• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Social progress rollbacks

And I've learned the hard way not to expect Donald Trump to fail at his political goals.

And when it comes to the executive, I feel Trump will be a rubber stamper for his cabinet.

DOJ will be under Sessions, who is well connected with the organizations that have spent decades writing new laws at the state and Congressional level, anticipating a favourable AG.

They're ready; they can move fast.
 
Potential roll backs are not roll backs.

Duh. What's your point?

The question in the OP was: "So, what's next?"

This is an answer to the OP's question. The administration has promised to roll back the social progress I listed. They have everything they need to do so (all 3 branches of federal government). There is a high probability it will happen.
 
Duh. What's your point?

The question in the OP was: "So, what's next?"

This is an answer to the OP's question. The administration has promised to roll back the social progress I listed. They have everything they need to do so (all 3 branches of federal government). There is a high probability it will happen.

Here's an example at the federal level... It sounds like Republicans will re-file the [First Amendment Defense Act], which seeks to bar the federal government and states from establishing laws interfering in any business or nonprofit organization's right to discriminate based on religious beliefs.
 
Here's an example at the federal level... It sounds like Republicans will re-file the [First Amendment Defense Act], which seeks to bar the federal government and states from establishing laws interfering in any business or nonprofit organization's right to discriminate based on religious beliefs.

It's very narrowly targeted, it's only about allowing discrimination based on objecting to same sex marriage or sex outside of marriage. The businesses won't be allowed to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc. From the link:
Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.
 
It's very narrowly targeted, it's only about allowing discrimination based on objecting to same sex marriage or sex outside of marriage. The businesses won't be allowed to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc. From the link:
Well, as long as the discrimination is codified and narrowly construed, that should be fine. There's plenty of precedent, after all.
 
In Ohio, the state legislature has passed a law banning abortions of any fetus that has a detectable heartbeat, and they've got another on the way banning abortions after 20 weeks (the latter presumably continuing as a backup to the first). The former law would pretty much completely ban abortion given that a fetal heart rate is detectable at 6-7 weeks, which is early enough that many women might not even know they're pregnant.


I'm all in favor of the 20-week ban. With the usual exceptions.
 
Sessions has gone on record saying that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were total mistakes and should be scrapped. Like I said above, I am confident he's a segregationist.

This would remove penalties for excluding protected classes from commercial activities such as performing public activities (eg: marrying mixed race couples), allowing customers (eg: no blacks allowed in my business, no black tenants in my buildings) or hiring from certain demographics (eg: now i can fire all those Catholics, Jews and negroes that I've been forced by law to share office space and write paychecques to).

This was somewhat provoked by the wedding cake and marriage refusal cases in the last few years. The concept of gays as a protected class raised the question of whether the concept is an undue burden on bigots' rights. If gays aren't a valid protected class, then the argument goes, maybe neither are mixed race couples. Why one and not the other? Good question, but I have a different answer than they do.


Another one is marijuana decriminalization. The state level laws can easily be overruled by a federal ban.

Anti-sodomy laws, anti-pornography laws, perhaps even anti-contraception laws. The latter two are important to Catholics, and also consistent with Protestant Quiverful and abstinence only initiatives, so there's a lot of support. This is why "pornography is an imminent health crisis" is in the [current GOP platform]. They pitch the claim that pornography is a gateway to pedophelia, so there's a lot of support.

The civil rights act Is a total mistake.
 
My late father-in-law had the position that there should be NO overlap between government and business (at any level). I have the feeling that some of the new "good old boys" have the same type of philosophy. Where that goes, in terms of social progress and the like, is hard to say, but it probably isn't going to be good. :(
 
So what do you think should be done to avoid segregation ?

Or maybe you think segregation is fine ?

Bob seems quite consistent in his views so I would say he would never support a government enforced segregation. But if people wish to free associate in such a way that segregation happens to be the outcome that would be fine, given his ideology.

On a personal level I would also say that is not an outcome he would wish for.
 
Bob seems quite consistent in his views so I would say he would never support a government enforced segregation. But if people wish to free associate in such a way that segregation happens to be the outcome that would be fine, given his ideology.

On a personal level I would also say that is not an outcome he would wish for.

There is ideal and there is reality. Even him must understand that for some people, the goal is to not have those "uppity" people rise above the place they are deemed to have only the right to. And as somebody mentioned in another thread, it is enough to have a small but systemic effect to actually effectively rollback social change. Leaving it free to discriminate in the hand to people would effectively lead to that.
 
It's very narrowly targeted, it's only about allowing discrimination based on objecting to same sex marriage or sex outside of marriage. The businesses won't be allowed to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc. From the link:

Agreed. So, you agree it's a social progress rollback on the agenda? Is your best argument that it only affects millions of Americans not tens of millions?
 
Trump was clearly right to refuse to rent to blacks. If he was wrong it would have been held against him in the election.

And in the marketplace. He would, for example, be suffering the financial impact from right minded Americans, and be out of business. Oh, wait.
 
There is ideal and there is reality. Even him must understand that for some people, the goal is to not have those "uppity" people rise above the place they are deemed to have only the right to. And as somebody mentioned in another thread, it is enough to have a small but systemic effect to actually effectively rollback social change. Leaving it free to discriminate in the hand to people would effectively lead to that.

It's also disappointing to see on a Skeptics site where we're mostly vulnerable to 'religious freedom' bills that allow refusal of service, as we are mostly atheists and these guys are gunning for us.
 
It's also disappointing to see on a Skeptics site where we're mostly vulnerable to 'religious freedom' bills that allow refusal of service, as we are mostly atheists and these guys are gunning for us.
There's a reason we have both of these phrases: "Self interest" and "enlightened self interest." Civil rights laws tend to be a product of the latter while the former rarely sees the value of protecting others.
 
There's a reason we have both of these phrases: "Self interest" and "enlightened self interest." Civil rights laws tend to be a product of the latter while the former rarely sees the value of protecting others.

That's pretty well said. Another way to make the point might be to say that a basic principle behind civil rights laws is that nobody's rights are secure in a society until everybody's rights are secure from it.
 

Back
Top Bottom