...And a huge fuck you, Michigan Republicans

[Chessic_Sense]

@Condescending_Robot

I’m not trying to be funny, I’m trying to condemn people who view women and homosexuals as less than human, which those who would deny the right to abortion or protect those who abuse gay teenagers necessarily do.

You obviously sympathize with the inhuman position; that’s your problem (and society’s) to deal with.

Oh yeah? Well I’m trying to condemn people who view Shodans as less than human, which those robots who abuse Shodans necessarily do.

You obviously sympathize with the robot position.

[Shodan]

@Bricker

But I also think the gravamen of his complaint was similar to what I’m talking about when DC loses the Heller case and responds by not granting any zoning licenses to gun shops, pointing out that federal law requires a resident to buy from a shop in his own jurisdiction and that now they are in compliance with the law.

Not as far as I can tell.

He claimed that abortion was de facto illegal in many states, a claim we agree is wrong. What I was arguing against was what he claimed were the reasons for this claimed state of affairs - that the people in those states lacked the knowledge or resources to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Consider North Dakota. There is only one abortion clinic in North Dakota. While it’s true that North Dakota is not a densely populated state, it’s also true that North Dakota’s antipathy towards abortion has something to do with that fact.

Okay.

The following restrictions exist on abortion in North Dakota.

* Abortion would be banned if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned.
* The parents of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
* A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
* Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.

Cite. Which of these restrictions do you feel constitute the sort of end-run around the Constitution to which you object?

Or do you mean that North Dakota denies zoning permits to abortion clinics the way DC does to gun shops?

Well, I suppose I inferred a general sense of approval from you. If you didn’t try to convey that and don’t actually have it, I withdraw the characterization.

Thank you.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Shodan

Not as far as I can tell.

He claimed that abortion was de facto illegal in many states, a claim we agree is wrong. What I was arguing against was what he claimed were the reasons for this claimed state of affairs - that the people in those states lacked the knowledge or resources to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Okay.

The following restrictions exist on abortion in North Dakota.

* Abortion would be banned if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned.
* The parents of a minor must consent before an abortion is provided.
* A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided.
* Public funding is available for abortion only in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest.

Your cite is incomplete. One example of a restriction you did not mention.

Cite. Which of these restrictions do you feel constitute the sort of end-run around the Constitution to which you object?

From my cite, restricting the use of mifepristone, misoprostol, and other FDA-approved non-surgical abortion options is an end-run.

Or do you mean that North Dakota denies zoning permits to abortion clinics the way DC does to gun shops?

That, too.

[Condescending_Robot]

@Chessic_Sense

Oh yeah? Well I’m trying to condemn people who view Shodans as less than human, which those robots who abuse Shodans necessarily do.

You obviously sympathize with the robot position.

Look man, it’s NOT acceptable to be against abortion or gay rights. Those are inhuman, anti-life positions. That there is actually a “debate” in our country about whether or not women should be punished for having sex or certain people should get the same rights as other people is a sign of our own moral sickness, not that people who hold the evil positions on these matters are somehow worthy of consideration as ethical people.

[Shodan]

@Bricker

Your cite is incomplete. One example of a restriction you did not mention.

I can’t tell from your cite - did this pass? If so, then I apologize - the cite from the Guttmacher Institute was apparently outdated.

Regards,
Shodan

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Shodan

I can’t tell from your cite - did this pass? If so, then I apologize - the cite from the Guttmacher Institute was apparently outdated.

It passed, and was signed into law in April.

[Shodan]

Thanks - I sit corrected.

Of course, contrary to Condescending Robot’s assertion, there does seem to be sufficient knowledge and resources to appeal that very law. Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@Shodan

Thanks - I sit corrected.

Of course, contrary to Condescending Robot’s assertion, there does seem to be sufficient knowledge and resources to appeal that very law. Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

Yes. But again turning your attention to DC’s zoning laws and gun shops, do you regard the situation as acceptable simply because there are resources to sue DC again? Or do you believe that DC is acting in bad faith, given the obvious message of DC v. Heller?

[SteveG1]

@cmyk

This shall forever be dubbed the “Turn the Other Cheek” law.

Let the bullies beat the ever living fuck out of some, poor kid, and let God sort 'em out, cuz that’s what Jesus wants.

I wonder what will happen if the bullied person picks up a baseball bat, or “gangs up” with his friends to put the bully into a hospital?

[Shodan]

@Bricker

Yes. But again turning your attention to DC’s zoning laws and gun shops, do you regard the situation as acceptable simply because there are resources to sue DC again? Or do you believe that DC is acting in bad faith, given the obvious message of DC v. Heller?

Where have I said anything about any situation being acceptable or not? Condescending Robot made an assertion, that abortion was de facto illegal in many states, because people in those states did not have the time or resources to appeal the laws in those states. We have now established that this is false in toto. Abortion is not de facto illegal in any state, and the laws in North Dakota are appealed. QED.

Regards,
Shodan

[elucidator]

It would be churlish to spoil your triumph, however trivial.

[John_Mace]

Churl away!

[gonzomax]

@Bricker

OK, good clarification.

Again, the text is: * This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil’s parent or guardian.*

I mentioned earlier that a teacher using his position to advance his religious views would be violative of the Establishment Clause anyway, even without this law.

Your response seems to be that it wouldn’t matter – that the even though Establishment Clause is violated, “…If you don’t have the fortitude to sue to overturn this law and withstand the sort of physical and economic attacks that will be directed at you from local Christians when you are labeled the ‘fag lawsuit anti-Christian guy,’ then you’re shit out of luck.”

But it seems to me that the same objection would apply to THIS law. That is, let’s imagine that the offending passage were struck from the law. If your argument is that schools or individual teachers would violate Establishment Clause law with impunity, why do you imagine that this law would be more effective? Why wouldn’t this law, too, be subject to the “…If you don’t have the fortitude to sue to overturn this law and withstand the sort of physical and economic attacks that will be directed at you from local Christians when you are labeled the ‘fag lawsuit anti-Christian guy,’ then you’re shit out of luck?”

I suppose you know how much a mess it would be to determine a “sincere religious belief”.

[SteveG1]

@PandaBear77

I think jtgain pretty much nailed it. Any Democrat lawmaker with a brain cell in Michigan HAD to know that the Republicans were going to stick in some kind of clause exempting religious beliefs so some kid wouldn’t be suspended/expelled for saying something like “I believe homosexuality is a sin” in the presence of a gay student.

Which is EXACTLY what some liberals would love to see happen, because for them the First Amendment only covers speech they agree with.

This bill was bullshit from day one. Now the Democrats get to pretend they’re the Good Guys™ and piss and moan and vilify the Republicans while kissing the asses of some of their biggest supporters.

Politics as usual.

Damn idiot.

@PandaBear77

Has that EVER happened in a US school? (This is an honest question, not snark.)

Yes it has. Go research it and get back to us.

[Czarcasm]

@SteveG1

Damn idiot.

You can almost hear Oliver Hardy saying, “Now look what you made me do!”, can’t you?

[SteveG1]

@Czarcasm

You can almost hear Oliver Hardy saying, “Now look what you made me do!”, can’t you?

Isn’t that also the rallying cry / alibi of wife beaters and child abusers everywhere ???