Great American Divide CA Imposes Travel Ban

Posted by Tina

We’ve experienced a lot of crazy divisive politics at the start of the new century. An example is the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order that was established in 1839 to care for the elderly poor. When Obamacare was passed the sisters fought for an exemption from birth control mandates in the law on religious grounds. An article in Slate points to the confusion that existed even at the Supreme Court level.

We go through the same (expensive, time consuming) exercises over and over again whether it be about healthcare, voter registration, guns, environment, marijuana, the border, sanctuary cities, or you name it. It’s enough to make a person hurl. This is not America…and yes, I want America back. I want an America where people have the good sense to be polite and mind their own business, an America where people figure out their own problems and turn to others only when they can’t find a reasonable solution. Even then respect for others should be part of the deal. It’s not too much to ask and it would make all of our lives a lot less stressful and contentious.

But…reality is what it is. We live in one of the most busybody, control freak states in the nation. So, it came as no shock when I learned tonight that the formerly great state of California has decided to ban state sponsored travel to certain states for all state workers. Sates currently banned include, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota.

Duly elected legislators in those states have passed laws that provide for religious protections that our state leaders find “discriminatory”…never mind that it is being discriminatory as it attempts to impose it’s will. One such law, the so-called bathroom bill, requires males and females to use bathrooms that match their biological gender. Another (in Texas) allows faith based child service providers to make decisions based in their religious values…it does require them to refer to alternate organizations that can/will provide services.

From my perspective the division, contention, and resulting problems flow from leaders who may mean well but intrude into individual lives and business stepping on toes and pushing their weight around. And why are they intruding? Because certain segments of the population think they have the right to compel others to conform to their values, even when it intrudes on basic constitutional rights. They have come to this entitled position in part because we have been tolerant of the intrusion. We have been generous and accommodating to their demands and we have asked nothing in return…not even the courtesy of returned accommodation, tolerance, generosity, and respect. Now that we are they attempt to make us monsters.

This has to end.

By the way, there are a few exemptions to California’s (adolescent) travel ban: “…for law enforcement officers, tax auditors and training events that are required for grants.

Oh yeah, never miss an opportunity for free money!

It should also be noted, before I end this, that California’s Board of Equalization (tax-collection) has an office in Houston, Texas.

This entry was posted in Constitution and Law, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Great American Divide CA Imposes Travel Ban

  1. J. Soden says:

    With wage earners and businesses leaving Taxifornia in droves, one has to wonder how many tourism dollars are going elsewhere . . . . .

    • Tina says:

      Great point…a matter of personal choice that impacts states especially when the numbers reach epic proportions as they have with California…and it hits more than the tourism industry.

      The vindictive reason for this government determined travel ban is to punish the mean rotten people that have service businesses in those states …restaurants, hotels, and shops, even though they have no way of knowing the values and politics of individual owners.

      I live in California and disagree with most of the things Democrats do politically to address problems and force social values. I know there are Democrats living in Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota. It’s just ridiculous and childish.

      • Chris says:

        I realized I didn’t address the main issue of this post, Tina. I agree that states taking actions against states that do things they don’t agree with in this way is wrong and petty.

  2. Chris says:

    Because certain segments of the population think they have the right to compel others to conform to their values, even when it intrudes on basic constitutional rights.

    This is one thing we all agree on. The problem is that we disagree on who is imposing on whom.

    To use your examples, liberals think that adoption agencies that refuse to let gay couples adopt, and bathroom laws that require trans people to use a bathroom that may be unsafe for them, is imposing on their right to use public accommodations and be treated equally under the 14th Amendment.

    Conservatives think that gay people who insist on adopting from religious adoption agencies and trans people who use bathrooms that may make some cis people feel unsafe are imposing on those people.

    This is a tough problem to solve, but we do have historical precedent for it. In the sixties, segregationists believed that they were being imposed on when the feds forced them to allow blacks to use their businesses, while blacks. Eventually, the type of overt racism these people subscribed to became so socially unpopular that now this is no longer an issue; almost no one argues that business owners should be able to discriminate against blacks. The “imposition” on business owners that says they must serve minorities, even if it is against their beliefs, is now a generally accepted part of our society.

    As homophobia and transphobia continue to subside, hopefully one day soon the issues you point to will no longer be issues; we’ll accept that transwomen are women, and no longer feel uncomfortable with them in women’s bathrooms. We’ll accept gay parents are just as suitable as straight parents, and Christians (and other religions) will begin ignoring the proscriptions against homosexuality in the same way they ignore other more arcane rules from the Old Testament (and the writings of Paul; notice most women don’t cover their heads in church anymore despite his instructions).

    In the meantime, someone is always going to feel like others are attempting to compel them to conform.

    • Tina says:

      ” In the sixties, segregationists believed that they were being imposed on when the feds forced them to allow blacks to use their businesses..”

      Your comparison doesn’t quite fly.

      In the South segregation was universal. Even those whites who were against it were intimidated and bullied into compliance (Democrats and the KKK ruled the South). There was no real supportable Constitutional grounding left given the long line of civil rights context and acts chosen by the people: declaration’s famous wording that all men are created equal with inalienable rights, the civil war, the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, Smith v. Alrwright, Brown v. Board of Education, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights acts, and Voting Rights Act of 1965. (Southern Democrats fought them all).

