More red state Idiocy

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

HIV at center of latest culture war after Tennessee rejects federal funds
The tensions in Tennessee began in the fall, when Republican Gov. Bill Lee voiced disapproval of two HIV grant recipients spotlighted in conservative media — a task force on transgender health issues and Planned Parenthood. The conflict escalated late last week when the state announced that after May 31, it would no longer accept any money from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for testing, prevention and surveillance of HIV.

State officials said they would continue to support HIV testing and prevention but would focus on first responders, victims of human trafficking and mothers and children. In contrast, the federal program prioritizes men who have sex with men and transgender people, particularly in communities of color, who are at greatest risk of HIV, according to federal surveillance data.

“It’s pretty hard not to think that part of the motivation is to restrict funding to groups we don’t like and don’t want to support,” said Wayne Smith, who runs a faith-based HIV prevention program in Knoxville that will lose about $10,000 for
testing each year.

In Texas, religious employers brought a suit arguing they shouldn’t have to pay for HIV-prevention drugs that are mandated by the Affordable Care Act, and in September, a federal judge sided with them, citing the right to religious freedom.


One of those who sued the federal government is a Christian-operated corporation called Braidwood Management, which is owned by Texas Republican megadonor Steven Hotze. Hotze claimed the Affordable Care Act requirement that health plans cover PrEP would make his company, quote, "facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior." And so this federal judge in Texas, Reed O'Connor, sided with Hotze. In his ruling, the judge said that Hotze was able to prove that the PrEP mandate substantially burdens his religious freedoms.

this judge is on the dole

The Texas Attorney General's Office has made a habit of filing lawsuits against the federal government that land in O'Connor's court.

Since 2015, almost half of challenges to the federal government that Texas filed in district courts here landed in O’Connor’s courtroom, attorney general’s office records show.

One of America’s most partisan judges just gave Navy SEALs permission to defy a direct order

yep red state Judges just acting on the Law not how its written ... But by his religious views on the matter ... we see it all over the nation now GODs justifies more discrimination over Justice

how do you know that judge is on the dole? just by saying it?

read the bill of rights wayne. you can’t peoppe to
force that which violates their generally accepted beliefs. you don’t have to like it, that’s the the bill of rights matters. no one has to fight for their rights when everyone agrees with them. the bill of rights only matters if you respect those rights even when you hate the context.

i dont especially like that context either. But the bill of rights matters, even if it’s not convenient for you,,wayne.

I hate what’s said on MSNBC, but they have the right to say it. I hate art that shows the Virgin Mary covered in feces, I hate meetings of the Black Panthers, but i like living in a country where they have the right to do what they believe.

The bill of rights is meaningless, if you’d only grant those rights when it’s convenient for you, when it costs you nothing.

Just read the bill. it’s not hard. they probably made a pop up book version somewhere. You can’t deny the right of someone else to freely exercise their religion as they, not you, see fit. the right doesn’t only exist when you feel
like granting it.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

how do you know that judge is on the dole? just by saying it?

read the bill of rights wayne. you can’t peoppe to
force that which violates their generally accepted beliefs. you don’t have to like it, that’s the the bill of rights matters. no one has to fight for their rights when everyone agrees with them. the bill of rights only matters if you respect those rights even when you hate the context.

i dont especially like that context either. But the bill of rights matters, even if it’s not convenient for you,,wayne.

I hate what’s said on MSNBC, but they have the right to say it. I hate art that shows the Virgin Mary covered in feces, I hate meetings of the Black Panthers, but i like living in a country where they have the right to do what they believe.

The bill of rights is meaningless, if you’d only grant those rights when it’s convenient for you, when it costs you nothing.

Just read the bill. it’s not hard. they probably made a pop up book version somewhere. You can’t deny the right of someone else to freely exercise their religion as they, not you, see fit. the right doesn’t only exist when you feel
like granting it.

how do you know that judge is on the dole? just by saying it?

Really Jim now sarcasm alludes you?

Of course you don’t see an issue with 50% of cases get sent to his desk from Religious zealots.

Who see how he rules not by the bill of rights that you quote as if to grant him an excuse. He rulings seem to always involve anti government religious overtones ..

Seem this guy would rule against any contraception agreeing it promotes un married Sex

But these religious nuts who feel anti hiv meds is promoting gay sex
Have no issues paying for others viagra ..

Not sure how a business offering health insurance can list what treatments are acceptable

Jim as expected sees discrimination as a religious right and freedom..

This is the new religion in the Right in America.. don’t like something and then scream religious rights

And some judges and the SJC will agree with them because their allegiance is to god before the nation or its laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

how do you know that judge is on the dole? just by saying it?

Really Jim now sarcasm alludes you?

Of course you don’t see an issue with 50% of cases get sent to his desk from Religious zealots.

Who see how he rules not by the bill of rights that you quote as if to grant him an excuse. He rulings seem to always involve anti government religious overtones ..

Seem this guy would rule against any contraception agreeing it promotes un married Sex

But these religious nuts who feel anti hiv meds is promoting gay sex
Have no issues paying for others viagra ..

Not sure how a business offering health insurance can list what treatments are acceptable

Jim as expected sees discrimination as a religious right and freedom..

This is the new religion in the Right in America.. don’t like something and then scream religious rights

And some judges and the SJC will agree with them because their allegiance is to god before the nation or its laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Not sure how a business offering health insurance can list what treatments are acceptable"

No kidding. Because you only care about the Bill Of Rights, when it's the rights of liberals being discussed. Americans can not be forced to abandon their religious beliefs at work. That's how. The Bill doesn't specify that you have to agree with the context in which someone is asserting those rights.

