That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
https://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
https://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=84908
Iirc they have had siting issues in some cities.Exodor wrote:They just built two near me. There are so many food options here why would I spend my money on a franchise that has made it clear they don't value my business or values?
I wonder if they're pushing into other more liberal markets and want to put this behind them.
CNNIsgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:29 pm WaPo
In a contentious meeting years in the making, the United States’s third-largest faith community voted to emphasize its opposition to same-sex marriage and gay clergy — a decision which was cheered by conservatives in the global church, especially in Africa, but was deeply disappointing to many Americans who were eager for change.
United Methodist Church leaders are proposing a split into more than one denomination in a bid to resolve years of debate over LGBT clergy and same-sex weddings, according to the church's official news agency.
The proposal, from a 16-member group of bishops and church leaders, says a separation was "the best means to resolve our differences, allowing each part of the Church to remain true to its theological understanding, while recognizing the dignity, equality, integrity, and respect of every person."
...
New York Conference Bishop Thomas Bickerton, part of the group behind the proposal, told the official United Methodist News Service that heated debate at the conference demonstrated "the line in the sand had turned into a canyon."
...
The church's worldwide conference in May would need to approve the historic restructuring.
...
The proposal includes $25 million for the "traditionalist Methodist denomination." Another $2 million would be set aside for other potential new denominations. And $39 million will be allocated over eight years to "support communities historically marginalized by racism."
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have opened the court’s term by calling for the overturning of its 2015 marriage equality decision.
https://www.advocate.com/news/2020/10/0 ... e-equalityThe question of whether to extend legal marriage rights to same-sex couples should have been solved state by state through legislation, Alito said.
“In Obergefell v. Hodges … the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs. … The Court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often ‘decent and honorable,’ … the Court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview.”
A state-by-state process would result in a patchwork of laws, with some states allowing same-sex marriages and not others, and some possibly not recognizing marriages performed in other states — and perhaps the federal government not recognizing them either, so many benefits available to opposite-sex couples would be denied to same-sex couples.
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:42 pm Yes, but that's because they're throwing a hissy that Supreme Court will not hear Kim Davis same-sex marriage case
What a berk!Davis was defeated for reelection, and sued by two same-sex couples for refusing to issue marriage certificates. Her claim of qualified immunity was rejected by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
How does the fact that two other people can get married "threaten" anyone's personal religious liberty in any way whatsoever?“Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.
For those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
Well, the Kim Davis case is that, as a homophobic and bigoted public official, she shouldn't have had to process a gay marriage license.Skinypupy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:28 pmHow does the fact that two other people can get married "threaten" anyone's personal religious liberty in any way whatsoever?“Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.
That argument always baffles me.
So when the Suprem(acist) Court takes over, will all gay marriages be annulled?coopasonic wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:43 pm In related news my wife's sister and fiancée became wife and wife today in a courthouse ceremony. They decided they needed to get it done while they still could.
Maybe. That is one thing that makes this completely unseemly. They *aren't supposed to take positions like this*. Turning a bigot like Kim Davis into a martyr and throwing a hissy like this undermines the court's legitimacy. But I guess this is just the beginning.Jaymann wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:54 pmSo when the Suprem(acist) Court takes over, will all gay marriages be annulled?coopasonic wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:43 pm In related news my wife's sister and fiancée became wife and wife today in a courthouse ceremony. They decided they needed to get it done while they still could.
Highly unlikely. You would need a relevant case to be granted cert, and then you would need 5 justices to agree to reverse it. Roberts is almost certainly opposed, so we would need the other 5 conservative justices to be a unified block. There's not much history to suggest that's the case.
Also, we do realize that the "Suprem(acist) Court" just voted NOT to take up the Kim Davis appeal, right???Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:36 pmHighly unlikely. You would need a relevant case to be granted cert, and then you would need 5 justices to agree to reverse it. Roberts is almost certainly opposed, so we would need the other 5 conservative justices to be a unified block. There's not much history to suggest that's the case.
I was referring to after the Trump nominee.Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:07 pmAlso, we do realize that the "Suprem(acist) Court" just voted NOT to take up the Kim Davis appeal, right???Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:36 pmHighly unlikely. You would need a relevant case to be granted cert, and then you would need 5 justices to agree to reverse it. Roberts is almost certainly opposed, so we would need the other 5 conservative justices to be a unified block. There's not much history to suggest that's the case.
