Todd Young...idiot

[oze]

I finally received a reply from Young to the displeasure I expressed via his web site wrt his support for "The Respect for Marriage Act". It's a rather lengthy email which I can summarize as:

1) gay people should be treated with dignity
2) The bill can't and won't be used to undermine the religious liberties of people who oppose gay marriage.

Well. I'm ok with 1). But call an early "********" on 2), reserving the playing of an I Told You So card for the near future.

I'm going to send him a short reply, expressing my disappointment in myself for voting for him in two primaries, assuming then that he represented the conservative values of the majority of his Hoosier constituents. Just as with Trump, my opinions of Young progressed like this:

Supporter-->Defender-->Apologist-->Anybody but in the primary

 

[KLB]

I finally received a reply from Young to the displeasure I expressed via his web site wrt his support for "The Respect for Marriage Act". It's a rather lengthy email which I can summarize as:

1) gay people should be treated with dignity
2) The bill can't and won't be used to undermine the religious liberties of people who oppose gay marriage.

Well. I'm ok with 1). But call an early "********" on 2), reserving the playing of an I Told You So card for the near future.

I'm going to send him a short reply, expressing my disappointment in myself for voting for him in two primaries, assuming then that he represented the conservative values of the majority of his Hoosier constituents. Just as with Trump, my opinions of Young progressed like this:

Supporter-->Defender-->Apologist-->Anybody but in the primary

You do realize that the law has that spelled out in it, right?

 

[oze]

You do realize that the law has that spelled out in it, right?

You do realize that the act has that spelled out for religious and other non-profits, entities "whose principle purpose is the study, practice or advancement of religion ", right? Maybe you can show me where Mom and Pop's Bakery or just John Q. Public is protected by this bill.

 

[KLB]

You do realize that the act has that spelled out for religious and other non-profits, entities "whose principle purpose is the study, practice or advancement of religion ", right? Maybe you can show me where Mom and Pop's Bakery or just John Q. Public is protected by this bill.

What can you do on a personal level that would run afoul of any law where marriage is concerned?

This law says if TWO people are married legally in one state, that all of the other states have to recognize that marriage.

It doesn't say anyone has to do anything to make the marriage happen, so I am a bit confused about the angst over it from that perspective.

 

[oze]

What can you do on a personal level that would run afoul of any law where marriage is concerned?

This law says if TWO people are married legally in one state, that all of the other states have to recognize that marriage.

It doesn't say anyone has to do anything to make the marriage happen, so I am a bit confused about the angst over from that perspective.

There are *no* protections for private citizens. Own a cake shop and refuse to bake a wedding cake for the happy gay couple, you are just as screwed now as you were before. Garland and his merry band of Schutzstaffel are coming for you and your business.

I have plenty of I Told You So cards; I'll save one for Young and one for you.

 

[KLB]

There are *no* protections for private citizens. Own a cake shop and refuse to bake a wedding cake for the happy gay couple, you are just as screwed now as you were before. Garland and his merry band of Schutzstaffel are coming for you and your business.

I have plenty of I Told You So cards; I'll save one for Young and one for you.

Show me in the law where it says ANYTHING about having to give services to a wedding. I read it and couldn't find it. I sure would love to see it though, since so many people keep saying it.

The law is about honoring marriages that have already occurred in other states. That's it. In fact, I do not think it even says that all states must allow gay marriages to be performed. Just that they have to honor them if performed in another state.

 

[oze]

Show me in the law where it says ANYTHING about having to give services to a wedding. I read it and couldn't find it. I sure would love to see it though, since so many people keep saying it.

The law is about honoring marriages that have already occurred in other states. That's it. In fact, I do not think it even says that all states must allow gay marriages to be performed. Just that they have to honor them if performed in another state.

Short bill. Check out Section 6.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Show me in the law where it says ANYTHING about having to give services to a wedding. I read it and couldn't find it. I sure would love to see it though, since so many people keep saying it.

The law is about honoring marriages that have already occurred in other states. That's it. In fact, I do not think it even says that all states must allow gay marriages to be performed. Just that they have to honor them if performed in another state.

One thing, if it has nothing to do with providing services why would this section be necessary? It's all about protection for non-profits religious orgs for not providing services for a wedding.

(b) Goods or Services.--Consistent with the First Amendment to the
Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches,
mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries,
interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission
organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational
institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the
study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such
an organization, shall not be required to provide services,
accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the
solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this
subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages,
facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or
cause of action.

 

[oze]

One thing, if it has nothing to do with providing services why would this section be necessary? It's all about protection for non-profits religious orgs for not providing services for a wedding.

