after 4-5 years with almost no significant snow/ice, getting an actual snow storm with substantial snow (a whopping 5 inches!!) this year was considered a freak event (and of course, a reason to disprove global warming)...
and of course prior to 4/5 years ago, this sort snow storm was much common, being an almost yearly event.
They tabled that until the next legislative session, after seeing Indiana and Arkansas.
But it's pretty much identical to them, being both: -misleadingly titled a "restoration act" (when they aren't restoring anything; it's already perfectly legal to discriminate against homosexuals in the state in pretty much any manner) -extending the existing legal shield for private persons created by the existing religious freedom act to also extend to businesses (cause businesses are people apparently...)
Recently the legislature introduced a bill that would block the oil/gas industry from liability for spills and earthquakes. There's another that calls for an investigation into the scientists investigating the earthquakes (sound familiar to another topic??).
And they recently gave the oil/gas industry yet another tax break....while the state has a massive 600million dollar shortfall in its budget (Kansas gets most of the press for doubling down failed red state budgetary policies, but OK is right there with them). Further, they want to continue to cut the income tax again, and eventually eliminate it entirely. These two items of course not being negotiable, even in the face of the massive budgetary shortfall.
And the legislature passed a bill last week (which will be signed soon by the idiot Fallin if it hasn't already) that would ban local municipalities from interfering with, restricting, or banning oil/gas operations within their jurisdictions. That's right: the state government has told local government they cannot govern themselves in this area. Oil and gas by state law must (essentially) be given free reign to drill and operate where they want in the state.
Just like last year the state legislature banned local municipalities from setting their own minimum wages. By state law now, no city in Oklahoma may set a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage, which of course is only as high as the federal. This was done in response to the mere idea being floated in OKC of setting a city minimum wage higher than the fed/state minimums.
you're the only one talking about panicking, though you try to project it on us.
and fires are not simply "ok" just because they are part of the natural processes in some forests. too much fire is still a bad thing, just as too little can be.
and you really really need to understand that not every forest is like the redwood forests of California and reacts to wildfire in the same way.
I have no problem with that. I really don't care who runs the thing so long as they don't fuck it up.
I'd love a company to do it as well. Because you can fire a company. Can't fire government.:(
Ah well, there's your mistake.
Apparently you don't live in a location with democracy and elections, but do live in an area with multiple telcos competing for business.
The rest of us live in America which has the reverse situation: we vote and can thus fire our city governments and influence our public utilities, but can't fire Comcast unless we're willing to go without internet.
you don't have to run separate cable for every company.
in fact there is zero benefit to doing so, regardless of your belief that the cable is some sort of magical substance that must be replaced in order to enable better service and competition. (your belief is in fact the same belief that causes people to buy Monster cables)
just mandate open access to the wire and you get your competition.
here you go talking about the magical conduit again.
we've covered this before. you're wrong and unrealistic.
forcing open access to existing cable works and forces competition and is all it takes. how do we know? because we've done it before with long distance service (remember all the 10-10-220 services?...it was so effective that now long distance is essentially free for everyone now with a cell phone, and no one even remembers paying for long distance anymore. and which is how the main telcos killed off the sudden influx of competition).
and the Europeans still continue to do it with internet and is a primary reason they have better service and better rates.
the last mile of cable is perfect for natural monopoly type rules, which means either run it as a utility, or mandate competitive access to it.
Comcast is evil. And net access in the US is slow.
Comcast adding 2Gbs service to a major metropolitan city that they control ~99% of the market for (Charter being available in only a handful of areas that Comcast doesn't serve in the city) with a metro population of ~8million people, and doing so largely in response to Google announcing Atlanta is one of the next cities to get Google Fiber, is hardly a refutation or dramatic change of the current state of US internet access.
-not all trees naturally regrow after wildfires. many forests after a wildfire take decades to regenerate, assuming they ever do, as they go through the various stages of development again. wildfires in Oklahoma cause a forest to die. then grasses move in, then brush, and slowly trees, and after 20-40 years you have a forest again. that's a far different cycle than a forest of redwood trees which are adapted to fire, and actually need it for theirs seeds, and the fire clears out underbrush but leaves many of the larger older trees wounded but still alive, so the forest never really goes away like Oklahoma plains forest does.
