As a firefighter/paramedic for better than a quarter century, I never once asked the religion or sexual orientation of anyone about to get an IV, medication, etc. because of my religious beliefs, or lack there of.
I have found in calling, I usually get to talk to a person in district offices. When it's usually an answering machine in DC. I also call senators and reps in other states, give them my name and a short message. Of the probably 100 calls I made, I have only been asked for my address 3 times. To those who told me they did not take calls from nonvoters, I said, "Oh I'm sorry. I thought she/he was a US Senator." Only voters... so self-serving!
It’s sad to feel like we’re standing on a backward treadmill with this SCOTUS, spinning us back fifty years. Bigotry has always existed in America but our principles - that all are created equal and entitled to equal rights and freedom from persecution. But when/if the highest court entertain otherwise, they inflame hatred and intolerance and it is indeed a slippery slope. Thank you again for keeping us informed and calling us all to be activists against these threats.
I'm fairly confident that in California our Democratic Reps. and Senators in Sacramento and in Congress are on the side of the Rule of Law..However, I will be reaching out to all of the Republican members to see to it that they make a public statement as to their position on this insane notion of ripping up the Constitution and kicking Joe Biden to the curb on Pennsylvania Ave..
I hadn’t thought a case would come along that I would lose more sleep over than Dobbs. I am a doc who cares for high risk pregnancies for a living, so Dobbs was a very big deal to me, and to the women I take care of. But I find myself even more worried about Moore v. Harper. Would it be hyperbolic to say that this case could be a nail in the coffin of American democracy?
The politicization of SCOTUS, hearing a case based on a theory you described as “bunk” and “nonsensical”, seems to me to be the issue. What “serious issues” could SCOTUS’ extremist bloc have seen in this case?
There are religious sects, denominations, and cults attempting to justify just about every imaginable form of human behavior. (The Bible, for example, along with various interpretations of Christianity, was used to justify slavery in the old south.) If a person does business in this country, they do so under the protection and in compliance with the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Discrimination against any group based on religious beliefs violates a fundamental basis of our society.
I'm not waitng to hear from any elected official regarding Trump's desire to end Constitutional government. Their silence has spoken for them. They are complicit.
On ABC This Week Rep David Joyce said re Trump “He says a lot of things...” .. “And I can’t be really chasing every one of these crazy statements that come out about from any of theses candidates...” Sounds like the GOP doesn’t want to babysit their own. They must solve this problem whether they like it or not.
this is a tangential issue, tied to the uproar over trump having dinner with Nick Fuentes and Kanye West. Joyce, I am wondering if your extensive experience interacting with the press might yield some insight.
So far, the reported concerns have focused on Fuentes' clear championing of white supremacy and antisemitism, which should be called out.
The videos of this man ranting in various settings have also included a vicious streak of sexism. His comments re: what he feels should be done to the rights and bodies of women are vile and direct incitement to violence against women.
I am disturbed by the repeated deletion of virulent sexism in reporter and commentator descriptions of why the dinner guests are so disturbing, and how they amplify trump's already demonstrated dangerous traits. Insights on why this happens, and perhaps how to nudge the press to expand their focus would be welcome.
Apologies to any I offend with my view here, but I seriously don't see why any private business based primarily on custom design (as in cake baking or website creation) should be forced to design for any customer and I don't see why anyone seeking a custom design would want to use someone who is hostile to their vision. It isn't as if the bakery was the only bakery around or that this website designer is the only one available--and neither of these types of services are essential for life. Taking cases like this to court just furthers the narrative that you can legislate morality--you can't. Using the courts for this type of agenda seems frivolous to me, under the guise of civil rights and discrimination. As an example, my son is a facial plastic surgeon. What if he were to refuse to operate on an Asian/African-American/etc. patient for an elective cosmetic procedure like a nose job for example--when for some reason they want to make their nose "less ethnic" (yes, that is a thing), if he doesn't think he/she can achieve the result the patient wants? (There actually are surgeons who specialize in this-- my son is trained in this area and does do these cases). It's not the same as a private business owner refusing to sell goods on a shelf in a store to someone because of their race or sexual orientation or sexual identity or religion, nor is it the same as refusing to treat someone for a medically necessary condition because of their ethnicity/religion/sexual or gender preference. This is custom creation focusing specifically on a theme an "artist" is uncomfortable with.
Hi Joyce. I certainly don’t want the power of my vote to be diluted. Will we be able to hear the argument this week in Moore v Harper? Is gerrymandering ever bipartisan? It appears to be a political tool plain and simple. And New York got gerrymandered that clearly favored Republicans in the recent midterms and completely threw off the democratic hold in the state. I’m not really clear on this issue. Also re 303, is the law regulated solely by the state? I would think there would be a general law regarding serving the public that would have to be bipartisan. Enjoy your week. I’ve got a lot to learn this week. Enjoyed your 100th episode on your Sisters in Law
Many thanks for getting me focused is week, Joyce! To me, Moore v Harper is critical to our constitutional democracy; and, as a Veteran, I view ISL theory as an existential threat to the freedoms that so many have fought and died for. ISL can not be allowed to nullify our votes/freedoms and take us down the path to "autocracy of both the classes and the masses" as the Preamble to the Constitution of the American Legion has pledged to combat. I've expressed my concerns to both the American Legion and my elected leaders in Idaho. Like the rest of you, I'm waiting.
As a firefighter/paramedic for better than a quarter century, I never once asked the religion or sexual orientation of anyone about to get an IV, medication, etc. because of my religious beliefs, or lack there of.
