Yes, Obama is for diversity of speech on campus. Just like he is for traditional marriage; will let you keep your doctor (think about that for a minute, even if it were true); will not let Iran develop nukes; draws a red line for Syria, ; and will have the most open administration in history…..
Comment on Heterodox Academy by GaryM
↧
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Michael
Delusion is in the eye of the beholder.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Wagathon
When you’re caught red-handed, plead the 5th Amendment!
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by bobdroege
Jim2,
She is an elected official and can’t be fired, she is not an employee of the government.
She is the elected clerk of the court and has no supervisor.
She can be impeached, but the legislature is not in session at the moment.
She doesn’t have any rights in this matter, just the obligation to do her job as part of the government.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by omanuel
Nobel Prize Committee abandons sinking ship:
http://punditfromanotherplanet.com/2015/09/16/nobel-panel-obama-peace-prize-as-mistake/
↧
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by bobdroege
I have something in common with Thatcher, not so much with Fiorina.
What organization did Thatcher found?
Just asking.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by jim2
Not entirely true, Bob. From the article (my emphasis):
…
First, a technical but important legal point: Title VII expressly excludes elected officials. But Kentucky, like about 20 other states, has a state Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) statute that requires government agencies to exempt religious objectors from generally applicable laws, unless denying the exemption is the least restrictive means of serving a compelling government interest. The federal government also has a RFRA, which may apply to federal court orders issued to state elected officials.
Such RFRAs are narrower than Title VII (they apply only to the government) but also broader (they apply not just to employment but to all government action). Nothing in them exempts accommodation claims by elected officials. Moreover, the 1963-90 Free Exercise Clause rules that the RFRAs were meant to restore included protections for elected officials, see McDaniel v. Paty (1978); though McDaniel involved a rule that discriminated against religious practice, the plurality opinion treated it as a standard religious exemption request.
The terms of these RFRAs actually seem to offer greater protection for claimants — to deny an exemption, the government must show not just “undue hardship” but unavoidable material harm to a “compelling government interest.” Tagore v. United States (5th Cir. 2013) illustrates this: When Sikh IRS agent Kawaljeet Tagore sought a religious exemption from IRS’s no-weapons-in-the-workplace policy for her kirpan (a 3-inch dulled symbolic dagger), the court concluded that accommodating the request was an “undue hardship,” but allowed the RFRA claim to go forward, so that the trial court could determine whether denying the exemption “furthers a compelling government interest with the least restrictive means.” On the other hand, Harrell v. Donahue (8th Cir. 2011) took the view that, at least as to federal employees, RFRA provided no protections beyond those offered by Title VII.
…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3
Steven Mosher, “The argument could be made that christianity requires people to subject themselves to civil authority, so her religion would actually require her to follow the law and issue the licence.”
That case is actually a lot more interesting. The Supremes killing the DOMA doesn’t write law, it makes one law unconstitutional. Kentucky also has a constitution and the marriage licenses they issue contain the phrase “bonds of holy matrimony” which is part of what the clerk swore to uphold, though marriage licensing is a fraction of her duties. Kentucky legislature should be allowed time to review the implications and revise their paper work and laws accordingly. States can challenge the constitutionality of issuing marriage licenses all together.
BTW, her refusal may have more legal grounds than the gay judge in Texas that refuses to marry heteros.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by jim2
Watching the opening statements in the main GOP debate. To sum up the opening statements: I will make the USA GREAT again!!
↧
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by harkin1
I cannot believe that the Republicans, sitting where they are after almost two terms of the biggest clown to ever occupy the White House, have decided that instead of addressing real issues are pushing forward their own version of the clown parade.
“No more settling for uninspiring match-ups like Mitt Romney vs. Herman Cain, John McCain vs. Mike Huckabee, or Dubya vs. Alan Keyes. 2016 was going to be about Big Ideas on turning around a debt-ridden, war-weary, stagnant superpower. A policy wonk’s dream.