I'm not saying I agree with the stance those Christians are taking. I just agree the Bill Of Rights gives them that right. If I owned a business that provided health insurance, I'd absolutely want to cover HIV treatment, but not recreational birth control and not gender transition treatments. You want it, you buy it. Leave me out of it.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Not sure how a business offering health insurance can list what treatments are acceptable"

No kidding. Because you only care about the Bill Of Rights, when it's the rights of liberals being discussed. Americans can not be forced to abandon their religious beliefs at work. That's how. The Bill doesn't specify that you have to agree with the context in which someone is asserting those rights.

I'm not saying I agree with the stance those Christians are taking. I just agree the Bill Of Rights gives them that right. If I owned a business that provided health insurance, I'd absolutely want to cover HIV treatment, but not recreational birth control and not gender transition treatments. You want it, you buy it. Leave me out of it.

Yeah Jim, this same judge ruled that the Navy SEALs didn’t have to get the vaccine and banned the Navy from discharging them. That is pure BS because apparently shall not kill. Does it apply?. to Navy SEALs who suddenly feel getting the vaccine was it was against their religion like I said Christians, picking and choosing which religious freedoms they want to use and win total BS. And shockingly the supreme court ruled against the judge like I said, holds 50% of the cases that come out of Texas regarding government and religion

The bill of rights has never been so abused until conservatives used it as it as a weapon I just don’t know why you can’t see that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Yeah Jim, this same judge ruled that the Navy SEALs didn’t have to get the vaccine and banned the Navy from discharging them. That is pure BS because apparently shall not kill. Does it apply?. to Navy SEALs who suddenly feel getting the vaccine was it was against their religion like I said Christians, picking and choosing which religious freedoms they want to use and win total BS. And shockingly the supreme court ruled against the judge like I said, holds 50% of the cases that come out of Texas regarding government and religion

The bill of rights has never been so abused until conservatives used it as it as a weapon I just don’t know why you can’t see that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's not just one judge. Other judges (Supreme Court I think?) ruled that Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters Of The Poor cannot be forced to violate their religion in terms of what they offer employees in health insurance.

"The bill of rights has never been so abused until conservatives used it as it as a weapon"

Liberals use the Bill Of Rights every single day, while doing things that infuriate conservatives, but they have that right. When MSNBC and CNN claim that I hate everybody, when liberals burn the flag, when artists use public money to hang paintings of Jesus covered in feces in public museums. Those are all things that I find revolting and deeply insulting, but I'd never, ever say that the left doesn't have the right to exercise those rights.

Wayne, it's very easy to grant rights to people who you know will only exercise those rights in ways you agree with. The test of the Bill Of Rights, is whether or not you'd guarantee those rights to those who exercise them in ways that make you sick. I'm fine guaranteeing those rights to those I disagree with. Clearly you are not, because you spend a lot of time whining about it.

If you're OK with limiting those rights to situations you agree with, that means conservatives will do the same thing when they're in charge. You want Donald Trump being able to decide when Freedom of The Press exists and when it doesn't? Or Freedom Of Speech? I'm not OK with that..

Here's the exact wording from the constitution...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The state doesn't decide what's a legitimate religious belief, we decide that for ourselves. And the state cannot interfere, within reason (no human sacrifices).

And I'm sorry to break it to you, but nowhere in that phrase does it say that freedom of religion only applies as long as you happen to be OK with it.

Liberal snowflakes seem to think they have a constitutional right to never be offended. I'm a conservative catholic living in CT. I'm used to being offended.

Nobody said democracy is supposed to be easy. People who disagree with you on everything, have the same exact rights that you have.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

apparently shall not kill. Does it apply?. to Navy SEALs who suddenly feel getting the vaccine was it was against their religion like I said Christians, picking and choosing which religious freedoms they want to use
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're saying Christians are hypocrites if they serve in combat?

Theologians have LONG interpreted that commandment as "thou shall not commit murder". Killing someone in self-defense, and also in a just war, has long been considered in keeping with that commandment.

You just make it up as you go along.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You're saying Christians are hypocrites if they serve in combat?

Theologians have LONG interpreted that commandment as "thou shall not commit murder". Killing someone in self-defense, and also in a just war, has long been considered in keeping with that commandment.

You just make it up as you go along.

Iam no biblical scholar but I know the Ten Commandments don’t say Thou shall not murder.

And as if you ever went to war . There’s no such thing as a just war it’s all about kill or be killed

Theologians have LONG interpreted that commandment as "thou shall not commit murder". in a just war, has long been considered in keeping with that commandment.

Where did you get that lie from the the theologians from the crusades
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Iam no biblical scholar but I know the Ten Commandments don’t say Thou shall not murder.

And as if you ever went to war . There’s no such thing as a just war it’s all about kill or be killed

Theologians have LONG interpreted that commandment as "thou shall not commit murder". in a just war, has long been considered in keeping with that commandment.

Where did you get that lie from the the theologians from the crusades
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not lying. the catholic church recognizes the principle of just war. Your ignorance, doesn’t make me a liar.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...holic-teaching

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You're saying Christians are hypocrites if they serve in combat?

Theologians have LONG interpreted that commandment as "thou shall not commit murder". Killing someone in self-defense, and also in a just war, has long been considered in keeping with that commandment.

You just make it up as you go along.

Just war, that statement is so open to interpretation, so many hundreds of thousands have died in the worlds holy wars in the name of Christianity. Who determines one particular war or conflict is just?