Wingnutties out of control!

[Seth Milner]

. . . a rotting turnip like you.

This just now really sunk in:

Of all the names you have called me since I topped your shit list, I can't believe that even you would stoop so low as to call me a rotting turnip.
That is just the lowest of low down! You would just absolutely have to walk on stilts to look a snake in the eye! It appears I'm going to have to reassess our feuding relationship. I will be consulting Merriman-Webster's Book of Vile Adjectives in order to top that crude and tasteless insult.

Until we feud again. . . later.

[Vrede too]

The GOP is trying to climb out of the childish, unpatriotic hole it dug for itself.

Key Senator Undecided on Hearing for Obama High Court Pick

The Republican head of the Senate panel that weighs Supreme Court nominations said on Tuesday he will wait until President Barack Obama names his pick to fill the vacancy left by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's death before deciding whether to hold confirmation hearings.

"I would wait until the nominee is made before I would make any decisions" about confirmation hearings, Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said, according to Radio Iowa. "In other words, take it a step at a time."

Grassley has offered mixed messages since Scalia's death on how the Senate should proceed on the vacancy, alternating hardline views on blocking any nominee with comments not ruling out hearings....

Grassley initially told the Des Moines Register newspaper shortly after word of Scalia's death on Saturday he would not "make any prognostication" about how the committee or the full Senate would handle a nomination to fill the vacancy. Later on Saturday, he put out a statement saying the Senate should not take up the nomination until after the election.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the committee's top Democrat, prodded Republicans to act on whomever Obama nominates for a lifetime appointment to the court.

"The advice and consent role enshrined in our Constitution was not designed to allow a blanket prohibition of any potential nominee, but that is exactly where the Republican majority leader is trying to take us," Leahy wrote in an opinion piece in USA Today, referring to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

McConnell said on Saturday the vacancy should not be filled until Obama's successor takes office in January so voters can have a say on the selection when they cast ballots in the Nov. 8 presidential election....

Keep up the pressure.

[Vrede too]

Mitch McConnell: Don't Block the next SCOTUS appointment (petition)

[Vrede too]

Given that it's his job to nominate a justice and not some political ploy, Obama holds all the cards since the GOP took such a publicly extreme and unpatriotic position right out of the gate. He can play it to get a nominee through that they can't refuse or he can play it for maximum damage to the GOP in Nov., even both. Let's hope he doesn't muck it up.

[Seth Milner]

Mitch McConnell: Don't Block the next SCOTUS appointment (petition)

Given that it's his job to nominate a justice and not some political ploy, Obama holds all the cards since the GOP took such a publicly extreme and unpatriotic position right out of the gate. He can play it to get a nominee through that they can't refuse or he can play it for maximum damage to the GOP in Nov., even both. Let's hope he doesn't muck it up.

I can't believe this! Scalia's body isn't cold yet, and the G-O-damn-P is squabbling like a bunch of street urchins over who should appoint his replacement! Damn idiots. It's the sitting POTUS' job to select the seat; it's the legislator's job to confirm, and like a bunch of whiney-assed
5 year olds, they're threatening a filibuster. Why I hate politics.

[Vrede too]

The GOP is trying to climb out of the childish, unpatriotic hole it dug for itself.

Key Senator Undecided on Hearing for Obama High Court Pick

Keep up the pressure.

Thom Tillis’ (R-NC) disingenuous “opposition” to the obstruction of an Obama Supreme Court nominee

[JTA]

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/lo ... /80606970/

Nashville Public Library officials have told Nashville’s chapter of Black Lives Matter that meetings that welcome only people of color can’t take place inside the city’s libraries.
...
“Due to white supremacy in our local government, this week’s BLM General Body Meeting location has changed,” a notice posted Friday on the Nashville chapter of Black Lives Matter’s Facebook page reads. The notice says the group’s meetings are “open to black and non-black people of color only."

In other news, BLM activists, after adopting the slogan "segregation now, segregation tomorrow and segregation forever", demand separate water fountains, bathrooms, schools, and public transportation sections for people of color, and that white students in predominantly black districts be bussed to majority white school districts.

Library officials tried inform BLM activists about the existence of "irony", but were promptly shouted down as being racist.

[Vrede too]

That sucks, I support the library.

Sign the petition

Tell CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, and The New York Times:

“Report the Republicans' pledge to block a Supreme Court nomination for what it is: An unprecedented case of Republican obstructionism and anti-constitutional overreach.”

[JTA]

That sucks, I support the library.

Sign the petition

Tell CNN, CBS, ABC, FOX, and The New York Times:

“Report the Republicans' pledge to block a Supreme Court nomination for what it is: An unprecedented case of Republican obstructionism and anti-constitutional overreach.”

Saw a sign in rural SC:

"RIP Scalia. God help us."

[Vrede too]

S/He did: RIP Scalia.

[JTA]

S/He did: RIP Scalia.

Yeah, I didn't much care for him either.

[Seth Milner]

OK, let's talk wingnuts for a moment; I've a question to ask O Really, or anyone else who feels they are qualified to give the correct answer:

It's illegal for a business to refuse service to anyone of color, sexual orientation, or religious preference regardless of the religious beliefs of the business owner, is that correct?

[rstrong]

It's illegal for a business to refuse service to anyone of color, sexual orientation, or religious preference regardless of the religious beliefs of the business owner, is that correct?

Businesses open to the general public, yes. Your local KKK could register as a private company for property ownership, etc. And if they're not dealing with the public, they can limit their membership to whomever they want.

Even then, they can deal with the general public so long as they do it with a non-discriminatory way. Consider golf clubs with a "no women" rule.... for their membership only. They can still host golf tournaments with female golfers, and charge admission to women along with the rest of the general public to watch the tournament. There were major golf courses on the PGA circuit - Augusta and Shoal Creek - that didn't allow blacks in their membership until the 1990s.

