- This topic has 173 replies, 30 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
I, too, think that gay marriage, while crucial, is not the be-all end-all issue facing the state and the country as a whole. I believe that the problem is that the Democrats are pushing through an agenda of failed economic policies that make no sense. We hear all the time about how they hate corporations, etc., although the result of their legislation is to hurt small businesses, the backbone of American free-market entrepreneurship. We need free-market ideals to lead the way, not the failed ideas of anti-semites Marx and Keynes, yemachem shemam.
agree on the bored.
thats why i finally just made the list.
SJS, Charlie and Gavra,
” A gay couple is just asking for the right of a contract.” Quote from SJS. All of a sudden the libs come out in a pack to attack.
I wasn’t talking about contracts in general between men, only marriage contracts. She threw regular contracts in as a smokescreen. When I said this is Kefira, I was talking about being pro Gay marriage, even for a Goy. How do you know it’s kefira to believe in Gay marriage? Go to page 2 and you will see that Gay marriage brings destruction to this world. Obviously, no sane person wants to destroy the world they are living in, so therefore she must not believe in the words of Chazal.This is Kefira! Whether you distort my words or not.
As far as federal law does, I told you to read the case before you comment. If you would have read the case, you would have seen that the Supreme Court couldn’t throw out the law, so they said employers don’t have to accommodate religious beliefs if it’s an undue hardship. Acc. to case law, the burden of proof is on the employer to show they tried to accommodate, but couldn’t- due to undue hardship and state what the hardship is. The Supreme Court in the TWA case actually defines how companies can accommodate by giving three ways. Look it up. The companies I tried to work for never tried to accommodate, they just refused to hire. Then they defended themselves in court saying undue hardship. There was no hardship and even if there was, they have to prove that there is -their word is meaningless. All they proved was that they need Sat. workers. Obviously, they need workers because they made a business decision to be open on Sat. The federal court just rubber stamped what they said. I can speculate why the Judge came out with such a judgement, either she doesn’t read what Plaintiff’s write if they are Pro-se or she has no interest in Justice, but just wants to get as many cases as she can off her list/desk. (It takes a lot more energy on their part to precide over a trial than to dismiss it with a summary judgement.) Or she is vehemetly anti-semitic and got the chance to rule against a Jew and seized the moment! Either one of these reasons are a bad reflection on our federal court system. I will try to explain briefly why it wasn’t overturned in appeal. Appeals Courts only overturn rulings if something new comes about or something was missed. My arguments was the same as before, so there was no basis for appeal. As far as the Supreme Court is concerened they only take cases that fall within certain guidelines, even if the case has merit. We in this country expect fair and just treatment from our Court system. This we don’t have. If the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court were honest they would say -such a person isn’t qualified to be a Judge. She should have been removed from the bench and my case retried in front of a honest Judge whom is without predjudice, whatever that predjudice is. But our justice system is too haughty to admit there is something wrong with a lot of Judges. One day they will have to give judgement to the Almighty Judge and I don’t envy them! Any futher questions go to law school or get legal help. They charge between $200 -$400 per hour. I’m nice, I gave you all this legal info for free!
rebdoniel,
The failed policies that got us here were those of Bush and the rest of the Republicans: Massive deficits, uncontrolled military spending, an unfunded handout to the insurance industry in the form of the Medicare drug plan, and the collapse of the economy that was followed by the bailout of the banks. It takes a lot longer than two years to recover from such a disaster.
“Obviously, no sane person wants to destroy the world they are living in, so therefore she must not believe in the words of Chazal.This is Kefira!”
No, it isn’t kefira. There is no chiyuv to accept any the literality of any particular aggadic statement of Chazal. See Rambam in Guide to the Perplexed, Ramban in the Disputations of Barcelona, and especially Rabbi Avraham ben HaRambam in The Aggadot of the Talmud which is the introduction to the Ein Yaakov. It is bad enough that you wrongly accuse someone of kefira, but you are now distorting the Torah.
P.S. I read the opinion. The Supreme Court ruled in the case against Hardison. A major reason for the majority was that other employees would be required to work on Shabat and to accomodate Hardison would violate their rights. Here is what Justice Marshall wrote in dissent:
“Today’s decision deals a fatal blow to all efforts under Title VII to accommodate work requirements to religious practices. The Court holds, in essence, that although the EEOC regulations and the Act state that an employer must make reasonable adjustments in his work demands to take account of religious observances, the regulation and Act do not [432 U.S. 63, 87] really mean what they say. An employer, the Court concludes, need not grant even the most minor special privilege to religious observers to enable them to follow their faith. As a question of social policy, this result is deeply troubling, for a society that truly values religious pluralism cannot compel adherents of minority religions to make the cruel choice of surrendering their religion or their job. And as a matter of law today’s result is intolerable, for the Court adopts the very position that Congress expressly rejected in 1972, as if we were free to disregard congressional choices that a majority of this Court thinks unwise.”