-a forest is a far different beast than a sapling planted in a new built subdivision
You sound like you should probably learn a little something about Che, Castro, and other latin American dissidents of the previous century, and what precisely led to their dissatisfaction and eventual rebellion. That's not to sugar-coat the man Che became and his eventual ruthlessness. But to dismiss them as simply wishing to establish totalitarianism shows total lack of knowledge of Cuba's history or the context of their revolution.
Your knowledge of the revolution and the governance of England is also rather lacking.
Also consider semantics: just because they aren't fighting for -YOUR- concept of freedom, doesn't mean they aren't fighting for freedom. American Freedom is not the only definition of freedom, in fact it's rather lacking in many ways.
Why should I provide a citation? I provided the citations the last 20 times you said this same exact drivel just a few days ago. But you didn't pay attention then, and I doubt you will now. If you truly care that much and just happened to miss them (several times in a row) try your post history. ---
When you act in the public market you are no longer acting as a private citizen, but as a public accommodation. you are offering goods and services in exchange for money, be it a motel, restaurant, lawyer, or bakery.
a private citizen acting in a private manner has religious freedom. his business does not. And denying services for discriminatory reasons IS illegal and is not a thought crime.
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964 National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
In addition some states and cities have recognized other protected classes in addition to the these. For ex, in Washington DC (and a few states) you cannot discriminate on the basis of political ideology. --
And allow me to quote what you said:
If I walked into a bakery and legally compelled them to bake a cake depicting a same-sex couple that they don't want to bake... aren't I the one imposing my values?
So not only do you not know what you are talking about, you apparently don't even know what you just said.
The baker in entering the public marketplace gives up certain rights. A business operating in the public marketplace must do business with the public, all of the public.
Also: homesexuality is not a value any more than skin color is a value.
but then we covered this before: you don't know what you're talking about.
You really need to learn some definitions and concepts.
City buses are called "public transportation" because they are typically operated by the local government, ie, public. not because the public at large may use them. as an extension of government, city buses cannot discriminate under Title III (3) of the CRA of 1964, which "Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.", this really though is just an extension of the already extent Equal Protection Clause, simply being spelled out specifically.
A cab company may be privately owned, but it is still considered a "public accommodation" because it is a entity that does business with the public in exchange for money. And such public accommodations ARE ALSO prohibited from discrimination, but under a different section of the law, Title II (2). this was hte game changed, this was new. This prohibited private business from hiding behind the cloak of being a private entity in order to enable discrimination. This is the part of hte law that says "if you do business with the public, you do business with ALL of it, and cannot discriminate".
at what point during the purchases of the cake was the person also offered for sale? Oh thats right, you dont know what youre talking about.
you speak in hyperbole and irrational stupidity, instead logic and fact. and you have roughly the intelligence of a high schooler, which explains the insistence on using stupid libertarian logic.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II: Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".
Like the man said: you don't know what you're talking about.
most businesses CAN refuse service to someone for almost any reason. ALMOST... being the key word. The exceptions being various classes protected against discrimination.
No shoes? Acceptable reason. Skin color? Unacceptable reason. Loud agressive posturing? Acceptable reason. Sexual orientation or gender identity? unacceptable reason.
and since you overhead planning that is criminal in intent, you definitely arent required to enable that either. that's a pretty bad hypothetical.
The law is that any shop open to the public must accommodate the entire public, and cannot refuse service for any discriminatory reason. The law is that the right to do business with someone is established from the customers point of view. The law is that shops don't get to choose their customers.
And you should read up on how Christianity was indeed used as an excuse to discriminate against blacks. Bills EXACTLY like this one were used to try and get around the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination in the marketplace.
I can't believe people need this stuff spelled out for them. It's like they weren't taught it in history class.
But then...a lot of people weren't, because the right has been successful at raising a hue and cry when people try to teach it or talk about it. They say "people would stop being sexist/racist/anyotherist if you just stopped talking about it".
But what really happens when you stop talking about it? They forget the lessons of the past. Or never learn them in the place.
And that's how we get stupid laws like these and end up having the same arguments all over again!
Slashdot Mirror
after 4-5 years with almost no significant snow/ice, getting an actual snow storm with substantial snow (a whopping 5 inches!!) this year was considered a freak event (and of course, a reason to disprove global warming)...
and of course prior to 4/5 years ago, this sort snow storm was much common, being an almost yearly event.
Oklahoma: living proof of https://xkcd.com/1321/
They tabled that until the next legislative session, after seeing Indiana and Arkansas.
