Crowish
Member

Yep. The bill expands on the definition of what "discriminating against Jews" is and outsources that to a private entity.

True story. So when I first met my now ex-wife and her family back in 1998, I thought they were really homophobic. Like they would talk about the "gay agenda" and how Disney secretly pushing gay and sexual messages in their movies and all of that. I was pretty liberal then. I supported ending the ban on sodomy laws because I don't want to know what other people are doing in their bedroom. (Seems like these days certain people want everybody to know what they are doing in their bedroom.) I was okay with ending the ban on gays in the military because I had no intention of joining the military. When it came to gay marriage, I was okay with that until I went to law school and had to read the IRS vs Bob Jones University case. That's the case where BJU lost it's tax except status for having a ban on interracial dating. The holding was since SCOTUS had struck down separate but equal, congress had passed the CRA and President Truman had desegregated the military, all 3 branches of government had decided segregation was against public policy. (After they lost they just banned all dating on campus period). That case greatly concerned me because the SDA church operates a lot of colleges and universities and they all follow the traditional view on sexuality and marriage. About that time Obama had repealed don't ask don't tell. (Branch 1) Sometime later SCOTUS struck down DOMA. (Branch 2). And there was language barring discrimination against transgenders in medicine in Obamacare. (Branch 3). Back to my former in-laws. Four years ago when we were all together for my sons graduating college I overheard them talking to each other about how "terrible" it is that Trump was trying to take away transgender rights to healthcare. This was the first I heard of that and I wasn't sure what that meant. But I bet they thought it was about whether or not a transgender having a heart attack would be turned away form the hospital. I didn't argue with them, but I was thinking "I bet there's more to it than that." Sure enough, within a year I heard of a case of a "transman" suing a Catholic hospital for not doing a hysterectomy because the hospital said it didn't want to be involved in any gender affirming surgeries. I've never asked my ex or her family what they thought about that. At that same graduation event a pastor who is married to one of my exes sisters wanted to talk to me about politics because I guess he wanted to "set me straight" about being a "republican" and a "Trump supporter." I am neither but I get accused of that all of the time because in some circles if you aren't lining up to kiss the donkey's ass and/or if you don't totally despise Trump (and despite what some here think, I don't hate the man), then you must be a Trump supporter. Finally I asked the pastor "You have a daycare with your church right? How would you feel if the feds told you that you have to hire an openly gay teacher?" Boom! i had him! He hadn't thought about that. (Actually religious schools are allowed to discriminate in hiring of teachers because they are the same as hiring clergy and that falls under the same "ecclesiastical exception" that excempts churches form the CRA when dealing with clergy.) Anyhow, I have transgender relatives. If any of the were having a heart attack I'd want them to be able to go to any hospital and have treatment. But that is not what Obama was pushing or is being pushed now. /long rant

What...the actual....hell? Like what? That man has to be possessed.

:rolleyes: If I was not correct then they wouldn't be offering this amendment! Yes there have been CRA cases based on antisemitism such as calling someone "Jew boy" but this is an escalation. Part of proving discrimination is showing animus against the protected class. The definition that this bill brings in by proxy includes saying you don't support the state of Israel as evidence of such animus. That is the problem. Read the case I linked to above before responding so we can have an intelligent conversation.

Yes. Exactly. Full stop. This is a hypothetical question. But it's based on advances that are actually being developed. Okay. And yet there are exceptions that you mentioned where you would allow it. And that's why "the government is part of the question." There's nothing "casual" about evictionism. We know that abortion will continue to happen. Ban it in one state, it will happen in another state. Women might even travel to Canada at some point.. Harm reduction is not casual. That's a disingenuous argument.

It's never been enforced based on an expansive definition of antisemitism that includes what most sane people would NOT call antisemitism. That's the point that I and Anti Federalist and Matt Gaetz are saying. Congress would never be able to pass a law that included a definition of antisemitism that said "If you say Jews killed Jesus that's antisemitism." Based on the text from the law that I already gave you this expansive definition of antisemitism can be used to trigger a federal instigation and can be used as evidence in a discrimination lawsuit. You're just being obtuse now.

My realist side says that since government is already in the business of doing that, it should at least be done right. It also says that the worst case scenario is when government starts making public policy based on some un-elected groups definition of something like the recent antisemitism bill where a private group is being allowed to rewrite the Civil Rights Act by proxy.

My favorite Trump / Giuliani moment.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again. And that's the sneaky part. Candace Owens was right to reject that rabbi's claim that definitions for bigotry must be allowed to morph and change over time.

The power of the evictionism argument is that it makes things like arguing whether or not the abortion is really for the "life or health of the mother" or whether the mother was raped or whether the baby is viable is irrelevant. The baby isn't being killed. So who cares about the reason it's being evicted? The only counter arguments I've heard so far is "I don't like anything but natural birth" (tough titty as there is no libertarian argument against c-sections) and "Maybe there will be fewer adoptive parents than women who want to evict." To that I say "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." The technology could be used under any current abortion legality framework as a harm reduction method. In scenarios where abortion is legal, some women might be convinced to "evict" and give up for adoption rather than going 9 months, giving birth and giving the baby up for adoption. In scenarios where abortion is illegal, it could offer women a way out of a pregnancy they don't want to continue without having to fit into some arbitrary exception. Anyway, while the technology is ready for human trials to help save premature babies, it's not expected to be available as a general womb replacement anytime soon. See: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/09/29/1080538/everything-you-need-to-know-about-artificial-wombs/ But 50 years from now, who knows?