Justice Marshall was right. And Justice Brennan joined him. The two liberal justices. The right wingers of the time had tried to filibuster Marshall’s appointment in 1967 but failed; it would be 26 years before another Democrat would be appointed to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately today we have a court that consists entirely of right wing radicals (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas), one erratic conservative (Kennedy) and four timid and outvoted moderates (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan). Vote Republican and get even less civil rights protection.
Health:
(This may be blocked but) I’m sorry that you are bitter.
About your Ex,
About your Job,
I wish you all the best.
Gavra -Thanks
Charlie -I’m surprised at you. You usually post with common sense, even though you’re a lib, now you are joining the ranks of people like SJS. To wipe off all these Chazals because it’s written in Agaddita, is not like you. If you would have read page 2, you would see it’s also a medrash in the Torah. Are you now claiming that you don’t have to take midrashim l’halacha, just like Aggaddita??!! Do you have any proof to this?
As far as the TWA case, I don’t understand why you are trying to distort it -just to push your liberal agenda? It doesn’t matter whether you and I agree with the dissent, that’s not the law. The law is with the majority. Even acc. to the majority, you have to try to accommodate religion.
” A major reason for the majority was that other employees would be required to work on Shabat”
They held you have to try to accommodate, but not to force it on others. This makes sense to me. In my case, they never tried. They could have asked their employees if one of them wanted to swap shifts or one of the other accommodations listed by case law. They never did. What they did was just say no, we won’t hire you. Later on they defended themselves in court saying undue hardship. So, acc. to this case (TWA) from the Supreme Court, my potential employers engaged in illegal discrimination. Why the Federal Judge ruled against me -I can only speculate. I listed three possible reasons above, maybe there are more!
Also, stop blaming conservatism on the rulings against me, Rubashkin, & Pollard. This has nothing to do with it. You could be a conservative and do bad things. There are people who on the outside look like the most frum yidden and do heinous acts. Being a Conservative (if they are) never forced these Judges to deny justice and equality to all!
Lots of incorrect information on the law here but no need to correct it.
It all boils down to this: the present administration seems to believe that there is no discrimination that needs to be prosecuted other than discrimination against African Americans.
White people intimidated by Black Panthers at the polls? Attorney General Eric Holder did nothing.
Massive amounts of age discrimination in employment? Nothing?
A Sabbath Observer (note this includes other religions besides ours) can’t get a job in a company that is open 24/7? Nothing.
The question was raised why Congress has never acted to clarify the law after TWA v. Hardison. If you are a shomer shabbos Jew who works for a living, ask the following:
What did Senators Chuck Schumer or Kirstin Gillibrand do to help you with employment discrimination?
How about Congressman Jerry Nadler?
The answer is a big ZERO.
Why do frum Jews keep voting for these Democrats who won’t even INTRODUCE a bill to help us?
Homeowner – We both start with H, maybe that’s why we agree.
I am interested in principles. not partisanship. Bush was not a real conservative. Earlier in his administration, he pushed through “compassionate” policies such as Medicare Part D and other social welfare programs. However, what you seem to not understand is that in our country, Congress has Power of the Purse. The president does not determine the budget or how our money is to be spent. Congress controls government spending. And for the last 2 years of Bush’d presidency, who controlled Congress? The Democrats.
The Democrat Congress is to blame for these failed economic policies- hence the name tax and spend liberals. The massvie deficits result from Democrat spending and floundering money away on bureaucracy and social welfare, as well as issuing sub-prime mortgages and loans to destitute, largely African American ACORN-Radical-linked Democrat Party activists, who had no way of paying these loans back. Yes, it is people like you who are to blame for the depression we are in.
Instead of realizing that government spending and fiscal outlandishness and high taxes are to blame for our economic woes, Obama sticks to his liberal guns and insists that the free market is bad for the economy, when common sense and economic erudition suggest that it is Keynesian, neo-Marxist polciies that are to blame for our woes. The bailout of the banks and the subsequent stimulus were passed by the Democrat Congress. We lost control of Congress in 2006 to the Democrats, which is when all of our economic problems began as a country. Deficit spending has increased beyond all reasonable bounds under the DEMOCRAT Congress led by Pelosi and Reid.
Budgets do not come from the White House, they come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party. They controlled the budget process for fiscal year 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as president to complete FY 2009.
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is, “I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit fourfold since Jan. 20, 2009.”
After the stimulus bill did little, if anything, for the economy and increased the deficit substantially, why is he blaming the previous administration for the sluggish economy?
And unfortunately, idealogues and drones like you, charlie hall, do not realize the fundamentals of our system of checks and balances- that it is the Congress that controls spending, not the president.
This is Civics 101, and if you fail to realize the truths in my vort here, than you failed Civics 101.