But it's pretty much identical to them, being both:
-misleadingly titled a "restoration act" (when they aren't restoring anything; it's already perfectly legal to discriminate against homosexuals in the state in pretty much any manner)
-extending the existing legal shield for private persons created by the existing religious freedom act to also extend to businesses (cause businesses are people apparently...)
It gets better:
Recently the legislature introduced a bill that would block the oil/gas industry from liability for spills and earthquakes.
There's another that calls for an investigation into the scientists investigating the earthquakes (sound familiar to another topic??).
And they recently gave the oil/gas industry yet another tax break....while the state has a massive 600million dollar shortfall in its budget (Kansas gets most of the press for doubling down failed red state budgetary policies, but OK is right there with them). Further, they want to continue to cut the income tax again, and eventually eliminate it entirely. These two items of course not being negotiable, even in the face of the massive budgetary shortfall.
And the legislature passed a bill last week (which will be signed soon by the idiot Fallin if it hasn't already) that would ban local municipalities from interfering with, restricting, or banning oil/gas operations within their jurisdictions. That's right: the state government has told local government they cannot govern themselves in this area. Oil and gas by state law must (essentially) be given free reign to drill and operate where they want in the state.
Just like last year the state legislature banned local municipalities from setting their own minimum wages. By state law now, no city in Oklahoma may set a minimum wage higher than the state minimum wage, which of course is only as high as the federal. This was done in response to the mere idea being floated in OKC of setting a city minimum wage higher than the fed/state minimums.
Blech.
still causes property damage.
frequently to just repaired homes and buildings since the swarms are clustered in small areas.
ya, cause they were working so well.
you have no clue what you're talking about.
you're the only one talking about panicking, though you try to project it on us.
and fires are not simply "ok" just because they are part of the natural processes in some forests. too much fire is still a bad thing, just as too little can be.
and you really really need to understand that not every forest is like the redwood forests of California and reacts to wildfire in the same way.
I have no problem with that. I really don't care who runs the thing so long as they don't fuck it up.
I'd love a company to do it as well. Because you can fire a company. Can't fire government. :(
Ah well, there's your mistake.
Apparently you don't live in a location with democracy and elections, but do live in an area with multiple telcos competing for business.
The rest of us live in America which has the reverse situation: we vote and can thus fire our city governments and influence our public utilities, but can't fire Comcast unless we're willing to go without internet.
you don't have to run separate cable for every company.
in fact there is zero benefit to doing so, regardless of your belief that the cable is some sort of magical substance that must be replaced in order to enable better service and competition. (your belief is in fact the same belief that causes people to buy Monster cables)
just mandate open access to the wire and you get your competition.
here you go talking about the magical conduit again.
we've covered this before.
you're wrong and unrealistic.
forcing open access to existing cable works and forces competition and is all it takes.
how do we know? because we've done it before with long distance service (remember all the 10-10-220 services?...it was so effective that now long distance is essentially free for everyone now with a cell phone, and no one even remembers paying for long distance anymore. and which is how the main telcos killed off the sudden influx of competition).
and the Europeans still continue to do it with internet and is a primary reason they have better service and better rates.
the last mile of cable is perfect for natural monopoly type rules, which means either run it as a utility, or mandate competitive access to it.
Comcast is evil.
And net access in the US is slow.
Comcast adding 2Gbs service to a major metropolitan city that they control ~99% of the market for (Charter being available in only a handful of areas that Comcast doesn't serve in the city) with a metro population of ~8million people, and doing so largely in response to Google announcing Atlanta is one of the next cities to get Google Fiber, is hardly a refutation or dramatic change of the current state of US internet access.
-not all trees naturally regrow after wildfires. many forests after a wildfire take decades to regenerate, assuming they ever do, as they go through the various stages of development again. wildfires in Oklahoma cause a forest to die. then grasses move in, then brush, and slowly trees, and after 20-40 years you have a forest again. that's a far different cycle than a forest of redwood trees which are adapted to fire, and actually need it for theirs seeds, and the fire clears out underbrush but leaves many of the larger older trees wounded but still alive, so the forest never really goes away like Oklahoma plains forest does.
-a forest is a far different beast than a sapling planted in a new built subdivision
You sound like you should probably learn a little something about Che, Castro, and other latin American dissidents of the previous century, and what precisely led to their dissatisfaction and eventual rebellion. That's not to sugar-coat the man Che became and his eventual ruthlessness. But to dismiss them as simply wishing to establish totalitarianism shows total lack of knowledge of Cuba's history or the context of their revolution.
