Another example: Red light cameras to reduce accidents. Now people slam on their brakes causing rear-end collisions instead of just cruising thru the yellow. Unless the only goal was to increase revenue from running 'red' light fines, in that case the law is a huge success. 

Money equates to power in politics and government.  When this country was founded, most states has wealth/property requirements to vote or to hold office.  If you did not have wealth, you did not have power.

It is not uncommon for politicos to raise the specter of a "crisis" to get the gullible to hand over their checking accounts.  And it is not one-sided.  We saw the despicable outing of a teenaged transgirl in Colorado on bogus bathroom harassment charges, primarily to raise money for the outers' attempt to raise funds for the ballot measure fight in California.

The environmentalists have been playing the global warming card for years.  And now we are being used as pawns in a partisan fight.  The original article note that the fund-raisers may not use the money they raise to help pass the bill.

Somewhere there must exist a rational center, away from the extremists, where issues can be reasonably adjudicated.

I think both sides would do so much better if they designed their approach in such a way that it took into account the other's must-haves FIRST.

On ENDA, for instance: No discrimination in employment based on X, Y, and Z, except in cases where the company or organization's religious affiliation precludes X, Y, or Z.

Because what needs to be done is to build a system that punishes ACTUAL discrimination, while fully preserving religious liberty - and ENDA represents a problem to all those of us who can clearly see a future without said liberty. That is to say, if not handled VERY carefully, it makes illegal (or at the least illegal in any public setting) a tenet of the Christian Holy Writ. Which is not and should not be acceptable to anyone in America, even if they disagree vehemently with that tenet.

The fear is that homosexuality will become another race issue across the board, and that those designated "homophobes" (conveniently including those who believe the Bible whole cloth) will be ostracized, disenfranchised, and removed from public life. Just like the poor manager of Chick Fil A. In effect, religious liberty would be stifled by this new requirement to Respect the Federal Statute of Protected Actions. And that is not something anyone on the Right wants to see happen.

Sincerely,
Your Conservative Ambassador du jour,
Zoe M.

To that end, Zoe, we had an interesting federal court decision this week.

Court strikes down birth control mandate

The Hill | Julian Hattem

A federal appeals court on Friday struck down the birth control mandate in ObamaCare, concluding the requirement trammels religious freedom.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals — the second most influential bench in the land behind the Supreme Court — ruled 2-1 in favor of business owners who are fighting the requirement that they provide their employees with health insurance that covers birth control.

Requiring companies to cover their employees' contraception, the court ruled, is unduly burdensome for business owners who oppose birth control on religious grounds, even if they are not purchasing the contraception directly.

"The burden on religious exercise does not occur at the point of contraceptive purchase; instead, it occurs when a company's owners fill the basket of goods and services that constitute a healthcare plan," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote on behalf of the court.[/i]

Maybe my religion says I don't have to pay into any insurance that covers child care if o birth control is available.
That is just plain dumb. Form the insurance point of view, they would pay out less for birth control than they would for pregnancy and child care. Even the catholic church now allows for birth control. The bible said to populate the earth, not kill it with over population.

Quote from: LordKAT on November 06, 2013, 03:26:46 PM
Maybe my religion says I don't have to pay into any insurance that covers child care if o birth control is available.
That is just plain dumb. Form the insurance point of view, they would pay out less for birth control than they would for pregnancy and child care. Even the catholic church now allows for birth control. The bible said to populate the earth, not kill it with over population.

It's easiest to reframe this in terms of things you don't believe in - if (say) you think Bible camps are evil, do you want to fund them with your tax dollars? What about the part of tuition payments that goes to support underprivileged kids - should that include money for Christian programs?

And if not, why is this any different?

Quote from: LordKAT on November 06, 2013, 03:26:46 PM
Maybe my religion says I don't have to pay into any insurance that covers child care if o birth control is available.
That is just plain dumb. Form the insurance point of view, they would pay out less for birth control than they would for pregnancy and child care. Even the catholic church now allows for birth control. The bible said to populate the earth, not kill it with over population.

Religious exemptions are made for many things - it is part of the heritage of the country.

We have conscientious objectors for military service.  Religious exemptions from childhood immunizations.  Home schooling options.  People who refuse medical care or blood transfusions when they would otherwise make sense.

It is all part of exercising your right to "opt out" of something on ethical or religious grounds.

Having it available isn't forcing someone to use it or even attempting to make someone use it. If I'm paying into it, shouldn't it cover my needs? So this will be the excuse for not requiring trans care, religion in insurance.

People have been in trouble for not giving medical to children even for religious reasons.  There is something wrong when religion is used to tell me where I can work, If the place is a religious school or church I can see it but not otherwise. I can't refuse to work Saturdays even if my religion says no work on Saturday.

Quote from: LordKAT on November 06, 2013, 04:11:09 PM
Having it available isn't forcing someone to use it or even attempting to make someone use it. If I'm paying into it, shouldn't it cover my needs? So this will be the excuse for not requiring trans care, religion in insurance.

People have been in trouble for not giving medical to children even for religious reasons.  There is something wrong when religion is used to tell me where I can work, If the place is a religious school or church I can see it but not otherwise. I can't refuse to work Saturdays even if my religion says no work on Saturday.

I think Obamacare was drafted as law in dingy, smoky back rooms, with scant little attention to either religion or transpeople.

considering that the clause for all medically necessary treatment was removed rather than just not added, it was thought about, and denied.

Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on November 06, 2013, 04:20:34 PM
I think Obamacare was drafted as law in dingy, smoky back rooms, with scant little attention to either religion or transpeople.

... and I also think in the dingy smoke filled room there were two big electrical transformers that went all the way up thru the ceiling and on a stormy rainy night, a crazy stringy haired scientist opened the doors to the roof and as the lighting struck the transformers sending electrical currents all about the room and sparks a flying, began yelling.... IT'S ALIIIIIVE!!!... HAHA... IIIIT'S ALLLIVVVVVE!!!!!

Or not, who know...

The freedom of religion part of the Bill of Rights is a sometimes a double sided sword. Then again, the only part of the Bill of Rights congress has not trounced upon recently is the quartering of troops thing. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if that happens in the next budget debate the way things are going lately.