(b) Goods or Services.--Consistent with the First Amendment to the
Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches,
mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries,
interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission
organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational
institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the
study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such
an organization, shall not be required to provide services,
accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the
solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this
subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages,
facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or
cause of action.

Yes, but not, for example, private bakeries nor wedding web page designers.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I’m sure a republican majority would have saved us from this.

 

[Shadow01]

What can you do on a personal level that would run afoul of any law where marriage is concerned?

This law says if TWO people are married legally in one state, that all of the other states have to recognize that marriage.

It doesn't say anyone has to do anything to make the marriage happen, so I am a bit confused about the angst over it from that perspective.

So this law applies to making the “state” abide and not the citizens?

 

[edporch]

I’m sure a republican majority would have saved us from this.

Actually, it was the Republicans who COULD'VE stopped this but didn't.
It took 60 votes to end debate, which 12 Republicans got on board with.
Then it just took 51 votes to pass the Bill.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Actually, it was the Republicans who COULD'VE stopped this but didn't.
It took 60 votes to end debate, which 12 Republicans got on board with.
Then it just took 51 votes to pass the Bill.

You can safely assume that most of the time I post something like that sarcasm is implied.

 

[KLB]

One thing, if it has nothing to do with providing services why would this section be necessary? It's all about protection for non-profits religious orgs for not providing services for a wedding.

(b) Goods or Services.--Consistent with the First Amendment to the
Constitution, nonprofit religious organizations, including churches,
mosques, synagogues, temples, nondenominational ministries,
interdenominational and ecumenical organizations, mission
organizations, faith-based social agencies, religious educational
institutions, and nonprofit entities whose principal purpose is the
study, practice, or advancement of religion, and any employee of such
an organization, shall not be required to provide services,
accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges for the
solemnization or celebration of a marriage. Any refusal under this
subsection to provide such services, accommodations, advantages,
facilities, goods, or privileges shall not create any civil claim or
cause of action.

A carrot to get Republicans to sign on.

So let's look at the actual language before that. It specifically states that you cannot use a state law to deny things to a married couple. Nothing about services.

 

[KLB]

Yes, but not, for example, private bakeries nor wedding web page designers.

Also not true. Says right there. individual or organization.

 

[oze]

Also not true. Says right there. individual or organization.

View attachment 241632

Jesus H. 6B.

I'm out.

 

[ljk]

$1.7trillion Schumer-Pelosi Omnibus spending bill.

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs ---68​

Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Booker (D-NJ)
Boozman (R-AR)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Capito (R-WV)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Cortez Masto (D-NV)
Cotton (R-AR)
Duckworth (D-IL)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hassan (D-NH)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Hickenlooper (D-CO)
Hirono (D-HI)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kaine (D-VA)
Kelly (D-AZ)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lujan (D-NM)
Manchin (D-WV)
Markey (D-MA)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Moran (R-KS)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Ossoff (D-GA)
Padilla (D-CA)
Peters (D-MI)
Portman (R-OH)
Reed (D-RI)
Romney (R-UT)
Rosen (D-NV)
Rounds (R-SD)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Sinema (D-AZ)
Smith (D-MN)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Van Hollen (D-MD)
Warner (D-VA)
Warnock (D-GA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)
Wyden (D-OR)
Young (R-IN)

NAYs ---29​

Blackburn (R-TN)
Braun (R-IN)
Cassidy (R-LA)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Daines (R-MT)
Ernst (R-IA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagerty (R-TN)
Hawley (R-MO)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Hyde-Smith (R-MS)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kennedy (R-LA)
Lankford (R-OK)
Lee (R-UT)
Lummis (R-WY)
Marshall (R-KS)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Rubio (R-FL)
Sasse (R-NE)
Scott (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Sullivan (R-AK)
Tillis (R-NC)
Toomey (R-PA)
Tuberville (R-AL)

Not Voting - 3​

Barrasso (R-WY)
Burr (R-NC)
Cramer (R-ND)

 

[MCgrease08]

Can y'all tell me again about why we absolutely must vote for Todd Young again to save the Senate?

Your boy is a flippin' joke. I can at least sleep at night knowing I didn't waste a vote on this loser. Can you?

 

[tcecil88]

Can y'all tell me again about why we absolutely must vote for Todd Young again to save the Senate?

Your boy is a flippin' joke. I can at least sleep at night knowing I didn't waste a vote on this loser. Can you?

I already sent him an email calling him a RINO. He had responded to my email about the SHORT Act and expressed his concern about ATF overreach, then he votes to give ATF more money to make it easier for them to do just that.

 

[DragonGunner]

I didn’t vote for him. Told so many people why. Now I have had several Christian’s so upset and said they voted for him but will not next time. If we are still around. But hey a RINO is better than a democrat at least….? You will vote for anyone the GOP puts in front of you for the greater good.