Michigan Theocracy

[bailey]

Thus, the title of this thread might be Michigan Theocracy Losing its Grip on State.
.

... that would be the exact opposite of reality though. These bills are RIGHT NOW on the table and the authors of them are first term reps. Our "moderate" "business guy" governor just signed legislation that allows agencies funded by the state to directly discriminate against gays, muslims, jews, single people, and atheists...basically anyone that runs afoul of the beliefs of the faith based charity receiving compensation from the state for adoption services.

The governor should have veto'd such clearly unconstitutional legislation and said, hey, if you want to have those rules, then you can't get state money. If you want state money you need to serve ALL the citizens of the state. But he didn't because he knows the far right nutters will have a temper tantrum and they control the legislature. Now it'll be another few million in state money wasted in a futile effort to defend this stupid christianist sharia legislation.

The tide, if it's moving at all, is only doing so because the Courts are being forced to step in.

[Baselinepunk]

... that would be the exact opposite of reality though. These bills are RIGHT NOW on the table and the authors of them are first term reps. Our "moderate" "business guy" governor just signed legislation that allows agencies funded by the state to directly discriminate against gays, muslims, jews, single people, and atheists...basically anyone that runs afoul of the beliefs of the faith based charity receiving compensation from the state for adoption services.

The governor should have veto'd such clearly unconstitutional legislation and said, hey, if you want to have those rules, then you can't get state money. If you want state money you need to serve ALL the citizens of the state. But he didn't because he knows the far right nutters will have a temper tantrum and they control the legislature. Now it'll be another few million in state money wasted in a futile effort to defend this stupid christianist sharia legislation.

The tide, if it's moving at all, is only doing so because the Courts are being forced to step in.

I am a "reformed Republican", as well. Proudly; I've never voted for a Bush or Clinton.

I believe it is very disingenuous to call Snyder a "Moderate". In fact; it's an insult to true Michigan Moderates. Snyder double-talks his way into making people think he's a Moderate; however, those who feel that way have been thoroughly smoked and are not to be trusted.

Snyder's "not on my radar" statements are dubious at best, and if we were to take him for his word, then folks should be calling his ass out for being a flip-flopper.

However, this is what you get when you try and run government, a public corporation, like a business -- a private corporation.

When you get right down to it, even with our nice "flat-tax" BS tax system, this State is a prime Tea Bagger State. I do give a lot of credit to the Tea Baggers; they've been able to swoop in and enact their agenda with ease due to diversion [[Detroit Bankruptcy and multiple EMs) and voter complacency.

And, they've been so successful jamming shit down our throats and it will take decades to unravel all of the BS knowingly unconstitutional legislation.

The Rurals in this State and Grand Rapids have always slobbered over throwing Detroit off the power stool in this State and have done so -- they now have their revenge.

[BankruptcyGuy]

When you get right down to it, even with our nice "flat-tax" BS tax system, this State is a prime Tea Bagger State. I do give a lot of credit to the Tea Baggers; they've been able to swoop in and enact their agenda with ease due to diversion [[Detroit Bankruptcy and multiple EMs) and voter complacency.

And, they've been so successful jamming shit down our throats and it will take decades to unravel all of the BS knowingly unconstitutional legislation.

Which tea bagger was responsible for the Detroit EMs and subsequent bankruptcy, Dave Bing or Kevyn Orr?

Which piece of legislation was "knowingly unconstitutional"? I don't recall a court ever coming to that conclusion.

[Wesley Mouch]

... that would be the exact opposite of reality though. These bills are RIGHT NOW on the table and the authors of them are first term reps. Our "moderate" "business guy" governor just signed legislation that allows agencies funded by the state to directly discriminate against gays, muslims, jews, single people, and atheists...basically anyone that runs afoul of the beliefs of the faith based charity receiving compensation from the state for adoption services.

The governor should have veto'd such clearly unconstitutional legislation and said, hey, if you want to have those rules, then you can't get state money. If you want state money you need to serve ALL the citizens of the state. But he didn't because he knows the far right nutters will have a temper tantrum and they control the legislature. Now it'll be another few million in state money wasted in a futile effort to defend this stupid christianist sharia legislation.

