and marginalize segments of the population.      But hey,  I see you're doing the same with MAGA.     I would rather discuss actual topics instead of broad categorizations;   Conservatives are like this,  or liberals are like that,  Dems believe this,  GOPers that,   etc...      I find discussing actual topics  is a better way for me to find common ground with people;  i.e.  these broad categorizations just divide people.      I guess in that way I'm woke!  (ha ha).

One thing I'm sure you noticed is that the people with TDS at this site,  are too cowardly to even discuss a topic once it doesn't fit into how they frame an issue, especially after they find out one isn't a Trumper.     Illegal immigration,  what do to about refuges at the southern border,   the issue with the budget,  debt celling, etc....

Now that a Dem is President they are silent but when Trump was President,, well they just wouldn't shut up!

 

 

   

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion, in general, is a system of supernatural beliefs. Science, in general, is a system of non-supernatural

beliefs, so science is not a religion. It's a fairly simple distinction.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

Like I said we will just have to agree-to-disagree.    For one I don't really know what a "leftist" is;   I.e. it is too broad of  a term and,  like a lot of labels,  tends to be used by people to scapegoat and marginalize segments of the population.      But hey,  I see you're doing the same with MAGA.     I would rather discuss actual topics instead of broad categorizations;   Conservatives are like this,  or liberals are like that,  Dems believe this,  GOPers that,   etc...      I find discussing actual topics  is a better way for me to find common ground with people;  i.e.  these broad categorizations just divide people.      I guess in that way I'm woke!  (ha ha).

One thing I'm sure you noticed is that the people with TDS at this site,  are too cowardly to even discuss a topic once it doesn't fit into how they frame an issue, especially after they find out one isn't a Trumper.     Illegal immigration,  what do to about refuges at the southern border,   the issue with the budget,  debt celling, etc....

Now that a Dem is President they are silent but when Trump was President,, well they just wouldn't shut up!

Leftism is a topic. I enjoy political philosophy and the various strains of thought on governing and social order. By leftist I mean those who seek a strict egalitarian set of policies, highly collectivist, in favor of wealth redistribution, either through outlawing of private property (old school communists) or taxation (democratic socialists- a newer buzz term.) They favor strong central government and are highly class conscious. Among other things. You get the idea.

But I understand labels get confusing. MAGA has muddied the meaning of conservative so badly I always have to self identify as a #NeverTrump conservative. People still scratch their heads. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

Leftism is a topic. I enjoy political philosophy and the various strains of thought on governing and social order. By leftist I mean those who seek a strict egalitarian set of policies, highly collectivist, in favor of wealth redistribution, either through outlawing of private property (old school communists) or taxation (democratic socialists- a newer buzz term.) They favor strong central government and are highly class conscious. Among other things. You get the idea.

But I understand labels get confusing. MAGA has muddied the meaning of conservative so badly I always have to self identify as a #NeverTrump conservative. People still scratch their heads. 

I googled MAGA as a political philosophy and apparently it isn't one.  It is just a political slogan Trump used that was created by others.  It is not a coherent philosophy where all the "practioner" believe in it.  MAGA is not conservatism in the normal sense.  

As for leftism and rightism, they vary with the times and locations.   In CA I would be a conservative (rightist), in SC I'm a liberal (leftist) and in other states I'm a moderate.  I consider myself a moderate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...