What caught your attention in the world today?

Published

I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news.  I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.

https://apnews.com/article/new-jersey-newark-bomb-threats-d0a59b80d460f9354f6bfe86f65475c6

Quote

According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.

Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.

The arrested the guy the next day. 

What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there. 

Specializes in Public Health, TB.

I think there is a difference between the actions of the Virginia restaurant and the web designer. The web designer based her case on her self-avowed Christian beliefs about homosexuality. Her state, has in place, laws forbidding public businesses discriminating against protected classes. 

The restaurant cancelled the reservation of a conservative group based on statements from their website that the employees felt were threatening and they didn't feel safe. They did not cancel the reservation based on religion. 

I am sort of the camp of Tweety. I say let that group come in and let them wonder if someone spit in their food, an urban legend about how servers seek revenge on rude customers. Or perhaps they will worry that they will catch "the gay" . 

Specializes in Public Health, TB.

I am trying to gift this opinion from the New York Times: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/07/opinion/supreme-court-student-loan-forgiveness.html?unlocked_article_code=VwTni_L-09UesCycBzMJM5-V-ef0DZ6btLrw7PWEK17EmUECgFbqnj101If6iVKR6r2ZznX07XE1a1L1R9xQYn8Jp8d8G4LJeuNoFtw7qnYgXJHpzNw-gr5ddro_NsX6Ap8PiZvgg7lapsRWdDSz_5oKH9-0aiOzIGxE1COFRVV0KO9pdt860AfK_iegkoI02znJjDCk74yhCJT_Pciv-jpq5d9hDwJODcRWZK2JyeqFFIMc8sKDxkQ74HOi1sND-RoRjAG6PoYdusBOls_Ox1vdfsPP9dNB5YbguXgvebQjXCySG78ADrN8WE3UqqfqpYYaCNFDTz0OeZHkwnPrBF0uk-_J--PW04tdY8cqfOU&smid=share-url

In case it isn't accessible, the author posits that less than a court, and more of a political entity that is making up their own laws. 

Quote

The first step toward challenging the Supreme Court’s power grab is to recognize the basic fact that, as the law professor Eric Segall has written, the Supreme Court is not actually a court. Yes, the justices work in a courtroom, wear robes and decide cases. But the court, he says, “functions much more like a political veto council than a court of law” and the justices “decide cases more like a traditional council of elders than typical judges.”

To see the truth about the Supreme Court is to see that it is not the ultimate arbiter of meaning, holding forth on how we must organize our political lives. It is to see, instead, that it is a political institution, jockeying for power and influence among a set of political institutions. It is to see that the Supreme Court exists to serve American democracy, and when it does not, then it can and must be checked by us, the people.

 

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 hours ago, Tweety said:

The Court will surely side on the side of "religious freedom".  I don't care, if you don't want my gay money I don't want to force it on you.  There is widespread community support for the LGBT community and many are happy to take our billion dollar impact on the economy.  

I do worry about any further affects like for example, will I be thrown out of a restaurant, will they be able to post "No Jews allowed" because it violates their religion as they killed Jesus?  What will the long term effects be?  But I'm prepared for "religious freedom" because F-them anyway.

In other News Zelensky was named Time Magazine's Person of the Year.  DeSantis was in the top ten short list.   

And Herschel Walker lost.  

https://www.Yahoo.com/entertainment/gov-ron-desantis-time-magazines-224200051.html

Welcome back! I hope you feel rested. 

Yeah... this argument over whether social conservatives can discriminate in their public business models based upon their personal beliefs is as old as the racist history of the country.  Those who want to discriminate against others aren't easily discouraged in those self righteous pursuits. 

38 minutes ago, nursej22 said:

I think there is a difference between the actions of the Virginia restaurant and the web designer. The web designer based her case on her self-avowed Christian beliefs about homosexuality. Her state, has in place, laws forbidding public businesses discriminating against protected classes. 

The restaurant cancelled the reservation of a conservative group based on statements from their website that the employees felt were threatening and they didn't feel safe. They did not cancel the reservation based on religion. 

I am sort of the camp of Tweety. I say let that group come in and let them wonder if someone spit in their food, an urban legend about how servers seek revenge on rude customers. Or perhaps they will worry that they will catch "the gay" . 

It'd be interesting to know what exactly made the restaurant employees feel threatened or unsafe.  I don't believe they have expressed that.

But, I do agree it is different in that it's nothing illegal they are doing.  They are simply being intolerant of others, imo.

The website designers case isn't about not serving homosexuals.   It's about her being forced to express ideas and concepts that go against her religious beliefs.  

"Smith, who says she’s served LGBTQ clients, claims the lawsuit is not about gay marriage or the customer, only the freedom from being coerced into expressing ideas contrary to her beliefs. She believes a ruling in her favor would protect everyone’s free speech."

......

“Colorado is censoring and compelling my speech,” said Smith, who identifies as evangelical non-denominational. “Forcing me to communicate, celebrate and create for messages that go against my deeply held beliefs.”

https://coloradosun.com/2022/11/13/lorie-smith-colorado-supreme-court-case/

The article seems to do a good job showing this case from both sides.

 

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
2 hours ago, MaybeeRN said:

I would take my business elsewhere.  Now do you have a problem with it?  I can guarantee you libs have no problem when this is done to conservatives. 

With what do you back up your guarantee? More unsourced opinions, feelings and beliefs?

Specializes in Med-Surg.
1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

With what do you back up your guarantee? More unsourced opinions, feelings and beliefs?

It's just an expression they don't need to back it up.  I say "I bet you that....blah blah blah" all the time.  Sometimes it mean "I have a feeling that....."  I would let that one go especially since I proved them wrong.  