The tide, if it's moving at all, is only doing so because the Courts are being forced to step in.

You see discrimination, I see freedom.

If you want more adoptions -- which is what's really needed if you care about kids -- then jamming your version of morality on everyone won't help.

I'm OK with freedom of choice and discrimination in adoptions. Just as long as the adoptions occur.

You want to force people to act against their beliefs -- just because the State puts some cash in.

I say to you -- go out and start doing discrimination-free adoptions. And stop complaining about other people's opinions and stomping on their rights because you happen to be right.

And right you are. Discrimination is bad. And it should face the light of day. The solution is tranparency and shaming. Not mandates from the righteous left.

[bailey]

You see discrimination, I see freedom.

in the same way isis sees themselves as freedom fighters...and I call them terrorists. One of us is perverting language to defend thier actions...the other isnt.

If you want more adoptions -- which is what's really needed if you care about kids -- then jamming your version of morality on everyone won't help.

how exactly does giving a taxpayer funded agency the right to deny adoptions and lower the applicant pool it will deal with INCREASING the number of adoptions?

I'm OK with freedom of choice and discrimination in adoptions. Just as long as the adoptions occur.

I'm ok with discrimination just so long as these groups do it without taxpayer money.

You want to force people to act against their beliefs -- just because the State puts some cash in.

Yes, because I'm having my income confiscated to pay for it. I'd like to at least be ELIGIBLE for the work I"M PAYING FOR.

I say to you -- go out and start doing discrimination-free adoptions. And stop complaining about other people's opinions and stomping on their rights because you happen to be right.

I say to you stop taking my money to pay for your mythology based organization and demand that organizations beliefs be sanctioned by the state..

And right you are. Discrimination is bad. And it should face the light of day. The solution is tranparency and shaming. Not mandates from the righteous left.

you are free to discriminate, but mandating I pay for it is the absolute height of hypocrisy from the right when out of the other side of their mouth they're screeching about tax money spent for social programs they disapprove of and demanding freedoms and personal accountability.

This measure is unconstitutional, it will lose, it will cost the state millions and harm kids. THAT is the Christianist agenda.... damn the torpedoes full steam ahead.

[Wesley Mouch]

in the same way isis sees themselves as freedom fighters...and I call them terrorists. One of us is perverting language to defend thier actions...the other isnt.


how exactly does giving a taxpayer funded agency the right to deny adoptions and lower the applicant pool it will deal with INCREASING the number of adoptions?


I'm ok with discrimination just so long as these groups do it without taxpayer money.

Yes, because I'm having my income confiscated to pay for it. I'd like to at least be ELIGIBLE for the work I"M PAYING FOR.
I say to you stop taking my money to pay for your mythology based organization and demand that organizations beliefs be sanctioned by the state..

you are free to discriminate, but mandating I pay for it is the absolute height of hypocrisy from the right when out of the other side of their mouth they're screeching about tax money spent for social programs they disapprove of and demanding freedoms and personal accountability.

This measure is unconstitutional, it will lose, it will cost the state millions and harm kids. THAT is the Christianist agenda.... damn the torpedoes full steam ahead.

You have valid points. You believe that non-discrimination in each and every action funded by the state is the highest priority. Me? I believe that we can be flexible and diverse in how we make adoptions happen. If a religious-based group discriminates it is a bad mark in their book -- but so what. As long as one more child is placed with a family, I can overlook some discrimination. And as I said, you can create a non-discriminatory agency too. Nobody is forcing anyone to use the discriminatory agency.

Rarely do I think the best answer to bigots is law. I think we've reach the point where the public does not approve of discrimination. Stopping adoptions because one agency isn't enlightened enough for you hurts children. I prioritize the kids, not yet another well-intentioned rule that forces compliance or else. Fine idea. Wrong tool.

[aj3647]

You see discrimination, I see freedom.

And if it were a Muslim charity receiving state taxpayer dollars and then actively discriminating against Jews, women, Christians or any other group in providing services, you would absolutley lose your shit and you know it.

[Zacha341]

Inconsistent as it will be, I don't think there's gonna be much immediate concern or outcry relative to the push-back the Muslim religious community will have to this ruling. The main focus right now is upon Christians and Catholics.