The only authority the president has over Congress is veto power. A veto can only be overriden by a 2/3 vote of Congress. The president simply does not and cannot control government spending. That has been in the hands of the Democrats since 2006, and the proof is in the pudding. 4 years of Democrat Congressional rule have given us a depression and failing economy, with a deficit that reached over $ 1 Trillion not too long ago. Did we have a depression and failing economy prior to 2006? I don’t think so. The economy under a Republican Congress did great, from 1994-2006, more or less. When people say that Clinton was good for the economy, what they are really saying is that the economy did well under Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress, which is 100% emes. Under Bush, despite two wars (which plenty of Democrats had voted for) and terrorist attacks, we all did a lot better than we are doing now. Under Bush, excluding the effect of home equity extraction, our economy grew at a rate of 1% during the Bush years.
Why hasn’t anyone mentioned the threat of Iran. They did actually threat to wipe us, i.e., in E”Y off the map, and we know what the two candidates said before the election, and what is going on now.
The OP was dealing with E”Y!
Health, you still haven’t explained how a US civil “marriage contract” is different from signing a legal contract with the same stipulations between 2 men.
If they want to they can make a new kind of arrangement without any mention of marriage that would be exactly what you mention, a legal contract for visitation and inheritance. The document should work for siblings and dogs or caretakers. The fact is, they are after the Marriage title. They are actualy after the Marriage Institution. So look at it this way: We, the people at Marriage Institution, want to keep our institution running. You can open your own if you so desire, but don’t knock down my time honored institution.
If the government sanctions this redefinition, it is the new norm. Government is not your quiet neighbor. It is the creator of standards, or breaker thereof.
Caspar Weinberger, y”s, a liberal neocon and CFR insider, imprisoned Jonathan Pollard. Rubashkin was sold out by his own Yiddishe brothers, like Yosef. He was sold out by the social justice-types of the new amalgamation known as Left-Wing Modern Orthodoxy, which has a lot of overlap with the Conservative Movement (Morris Allen, Hechsher Tzedek, Uri L’Tzedek, the Catholics, Unions, La Raza-style pro-ilelgal immigrant groups, PETA, and all sorts of liberals who support “cracking down” on shechita and the kosher meat industry, just as the Nazis, y”s, outlawed shechita- see the teshuvos of the Seridei Esh on the matter). In fact, pro-life Libertarian Conservative Bob Barr came out in support of Rubashkin and spoke at the asifa in Lakewood a couple of months ago calling for the release and yeshua of R’ Rubashkin, while the Obama Justice Department continues to persecute this man, a rov b’yisroel, while allowing dangerous Black Panthers, a hate group, according to the left-leaning ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center, to terrorize and intimidate voters at the polls in Philadelphia).
HaLeivi, so you have no problem with Civil Union then?
And animals should NOT be included. Unless you consider them able to actually commit?
Siblings/Parent contracts should be allowed as long as coercion has been dismissed.
Siblings/Parent contracts should be allowed as long as coercion has been dismissed.
That’s nice of you to say, SJS. But the fact of the matter is the homosexual lobby is hypocritically opposed to that as well as polygamy (just ask them), while demanding toeiva marriage.
Which clearly demonstrates there goal isn’t equality, but rather legitimization of immorality.
the homosexual lobby is hypocritically opposed to that as well as polygamy (just ask them),
News to me, but I never asked.
I guess you did? 🙂
Ben Torah, from what I understand, they think they will never get the gay marriage bill pushed through if they ask for equality for all. They need to selfishly push through their agenda in order for them to have a chance at success.
They were asked, and so responded.
Kate Connolly in Berlin The Guardian, Tuesday 27 February 2007
The state has an overriding interest in other cases.
(Just to play Devil’s advocate)
But isn’t that the best thing for the human race? I mean, instead of bad genes laying dorment for generations, let nature root it out right away! This should be good German logic.
SJS, why are you talking about commitment and coercion within the framework of a regular legal agreement of money and medical decisions? It should be an option to have again agreements and one way agreements, too.
SJS -“Health, you still haven’t explained how a US civil “marriage contract” is different from signing a legal contract with the same stipulations between 2 men.”
It isn’t different except that it makes gay marriage equal to heterosexual marriage. The problem with you is that you can’t listen to reason- you keep repeating the same old liberal dogma!
There is a problem for you to agree with their philosophy if you are a jew, because it’s against the Torah. Also, even if you don’t believe in the Torah, you as an American don’t have to legalize gay marriage. A lot of our laws are based on morals and I have the right to oppose gay marriage because it’s against our current morals. You have no right to shove your morals on everyone that they should be accepted. Most Americans hold gay marriage is immoral. By keep repeating your liberal mindset, you demonstrate to everyone that you know nothing about US law and have never studied philosopy (eg. in college)!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.