Search results

Under existing law they should certainly be compelled to comply because Title II prohibits discrimination based on religion in places of public accommodation. The protections cut both ways. A gay photographer might be appalled at having to photograph a conservative religious wedding, but too...

Whether a photographer should be required to photograph any wedding is a separate question from what the basis of his right to refuse is. You can certainly make arguments that service providers should not be compelled to provide their services to all seekers, and that was the supreme court's...

How is baking a cake practicing religion? Oh, it's not, it's baking a fucking cake, which has nothing to do with religion. If baking a cake were a religious exercise you might have a point. Alas...

It's shaping up to be a blood bath. As polling stands now, Republicans take Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, Michigan, Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia, more than hitting the magic number they need to take control of the senate. Democrats in Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, and...

If you haven't figured it out, Rob Roy doesn't give a shit about discrimination. He'd see a totally segregated country with minorities treated like the worst kind of scum by the economically empowered and say "Property rights!" The human costs involved mean absolutely nothing to him.

The legislation probably empowers the executive branch to write a regulation, which means no amendment is necessary.

Perhaps I can clear something up here. Existing LGBT protections in federal law are derived from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination based on sex. Transgender people have successfully argued that discrimination against them is based on sex; likewise, the Equal...

We've seen some very significant bank runs in the recent past (Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, Wachovia), but the deposit insurance mechanism was sufficient to protect the banking system. This won't change without serious shifts in economic fundamentals. Bank runs are irrational. Had those...

When CBO has to make "assumptions that are simply not likely to happen," those assumptions are legislative. For example, CBO had to assume that all of the Bush tax cuts would expire at their legislative sunsets, even though everyone knew that some of those tax cuts would be extended. Their...

We tried that with the Articles of Confederation, and then our framers concluded that a stronger national government was a necessity, which led them to draft our constitution. I can agree with that to some extent. The framers could not possibly have imagined our modern world back in the 1700s...

France, Germany, Italy, and the UK were far more significant buyers of Libyan oil at a combined ~900,000 barrels per day. China clocked in at ~150,000 barrels per day. Italy was the largest individual buyer, importing more than twice as much as China.

You should read what you're quoting. "No STATEshall..." This is not a proscription on the powers of the federal government. If they meant to say "Neither the federal government nor the states shall..." that's what they could have said. The "Federal Reserve System" includes the Board of...

Why is that so possible? There's absolutely no evidence of it. That's totally false. All of the US government's gold reserves are owned by the treasury. The Federal Reserve does not own any gold at all. The value of the government's gold reserves at current prices is about $380 billion, if...

What whipping? No one can maintain a substantive discussion, nevermind win one.

Again, if you think I'm "always here" you're delusional. I wasn't here for almost a month; I wasn't here for a long time before that burst; I was gone a couple months before the next one; and I was gone a few months before that. I must have been doing other things.

The nullification game was played long after Jackson was president and addressed in numerous supreme court decisions, up to the Civil War. That's when the jig ended. You seem to be aware of this since you just noted that some confederates made explicit reference to their failure...

People in the south used to call that "nullification." It died with the Civil War.

I doubt you've ever paid my salary. As for statutory interpretation being a job for the people: the constitution and the court precedents spanning hundreds of years suggest otherwise. Perhaps you're just unfamiliar with them.

I have certainly acknowledged the seeming contradiction, but it arises from the way congress makes law. The courts have resolutely laid the seeming contradiction to rest. It rests soundly in undisturbed slumber. Your fanciful imaginings are just that.

As long as no one is saying anything substantive about affirmative action I'm laughing too.