Your knowledge of the revolution and the governance of England is also rather lacking.
Also consider semantics: just because they aren't fighting for -YOUR- concept of freedom, doesn't mean they aren't fighting for freedom.
American Freedom is not the only definition of freedom, in fact it's rather lacking in many ways.
Why should I provide a citation? I provided the citations the last 20 times you said this same exact drivel just a few days ago. But you didn't pay attention then, and I doubt you will now. If you truly care that much and just happened to miss them (several times in a row) try your post history.
---
When you act in the public market you are no longer acting as a private citizen, but as a public accommodation. you are offering goods and services in exchange for money, be it a motel, restaurant, lawyer, or bakery.
a private citizen acting in a private manner has religious freedom.
his business does not.
And denying services for discriminatory reasons IS illegal and is not a thought crime.
The basic protected classes established under Federal Law are ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...) :
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act
In addition some states and cities have recognized other protected classes in addition to the these. For ex, in Washington DC (and a few states) you cannot discriminate on the basis of political ideology.
--
And allow me to quote what you said:
If I walked into a bakery and legally compelled them to bake a cake depicting a same-sex couple that they don't want to bake... aren't I the one imposing my values?
So not only do you not know what you are talking about, you apparently don't even know what you just said.
The baker in entering the public marketplace gives up certain rights.
A business operating in the public marketplace must do business with the public, all of the public.
Also: homesexuality is not a value any more than skin color is a value.
but then we covered this before: you don't know what you're talking about.
good luck fighting a lawyer without a lawyer
shouldnt be allowed in ANY states
You really need to learn some definitions and concepts.
City buses are called "public transportation" because they are typically operated by the local government, ie, public. not because the public at large may use them.
as an extension of government, city buses cannot discriminate under Title III (3) of the CRA of 1964, which "Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.", this really though is just an extension of the already extent Equal Protection Clause, simply being spelled out specifically.
A cab company may be privately owned, but it is still considered a "public accommodation" because it is a entity that does business with the public in exchange for money. And such public accommodations ARE ALSO prohibited from discrimination, but under a different section of the law, Title II (2). this was hte game changed, this was new. This prohibited private business from hiding behind the cloak of being a private entity in order to enable discrimination. This is the part of hte law that says "if you do business with the public, you do business with ALL of it, and cannot discriminate".
Seriously, read about the fucking law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
at what point during the purchases of the cake was the person also offered for sale?
Oh thats right, you dont know what youre talking about.
you speak in hyperbole and irrational stupidity, instead logic and fact.
and you have roughly the intelligence of a high schooler, which explains the insistence on using stupid libertarian logic.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II: Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".
Like the man said: you don't know what you're talking about.
business's dont have freedom.
next question.
most businesses CAN refuse service to someone for almost any reason.
ALMOST... being the key word.
The exceptions being various classes protected against discrimination.
No shoes? Acceptable reason.
Skin color? Unacceptable reason.
Loud agressive posturing? Acceptable reason.
Sexual orientation or gender identity? unacceptable reason.
and since you overhead planning that is criminal in intent, you definitely arent required to enable that either. that's a pretty bad hypothetical.
you cannot be forced to engage in someone else's discrimination.
you cannot force your own discrimination on others.
it's not fucking difficult.
Ya....no.
Not how it works.
Freedom of Association applies to private persons and groups, not to a business operating in the public market.
The law is that any shop open to the public must accommodate the entire public, and cannot refuse service for any discriminatory reason.
The law is that the right to do business with someone is established from the customers point of view.
The law is that shops don't get to choose their customers.
And you should read up on how Christianity was indeed used as an excuse to discriminate against blacks.
Bills EXACTLY like this one were used to try and get around the Civil Rights Act's prohibition on discrimination in the marketplace.
Bingo.
I can't believe people need this stuff spelled out for them.
It's like they weren't taught it in history class.
But then...a lot of people weren't, because the right has been successful at raising a hue and cry when people try to teach it or talk about it.
They say "people would stop being sexist/racist/anyotherist if you just stopped talking about it".
But what really happens when you stop talking about it?
They forget the lessons of the past.
Or never learn them in the place.
And that's how we get stupid laws like these and end up having the same arguments all over again!