 

1 hour ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Welcome back! I hope you feel rested. 

Yeah... this argument over whether social conservatives can discriminate in their public business models based upon their personal beliefs is as old as the racist history of the country.  Those who want to discriminate against others aren't easily discouraged in those self righteous pursuits. 

Thanks.  I had a long travel day yesterday, plagued by a canceled flight resulting in a six hour layover, but welcome to travel 2022.  But will feel rested soon.

I know there are people that hold the believe that homosexuality is a sin.  I'm not sure where to draw the line.  I was fired from a job for being gay and I was, and always have been a good hard worker.  That should be illegal.  I try to look at it from another view point.  If I were a web designer, how would I feel if I were required by law to design a website for everyone equally, such as maybe an anti-gay site like Million Moms.  I should have the right to say no.

On the other hand the idea that homosexuality is a sin should not be the basis of laws, such as sodomy laws, anti-marriage laws, or parental choice in reading.

Speaking of religion being , Indonesia is banning pre-marital sex next year I think.  

imagine the straight people are not happy about the law interfering with their private sexual activities anymore than I was with sodomy laws when I came out in the 1970's in North Carolina where apparently it's on the books but not enforceable.  These laws are interesting in that first the Supreme Court upheld them and then reversed it again as late as 2003.    In some states oral sex between and man and a woman was illegal.  

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/asia/indonesia-new-code-passed-sex-cohabitation-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/sodomy-laws-labeled-gay-people-sex-offenders-challenged-court-n1263225

2 hours ago, subee said:

Along with the Trump Organization decision it was a good day to wake up!   I've been hoping for the decision on Zelensky and wish Time would always elect a meritorious person for this designation.  It should become a position of honor rather dishonor (Putin).  

 

There was a case years back where an elderly I think in Colorado refused to rent ti a gay couple because of her beliefs and she won the case if not mistaken.  Religious liberty is enshrined in the Constitution if people don’t like it pass an amendment.

3 hours ago, Tweety said:

I thought I was clear, my bad.

First, I think a good business should suck it up and serve their customers regardless of political, relgioius and sexual orientation.  Just look at it as a business transaction and leave it at that and be professional.

That being said, I also support a private business's right to refuse customers because we are free nation. It's ugly and humiliating when people refuse to serve gays, Muslims (there are instances of this too) and conservative groups but if they are a private business owner, I support their right.  But to say "I don't have a problem with it" means I have no soul.  I sincerely felt bad for the humiliation of Huckabeen when she was thrown out of a restaurant when she was Press Secretary for Trump.  She just wanted to eat dinner.

Maybe being thrown out of a restaurant wasn't a good example since it happens all the time.  But what if I had a same sexed husband and wanted to buy a condo, would the real estate company be able to refuse to sell to me because they are Christian.  It's illegal if it's based on race, but is that line blurred when it comes to someone's religious objection to someone LBGT.  

 

Specializes in Med-Surg.

"Freedom from your religion" is also a thing that apparently people haven't heard of.  

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, Tweety said:

It's just an expression they don't need to back it up.  I say "I bet you that....blah blah blah" all the time.  Sometimes it mean "I have a feeling that....."  I would let that one go especially since I proved them wrong.  

 

Thanks.  I had a long travel day yesterday, plagued by a canceled flight resulting in a six hour layover, but welcome to travel 2022.  But will feel rested soon.

I know there are people that hold the believe that homosexuality is a sin.  I'm not sure where to draw the line.  I was fired from a job for being gay and I was, and always have been a good hard worker.  That should be illegal.  I try to look at it from another view point.  If I were a web designer, how would I feel if I were required by law to design a website for everyone equally, such as maybe an anti-gay site like Million Moms.  I should have the right to say no.

On the other hand the idea that homosexuality is a sin should not be the basis of laws, such as sodomy laws, anti-marriage laws, or parental choice in reading.

Speaking of religion being , Indonesia is banning pre-marital sex next year I think.  

imagine the straight people are not happy about the law interfering with their private sexual activities anymore than I was with sodomy laws when I came out in the 1970's in North Carolina where apparently it's on the books but not enforceable.  These laws are interesting in that first the Supreme Court upheld them and then reversed it again as late as 2003.    In some states oral sex between and man and a woman was illegal.  

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/05/asia/indonesia-new-code-passed-sex-cohabitation-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/sodomy-laws-labeled-gay-people-sex-offenders-challenged-court-n1263225

Travel delays coupled with uncomfortable seating in airports and aircraft requires a catch-up day to feel rested. 

I do think that businesses have a right to say no to individual business requests from potential clients. Isn't the problem really about businesses making it policy to refuse all business from a specified group or classification of Americans? I feel confident that a business owner could make a credible case for turning down a specific job request for specific reasons that have nothing to do with faith or personal beliefs. 

Making a theoretical wager is different from guaranteeing something, IMV. 

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
1 hour ago, MaybeeRN said:

There was a case years back where an elderly I think in Colorado refused to rent ti a gay couple because of her beliefs and she won the case if not mistaken.  Religious liberty is enshrined in the Constitution if people don’t like it pass an amendment.

 

Would you please quote the constitutional language on religious liberty that you are referencing. Let's discuss those words.

6 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Would you please quote the constitutional language on religious liberty that you are referencing. Let's discuss those words.

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

Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
28 minutes ago, MaybeeRN said:

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

Do you think that should be interpreted to mean that any group or individual action or conduct that is claimed as based in group or individual religious belief should be exempt from laws? 

+ Join the Discussion