Jump to content
There are a couple of questions about the original story that I wish I'd had answers to. Did the florist tell them that she wouldn't do their wedding because they were gay or did she refuse to do it and they assumed it was because it was a same-sex wedding? One thing I'm unclear about the law about is this: Does a business have the option of refusing service to someone without giving a reason? Obviously if they state that it's because they are gay they're going to be afoul of the law, but I still don't know about if they just say no and either give an excuse or give no reason at all. I'd like to know that.
Actually, no a franchisee is not allowed to change the menu at McDonalds, but that has to do with his contract with them, not the law. He is perfectly free to open his own restaurant and not sell beef, which is another thing altogether. He wouldn't under the law, be allowed to refuse to someone because they ate beef in their general lives. The law goes two ways.
It's unfortunate for Walla Walla in general that this staffer made such a cutting remark, especially considering how dependent we are on the tourist trade. It's more unfortunate, however, that Hewitt is co-sponsoring a piece of discriminatory legislation designed to undercut the will of the voters who approved same-sex marriage in the state.
However, the truth is that this is what Walla Walla is, for the most part. If I were someone thinking of retiring or otherwise settling here and held the---gasp!---"liberal" beliefs that the vast majority of Washingtonians hold, incidents such as this would cause me to think twice.
I absolutely detest that catholic hospitals, doctors, and pharmacists are exempted from the law. I believe that this is a secular nation of laws, and that if you think that your particular religious beliefs are going to cause you problems with the duties that your profession entails, then you should find another career.
When people come to this country from other nations and cultures, many of the traditions they prize are simply not allowed here. Examples: When Muslim families move here, they are not allowed to kill their daughters for any reason, much less because they have "dishonored" their families for getting raped. They also are not allowed to force their children into arranged marriages with their cousins or anybody else. They have to obey the laws on this country, and if they prize those traditions so much that they simply must be allowed to continue them, then they need to move back to wherever they came from.
There's lots more: Many, many countries and cultures not only allow, but have government-sponsored events that are wantonly cruel to animals, like bullfighting, dog fighting, and rooster fighting. Those practices are banned here, and when someone gets caught, the fact that it was a cherished tradition in whatever barbaric country they come from is not considered an excuse for their cruelty to animals.
What would you think if the person who served your food at McDonald's was a Hindu and refused to sell you a hamburger because his religion considers cows to be sacred? Even if he did ask another counter person to come sell you that Big Mac, wouldn't you feel a bit publicly shamed by his telling you that you were some kind of monster for ordering an animal he finds sacred? Please explain to me how that is one tiny bit different from the pharmacist who refuses to prescribe Plan B or other contraception option?
Most of the "organizations: that are publishing "facts" claiming that global climate change is not happening are funded directly or indirectly by the fossil fuel companies. They have quite a vested interest in seeing that their activities are not impeded upon, and they have virtually unlimited funds with which to buy scientists. Compared to the oil companies, coal companies, etc., investment in bribing senators and congressmen, scientists probably go cheap. Those with the most credibility say that climate change is real.
That said, I think cap-and-trade was nothing but a scam, and I have serious doubts about how much good limiting CO2 emissions in this country is going to do, considering that China builds a new coal plant---with virtually NO environmental regs---every couple of weeks, Brazil deforests another 100 square miles of rain forest a day, and the rest of the developing world is busy polluting the planet.
Personally, I think that climate change is something that we have to prepare for, but I'm much more concerned with specific threats that target this country. The Keystone XL pipeline, for example, and the whole idea of burning tar sands oil. Someday the oil WILL run out, and if we haven't developed some new forms of energy, we are going to wind up wandering in the desert like the current oil sheiks will do when their source of income dries up. It may not be in our lifetime, but most people have children and grandchildren that may or may not have a habitable world to inherit.
In terms of the destruction of the biosphere, the biggest threat to global weather is the deforestation of the Amazon basin. IMHO, of course. I'm not a scientist but I've done a bit of research, and while cutting down on CO2 emissions probably is a good idea, there are bigger fish to fry that nobody ever seems to mention. Our nation media is so thoroughly controlled by the mega-corporations that own them that I'm much more interested in the things they try to keep from us than those they shove in front of our faces every day.
Happy to read this news. I fully expected to read about the bankruptcy of the store, considering that it's unlikely he would have been able to pay the full fine. Kudos to Catsiff and the city for reaching a solution that allows him to stay in business. The expected conclusion---closing of the store and bankruptcy to avoid a huge fine---would have had a chilling effect on any business that considered standing up for its' rights in court.
I think that we're comparing apples to oranges here. I understand the point that Paco is making, and I agree that at least some of the Senators who voted against background checks, particularly the democrats, chose to accept money from the corporotocracy---in this case the arms manufacturers who fund and control the NRA---rather than do the bidding of their constituents. I believe that the majority of the public---although I admit I don't have hard numbers---want to see universal background checks to purchase firearms.
My opinion is that to make a law requiring them for most purchases and then to deliberately leave an enormous loophole in the law that felons, those mentally ill or disabled, domestic batterers and the like can take advantage of simply makes no sense.
That said, a bombing is not a shooting, and it's likely that the perp in this case is someone who wouldn't have been able to buy a firearm anyway.
I find these theocrats-in-training to be the most frightening, dangerous force in the United States today. The GOTP is actually run and funded by unlimited corporate dollars, a fact that the rank-and-file seem not to understand. They obviously have never studied US history or government, either, because one of their platforms---along with wanting to end government regulation that keeps their corporate masters from poisoning the planet at will, the true agenda of the paymasters---is "the role of the church in government." The role of the church in government is zero, zip, nada, never, never, never. Our founders came from a continent that had been at war over religion for centuries, and they were determined that this new experiment in government would not suffer the same fate. Periodically, however, some group decides that the rule of law is not sufficient to make the people behave, and wants to change our secular government to a theocracy run by what is no less than a christian Taliban. Right now we are at a more dangerous point than ever before, as our media, owned by the corporations that want to end government "interference"----meaning regulation and taxes---that reigns them in, be it only slightly. Since corporations can't (yet) vote, they take the lowest-information voters, those who get their "facts" from the likes of Faux "news" and their religious masters, and persuade them to vote against their own financial interests by convincing them that this country needs to turn "back" to Jesus. Despite the fact that "back to Jesus" is an outright lie perpetuated by those who want dumbed-down religious folk afraid to question authority rather than educated citizens who know their history and shudder at the thought of this country resembling Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban. And that is what theocracies ALWAYS resemble.
Don't forget that much of that $6 trillion wasn't real money. When economists discuss money, they also use anticipated profits as if they were actual hundred-dollar bills sitting somewhere. When the housing crash occurred, the "value" of houses---many, many houses---dropped in half or more. Now they were the exact same square footage, same number of beds, baths, etc. The difference was that nobody would any longer PAY a million dollars for the same house that would have brought a million a month before. So presto, a half million dollars "disappeared." But it doesn't mean that somebody put that much, in cash, in a cardboard box and trucked it to a safety deposit box in Dubai. Although, truth be told, a lot of the millions, actually billions of dollars that "disappeared" in Iraq and Afghanistan, did actually vanish in the way I just described as well. At least if a lot of soldiers who guarded those boxes can be believed. And I believe them...
Thank you for providing links. Perhaps if more of these posters did the same, it wouldn't look as if they were just quoting "facts" from that powerhouse of truthful information and objective journalism, Faux "news."
Last login: Monday, February 24, 2014
2013 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.