Will the court allow that in the future?!?
I have found in calling, I usually get to talk to a person in district offices. When it's usually an answering machine in DC. I also call senators and reps in other states, give them my name and a short message. Of the probably 100 calls I made, I have only been asked for my address 3 times. To those who told me they did not take calls from nonvoters, I said, "Oh I'm sorry. I thought she/he was a US Senator." Only voters... so self-serving!
Always thought that religion was for humans not corporations. If you’re a business, you have to open the doors.
I’m ready for the news onslaught this week, thanks again to you dear Joyce. You make it so comprehensible and I am very grateful. Thank you!
When I hear Independent State Legislatures I see the potential for state sized fiefdoms.
It’s sad to feel like we’re standing on a backward treadmill with this SCOTUS, spinning us back fifty years. Bigotry has always existed in America but our principles - that all are created equal and entitled to equal rights and freedom from persecution. But when/if the highest court entertain otherwise, they inflame hatred and intolerance and it is indeed a slippery slope. Thank you again for keeping us informed and calling us all to be activists against these threats.
I'm fairly confident that in California our Democratic Reps. and Senators in Sacramento and in Congress are on the side of the Rule of Law..However, I will be reaching out to all of the Republican members to see to it that they make a public statement as to their position on this insane notion of ripping up the Constitution and kicking Joe Biden to the curb on Pennsylvania Ave..
I hadn’t thought a case would come along that I would lose more sleep over than Dobbs. I am a doc who cares for high risk pregnancies for a living, so Dobbs was a very big deal to me, and to the women I take care of. But I find myself even more worried about Moore v. Harper. Would it be hyperbolic to say that this case could be a nail in the coffin of American democracy?
The politicization of SCOTUS, hearing a case based on a theory you described as “bunk” and “nonsensical”, seems to me to be the issue. What “serious issues” could SCOTUS’ extremist bloc have seen in this case?
There are religious sects, denominations, and cults attempting to justify just about every imaginable form of human behavior. (The Bible, for example, along with various interpretations of Christianity, was used to justify slavery in the old south.) If a person does business in this country, they do so under the protection and in compliance with the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Discrimination against any group based on religious beliefs violates a fundamental basis of our society.
I'm not waitng to hear from any elected official regarding Trump's desire to end Constitutional government. Their silence has spoken for them. They are complicit.
On ABC This Week Rep David Joyce said re Trump “He says a lot of things...” .. “And I can’t be really chasing every one of these crazy statements that come out about from any of theses candidates...” Sounds like the GOP doesn’t want to babysit their own. They must solve this problem whether they like it or not.
this is a tangential issue, tied to the uproar over trump having dinner with Nick Fuentes and Kanye West. Joyce, I am wondering if your extensive experience interacting with the press might yield some insight.
So far, the reported concerns have focused on Fuentes' clear championing of white supremacy and antisemitism, which should be called out.
The videos of this man ranting in various settings have also included a vicious streak of sexism. His comments re: what he feels should be done to the rights and bodies of women are vile and direct incitement to violence against women.
I am disturbed by the repeated deletion of virulent sexism in reporter and commentator descriptions of why the dinner guests are so disturbing, and how they amplify trump's already demonstrated dangerous traits. Insights on why this happens, and perhaps how to nudge the press to expand their focus would be welcome.
Apologies to any I offend with my view here, but I seriously don't see why any private business based primarily on custom design (as in cake baking or website creation) should be forced to design for any customer and I don't see why anyone seeking a custom design would want to use someone who is hostile to their vision. It isn't as if the bakery was the only bakery around or that this website designer is the only one available--and neither of these types of services are essential for life. Taking cases like this to court just furthers the narrative that you can legislate morality--you can't. Using the courts for this type of agenda seems frivolous to me, under the guise of civil rights and discrimination. As an example, my son is a facial plastic surgeon. What if he were to refuse to operate on an Asian/African-American/etc. patient for an elective cosmetic procedure like a nose job for example--when for some reason they want to make their nose "less ethnic" (yes, that is a thing), if he doesn't think he/she can achieve the result the patient wants? (There actually are surgeons who specialize in this-- my son is trained in this area and does do these cases). It's not the same as a private business owner refusing to sell goods on a shelf in a store to someone because of their race or sexual orientation or sexual identity or religion, nor is it the same as refusing to treat someone for a medically necessary condition because of their ethnicity/religion/sexual or gender preference. This is custom creation focusing specifically on a theme an "artist" is uncomfortable with.
Hi Joyce. I certainly don’t want the power of my vote to be diluted. Will we be able to hear the argument this week in Moore v Harper? Is gerrymandering ever bipartisan? It appears to be a political tool plain and simple. And New York got gerrymandered that clearly favored Republicans in the recent midterms and completely threw off the democratic hold in the state. I’m not really clear on this issue. Also re 303, is the law regulated solely by the state? I would think there would be a general law regarding serving the public that would have to be bipartisan. Enjoy your week. I’ve got a lot to learn this week. Enjoyed your 100th episode on your Sisters in Law
Many thanks for getting me focused is week, Joyce! To me, Moore v Harper is critical to our constitutional democracy; and, as a Veteran, I view ISL theory as an existential threat to the freedoms that so many have fought and died for. ISL can not be allowed to nullify our votes/freedoms and take us down the path to "autocracy of both the classes and the masses" as the Preamble to the Constitution of the American Legion has pledged to combat. I've expressed my concerns to both the American Legion and my elected leaders in Idaho. Like the rest of you, I'm waiting.