Even better, Republicans could finally laugh at the Democratic primary featuring a corrupt Clinton, a socialist Sanders, and a Bidenesque Biden. Imagine the contrast of tired old Democrats yelling about microaggressions and wiped email servers, as fresh, dynamic Republicans addressed high-level social and economic policy…….
……..These are the lofty policy debates dominating the presidential election of a 21st century superpower. We aren’t discussing America’s $18.4 trillion national debt and our insolvent social programs. The stagnant economy and an expansionist China, Russia, and Islamic State. Burning cities at home and burning countries abroad.
Instead we’re trading GIFs of a reality show star on “The Tonight Show,” giggling about menstruation, and wondering if the most impressive GOP field in a generation are a bunch of “dummies” or if they’re a bunch of “losers.”
These are serious times. We are not a serious people.”
Best article I’ve read yet on the Trump Cavalcade Of Unseriousness
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by jim2
Tony – just off the wire …
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Internal Revenue Service revoked the nonprofit status of the veterans benefit organization that hosted and sold tickets to a foreign policy speech by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump aboard a retired U.S. battleship, The Associated Press has learned. The group’s endorsement of Trump at the event also could raise legal problems under campaign finance laws.
Trump’s campaign did not respond to questions from the AP about whether it was aware that the IRS had revoked the nonprofit status of the Veterans for a Strong America, which sold tickets to Trump’s event for up to $1,000 as a fundraiser. The IRS issued its decision Aug. 10, citing the group’s failure to file any tax returns for three consecutive years, according to IRS records reviewed by the AP.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Peter Lang
Well Thank God for that!!
What blunder Obama was. I hope the US voters aren’t dumb enough to vote Democrat again this century.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by verdeviewer
Here the University of California’s “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance” prepared by the staff of UC President Janet Napolitano, titled “Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages They Send:”
http://ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf
Among the microagressive phrases to be avoided are:
• ”America is a melting pot.”
• ”Men and women have equal opportunities for achievement.”
• ”America is the land of opportunity.”
• ”Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough.”
Mind-boggling, even to the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-0916-intolerance-20150916-story.html.
↧
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by bobdroege
Jim2,
She is not free to discriminate against others as a part of our government.
Federal law trumps state laws.
The supreme court has ruled that gays have certain rights and no state law or constitution trumps that.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by JCH
“I do not, and would never, impede any person’s right to get married.” – Judge Parker, Dallas County, Texas
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by jim2
Well, Bob, the jig is up for you. If you read the article I posted last, it is plain to see to even the most casual observer that accommodations could and should have been made to this person on the government payroll. There are even Federal statutes that can be interpreted that way, it just hasn’t been through the courts yet.
And, one other point, the Supreme Court does not necessarily have the final word. According to the Constitution, the other two branches of the Federal government have as part of their commission the responsibility to check and balance the Supreme Court. This is merely Civics 101 in the USA.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Faustino aka Genghis Cunn
Nickels, Kalb’s claimed pattern may have some validity, but it is far from universal. He says that “the principles of utility and equality are now accepted as substitutes for old moralities.” Not by me, and not by many others. I gave up God and religion in 1955, but have long followed a strict moral code of which most people of most religions would surely approve. A major flaw in Kalb’s quote is the implication that satisfying desires is a worthy goal. The process of desire, of wanting this and wanting not to have that, leads to a pattern of craving and aversion which can never be satisfied, and is a source of disharmony within and between people. To lead a peaceful and harmonious life, each individual needs to address and overcome this pattern. “maximum equal preference satisfaction” solves nothing.
↧
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Barnes
Jim2 – agreed. That is why I like this blog – lightly moderated (although you seem to have found your way to the doghouse for some reason:)) not much pc going on here.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Barnes
Well, I believe that afterall, much of CA is considered a desert, and deserts don’t get much rain in general.
↧
Comment on Heterodox Academy by Barnes
Yes, a lot of repitition. Notice how Tapper did not allow Cruz to address the climate change question. He is possibly the only true skeptic on stage. While the others who answered gave valid responses, they did not challenge the “consensus” position.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