A) It's already legal to doom them to death so that "point" is irrelevant. ​ B )In a 100% anarchist it would even be legal to doom your toddler to death, because there would litterally be no state to punish you for killing your toddler, so again your point is irrelevant. That's why your question, as framed, makes no sense. The reason for your "doomed to death" scenario is 100% because of the social structure you've chosen to look at the technology through and not the technology itself. Back to reality. If we looked at it through the lens of a state, a mother who was in a state of pregnancy where abortion is illegal could have the option of evicting the pregnancy. Who pays? Pick one. In Alabama they are currently pushing a bill to make child support retroactive to conception. Or the mom could pay. Or the potential adoptive child could pay. The state already pays WIC which covers prenatal care so that amount could be applied to artificial womb care. It's estimated that pregnancy costs $19,000.so it's not like natural birth is somehow "free." Could birth by machine be cheaper? Possibly. You don't have to worry about liability for the machine "dying" but only for the baby. Right now there are programs where prospective adoptive parents pay for the healthcare of poor expected mothers in exchange for the right to adopt their babies once they are born. An artificial womb regimen would allow that to happen without the mother having to go through the 9 months of being pregnant. There are no downsides. At least not based on any argument you've put forward so far.

Yes it does. Again my summary: I quoted it to you. There are none so blind as those that cannot see. A private group's definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel, was written into the bill as prima facia evidence of discrimination. And this group's definition of antisemitism is used under this bill to show intent to discriminate whether that's creating a hostile work environment, firing someone, retaliation or whatever.

Right! But under this bill just having a "Free Palestine" poster on your wall counts the same as having Adolf Hitler or KKK posters on your wall! Edit: And doesn't it bother you that rather than having the balls to just say what their own definition of antisemitism is, they delegate that to some third party by reference? As Matt Gatez pointed out, even the Christian Bible saying "the Jews killed Jesus" is antisemitism by this definition. So this is legalized discrimination against Christianity.

:rolleyes: More from the bill. In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent. So under the old CRA if you said "We don't like Jews" and then fired someone you could be found liable for discrimination, but you couldn't be liable simply for taking the political stance "Israel is an apartheid stated." Candace Owens was fired by the Daily Wire for taking a stance that Ben Shapiro felt was anti Israel. If Candace Owens owned her own company and fired someone for taking Ben Shapiro's stance that would be evidence to show discrimination under this bill. A political stance is being conflated with ethnic discrimination.

I quoted it to you. There are none so blind as those that cannot see. A private group's definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel, was written into the bill as prima facia evidence of discrimination.

I've defended someone who was about to get a felony for simple possession of marijuana for a second time. The only reason it was dropped to a misdemeanor was because the arresting cop was on "Obama duty" at the second status hearing and I was finally offered a deal. This young man wasn't a car jacker. He was a pothead. Giving him a felony would have greatly restricted his opportunity for employment. What do a lot of unemployable men turn to in order to make money? Crime. Good for you! (Seriously). Yep. FTR Ice Cube has taken heat in the black community for being willing to talk to Trump in 2020 and going on Tucker Carlson in 2024.

You're right. It doesn't specifically mention the FBI. That said the impact of the law that you linked to is that it allows criticism of Israel to be used as prima fascia evidence of discrimination. Under the 1964 CRA having posters of Hitler all over the office could be seen as creating a hostile work environment. Under this bill a company taking a stand against what's happening in Gaza could be seen as creating a hostile work environment.

Tangelo Park is only about 2,500 people. The FBI only collects statistics for cities over a certain size. That doesn't mean local authorities don't collect the stats themselves. At 2,500, Tangelo Park probably doesn't have its own police force but when 911 is called whoever answers the call (probably the county sheriff) records the address of the event.

Uggggghhhhh! Sorry but I will never call a person "they." "They" is a plural pronoun. The first time I heard that crap was when Ezra Miller was traveling around the world with that Native American minor female and simultaneously coming out as "non-binary." The media kept saying "The police arrested them." I was like "Was the girl arrested too?" Nope. Just Ezra Miller. In Spanish "they" is masculine or feminine so that trick only works in English.

You're arguing that somehow technology that might in the future take the government out of the abortion question somehow injects the government in to the abortion question. That doesn't make sense. It isn't about "hard cases" or "soft" cases. PAF recently made the point that while he thinks abortion is murder, he doesn't want the government involved. Okay. Evictionism would merely give an option where a mother, for whatever reason, who didn't want to continue her pregnancy could decide to not continue her pregnancy without killing her baby. There is no need for "a bunch of dudes in black dresses to wave a magic want and grant or prohibit" anything. Let's say the government didn't exist but artificial womb technology, which already exists, advanced to the point that most people considered it a safe and viable alternative. Some women would chose to have their babies naturally. Some women who now wrestle with the decision to have an abortion would decide to use an artificial womb instead and (perhaps) put the baby up for adoption. So would still abort for whatever reason. It the framework that we have now, with the "men in black dresses", it certainly doesn't make the abortion situation worse. The only possible drawback is that some women who want to have children might still decide to skip the whole morning sickness routine the same way some women today skip breast feeding.

From your link: SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”— (1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and (2) includes the “ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.

I'm talking about the FBI being directed to investigate people based on nothing but their speech. That is not part of the civil rights act but it IS part of the Anti Antisemitism Awareness Act.

It answers the false conclusion you drew from the question. If the answer to "who is responsible" is "nobody" that doesn't mean that and fetuses who are evicted will be doomed to death. But the ones who are aborted are 100% doomed to death. So doom all of the unwanted babies do death just because you can't guarantee that all of them won't be left to die? What kind of sense does that make? (That last question was rhetorical). It is estimated that there are between half a million and a million abortions per year. There are between 1 to 2 million American couples waiting to adopt at any given point.

And saying "I want to murder X" can be used as evidence that you indeed murdered X. This bill directs the FBI to investigate people for merely criticizing Israel! Not at all the same thing.