All it would really take is Biden winning and then Thomas retiring. That puts it back to the same make up that we've had for the last several years. To actually shift it towards democrats you would need Alito or Roberts to retire as well. None of the other conservative justices are anywhere near retirement.
Alito and Thomas both said her case was flawed. Yet they still went out of their way to throw the hissy fit. They are waiting for a better case to come -- if it does "naturally" -- cough cough.Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:07 pmAlso, we do realize that the "Suprem(acist) Court" just voted NOT to take up the Kim Davis appeal, right???Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:36 pmHighly unlikely. You would need a relevant case to be granted cert, and then you would need 5 justices to agree to reverse it. Roberts is almost certainly opposed, so we would need the other 5 conservative justices to be a unified block. There's not much history to suggest that's the case.
This vote was unanimous.Jaymann wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:08 pmI was referring to after the Trump nominee.Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:07 pmAlso, we do realize that the "Suprem(acist) Court" just voted NOT to take up the Kim Davis appeal, right???Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:36 pmHighly unlikely. You would need a relevant case to be granted cert, and then you would need 5 justices to agree to reverse it. Roberts is almost certainly opposed, so we would need the other 5 conservative justices to be a unified block. There's not much history to suggest that's the case.
I was thinking more of the courts at all levels. McConnell has done nothing but seat right-wing-friendly judges since 2017.Scraper wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:42 pmAll it would really take is Biden winning and then Thomas retiring. That puts it back to the same make up that we've had for the last several years. To actually shift it towards democrats you would need Alito or Roberts to retire as well. None of the other conservative justices are anywhere near retirement.
linkTexas officials are facing backlash after deciding to allow social workers to turn away clients on the basis of their disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.
At the direction of the governor’s office, the Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners voted unanimously to eliminate disability, sexual orientation and gender identity from the nondiscrimination clause of the code of conduct. The board made the decision during a joint meeting Monday with the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council, which oversees regulatory agencies for professions related to mental health.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... n-therapy/A federal appeals court struck down Friday local ordinances prohibiting licensed therapists from engaging in “conversion therapy” practices that aim to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity—despite widespread consensus among experts that such therapy is harmful—arguing that banning the controversial practice is a violation of the therapists’ First Amendment rights.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-ga ... 75841389b5Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) introduced legislation in the House on Thursday that would bar schools from receiving federal funding if they allow transgender girls and women and non-binary people to compete on sports teams consistent with their gender identities.
The bill — co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma — was met with immediate outrage from transgender activists and allies who labeled the legislation “blatantly transphobic.”
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) signaled late Tuesday he would oppose the Equality Act, legislation to expand the prohibition on anti-LGBTQ discrimination under federal law, throwing a massive wrench into plans of the bill’s supporters to guide it into law.
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/02 ... ality-act/LGBTQ rights supporters were counting on Romney to contribute Republican support to get the Equality Act across the finish line. With his vote off the table, it’s hard to see how the legislation’s proponents would be able to find the 10 votes in the Republican caucus to end a filibuster.
I have a lot of exposure to this - before the world ended. I've seen this issue cause massive turmoil in a sport with female in the parent organization's name. I saw some very awkward and frankly unworkable schemes to try to address or balance trans inclusivity vs. perceived or realized advantages. For example, at one point hormone testing was bandied about and the idea was that someone undergoing transition would be included. This for many reasons has gone out the window.UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:42 pm What would this mean for female sports? Universities and colleges receive federal money. They give out scholarships to female athletes. Now they have to give to top performing transgender's ? Tax payers pay for arenas so this should affect female pro sports as well. I don't watch female sports but they do matter to some. How could we support the Olympics in any way ?
I know it hurt this girls chances.
This was discussed in some circles. It is seen as exclusionary. If they identify as women then they are women. This inherent conflict is what is weaponized by people like Greene. They seize on a legitimate disagreement, drive it to an absolute end, and use it to demonize these people. And that is just another front in an already wide identify politics battlefield. It's a real mess.