Religious groups get more exemptions of course. Most are not too different from above: Their membership is usually considered private. But the added exemptions are there: A religious group renting out its banquet hall to the general public may refuse to rent it for same-sex marriages. Religious-affiliated schools can limit teachers and pupils to those with the same affiliation. They can prevent women and (like when Romney was preaching for the Mormon church) blacks from holding senior positions. Liberty University - a mandatory stop on the Republican campaign trail - can (and did) ban the College Democratic Club because obviously Democrats can't be Christian.

The military often gets certain exemptions from anti-discrimination laws too. For example excluding women from serving in frontline combat positions or aboard submarines.

[Vrede too]

Not exactly.

Various federal laws protect against race, gender, age, physical and mental disability, religious, military status and national origin discrimination, but some of these are just for employment.
Most states cover most of these demographics for retail goods and services.
The only federal law protecting sexual orientation is for marriage, and it only applies to state governments.
Some states include sexual orientation in their broader nondiscrimination law, many do not. The baker and wedding photographer cases we've heard of happened in the states where sexual orientation is included.

The religious beliefs of a business owner are generally irrelevant. Either a business is exempt by virtue of being private or church affiliated as rstrong describes or it isn't. The underlying reason doesn't matter.

In North and South Carolina it is perfectly legal for a bigoted business owner to refuse employment, housing, goods and services to LGBTQ people.

[Seth Milner]

It's illegal for a business to refuse service to anyone of color, sexual orientation, or religious preference regardless of the religious beliefs of the business owner, is that correct?

Businesses open to the general public, yes.

Not exactly.
Various federal laws protect against race, gender, age, physical and mental disability, religious, military status and national origin discrimination, but some of these are just for employment. Most states cover most of these demographics for retail goods and services.
Either a business is exempt by virtue of being private . . . or it isn't. The underlying reason doesn't matter.

Thanks for your input guys. Now, here's why I asked this, and the gist of my question is discrimination in general; not necessarily against my aforementioned groups. My neighbors found it necessary to have a whole-house fumigation which involved a tent-like covering. They went to a nice motel to stay a couple of nights, but were refused a room because they were "locals". The desk clerk, even when told the reason for their need of a room, stood her ground stating it was a company policy. They left, only to find the same "policy" at other motels/hotels they tried. Finally, I let them use my home for the two days.

I attempted to find info on the internet concerning any law against this, but all I could find was where people had posted complaints against various motel/hotel chains for adherence to this "policy". So, my burning question is, if businesses open to the public are required to serve regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation, how in hell can they legally refuse service to anyone who happens to be a local resident? I don't ever recall checking into a hotel/motel (and I've stayed at many) and seeing a posted sign that states they refuse service to locals.

[O Really]

. So, my burning question is, if businesses open to the public are required to serve regardless of race, color, creed, or sexual orientation, how in hell can they legally refuse service to anyone who happens to be a local resident? I don't ever recall checking into a hotel/motel (and I've stayed at many) and seeing a posted sign that states they refuse service to locals.

Good question. Here's the answer: because the hotel didn't refuse them based on any prohibited factor (race, etc.) It refused them based on address, which may be stupid, but is not one of the factors specified as illegal.

[rstrong]

Good question. Here's the answer: because the hotel didn't refuse them based on any prohibited factor (race, etc.) It refused them based on address, which may be stupid, but is not one of the factors specified as illegal.

There's another state: Unknown; not yet tested in court.

Often things are not tested in court because there's no need to.... until one day there's a need.

Take the new low enforcement love affair with civil forfeiture for example. Until recently it was unthinkable for a family-owned hotel to be seized because unknown to them, a mobster happened to stay there. Now it's a real, demonstrated risk.

If locals are staying in a local hotel, that could imply prostitution. The hotel owner might not think so, and might not care. But when it means that their hotel can be seized for collecting the proceeds of crime, no day in court, no appeal, rules like the one you describe quickly appear.

And they stay until someone tests them in court.

[O Really]

Yeah, I think most hotels that have "no locals" do so because they have (or believe they might have) a problem with the ho's or with the hotel being a hot bed for affairs that the hotel doesn't want to be involved with.

[Vrede too]

It doesn't stop zip codophobia, but -

Victory in Charlotte!



HRC is celebrating a major victory in Charlotte! Last night the Charlotte City Council voted 7 to 4 to update Charlotte’s Non-Discrimination Ordinance (NDO ) to include protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. This is a tremendous victory for Charlotte, which was one of the largest cities in the U.S. without non-discrimination protections for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community. It is now against the law for LGBT people to be denied public accommodations services including hotels, restaurants, taxis or government services just because of who they are or who they love.

HRC is a founding partner of TurnOUT! Charlotte, a partnership of the Human Rights Campaign, Equality North Carolina and MeckPAC and in coalition with the Mecklenburg County LGBT Democrats and the Charlotte LGBT Chamber of Commerce. The coalition has been on the ground engaging supporters for months for this important effort. Late last year the coalition found success working with MeckPAC and Equality North Carolina to elect a pro-equality Mayor and City Council. We have strong organizing experience in Charlotte, including the work during the 2015 elections and during this NDO fight. We can’t thank you enough for making your voices heard!

Last night’s victory in Charlotte is an important step, but we’re far from done. It’s time for every city and every county to have these same protections and it’s time for a statewide law that protects all people across the state.... With your support we can make sure every North Carolinian is free from discrimination.

With pride and respect,
Marty Rouse
National Field Director

[Vrede too]

Senate Republicans have doubled down and ruled out any action on Obama's high court pick. Will this hurt them with voters? I'd hope so, but maybe too many put party before country.