      The LGB…Z community today has alternatives choices. Their demands make no accommodation for those with strongly held religious beliefs…another equally important basic constitutional right. They are acting exactly like the Southern Democrats and the KKK, demanding absolute compliance.

      Chris it’s not like the entire Christian/Jewish, Islamic et al community has banded together to oppress and hate people, string them up, burn down gay bars, refuse them services. In fact the number that has stood on strongly held religious beliefs is minuscule. Many of the court cases are politically driven, arranged…just as Roe v wade was.

      The left doesn’t trust that left to their own devices, Americans are basically amenable and accommodating to others, at least they are until their own toes are stomped! We believe in foundational principles. We on the right think that foundational principles, supply and demand and entrepreneurial consideration are enough. The left doesn’t and relies on force and control over the people.

      Force and control aren’t the American way.

      “Christians (and other religions) will begin ignoring the proscriptions against homosexuality in the same way they ignore other more arcane rules from the Old Testament …”

      How arrogant! Do you suppose the Godless proscriptions for civilization will go so far as suggesting that the abortion of children up to the age of five will also become the norm…or the man boy love movement will become mainstream? How far are you prepared to go?

      It isn’t just the Old Testament, Chris.

      Romans I: 26-32 is not something any devout Christian could or would “ignore”:

      For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, (27) and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (28) And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. (29) They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, (30) slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, (31) senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. (32) Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

      Notice, it addresses all manner of sin. Christians know they are imperfect. This isn’t about homophobia or transphobia (invented “universal” slights); it is about standing for one’s religious principles and being respected under Constitutional protections against government oppression. People with strongly held religious convictions are protected under the Constitution and you blithely dismiss them. Do you need a reminder?

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

      “someone is always going to feel like others are attempting to compel them to conform”

      Peer pressure and social trends are one thing…we agree or we don’t…we fall in or we don’t. A government ordered mandate is quite another.

      Progressives could take a lesson from Jesus who instructed people to shake the dust from their sandals and walk away from those who would not hear. Move on to the next business…avoid people and businesses that don’t accommodate.

      One size fits all and my way or the highway are just not American values.

    • Tina says:

      Christians and conservatives have shown incredible levels of tolerance and inclusiveness when it comes to the LGBT community, considering we started with them in the closet and undeclared in the late sixties.

      I don’t see the same tolerance for those (extremely few) who hold strong religious beliefs. Chris, can you site a few examples when these few were not challenged (or bullied)?

  3. Chris says:

    Your comparison doesn’t quite fly.

    In the South segregation was universal. Even those whites who were against it were intimidated and bullied into compliance (Democrats and the KKK ruled the South). There was no real supportable Constitutional grounding left given the long line of civil rights context and acts chosen by the people: declaration’s famous wording that all men are created equal with inalienable rights, the civil war, the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, Smith v. Alrwright, Brown v. Board of Education, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights acts, and Voting Rights Act of 1965. (Southern Democrats fought them all).

    You bring up very good points here, Tina. That’s why I said “Conservatives think that gay people who insist on adopting from religious adoption agencies and trans people who use bathrooms that may make some cis people feel unsafe are imposing on those people.” You are right; today most gay people do have choices if they feel discriminated against. They can appeal to a non-religious adoption agency if a religious one denies them the option to adopt, or go to a different baker if one denies them a cake.

    The question is…should they have to? Surely today, blacks have options as well; even if discrimination against them in business were legal, most business owners certainly would not discriminate against them. And yet we still keep those proscriptions on the books, because we have established “businesses should not be allowed to discriminate” as a general principle.

    The LGB…Z community today has alternatives choices.

    LGBT is a perfectly fine acronym to use, in case you weren’t sure. 😉

    But it’s interesting that you left out the “T.” Like I said, you have a point when you say gay people can generally find service without looking too far. But when it comes to the bathroom issue, transgender people would not have alternative choices under the laws favored by conservatives.

    These laws would require businesses to refuse access to the appropriate bathroom to transgender people. The status quo in most places today is that businesses can make their own decisions on this issue; as trans people have been using public bathrooms for a very long time, I don’t think such laws are necessary.

    I think these conservative-backed laws are a backlash against the increased visibility of the transgender community. Liberals in turn have struck back by supporting laws requiring businesses to have gender-neutral bathrooms. On this issue, I think businesses should be able to make their own decisions…at least for the time being, while people get more comfortable with trans people. But note that neither conservatives NOR liberals who are proposing laws on the issue are in favor of businesses making their own decisions on this.

    Their demands make no accommodation for those with strongly held religious beliefs…another equally important basic constitutional right. They are acting exactly like the Southern Democrats and the KKK, demanding absolute compliance.

    I think that’s an extreme comparison. “You must serve all people without discriminating” is not the moral equivalent of “You must discriminate against this group,” even if both positions are wrong and impede freedom.

    How arrogant! Do you suppose the Godless proscriptions for civilization will go so far as suggesting that the abortion of children up to the age of five will also become the norm…or the man boy love movement will become mainstream? How far are you prepared to go?

    Certainly not that far! But religions have moved toward being more accepting of certain behavior over time. That does not imply that ALL behavior should be accepted. Reasonable people can draw reasonable limits; I see no reason why accepting gays and trans people would logically lead to accepting child molestation and murder; do you?

    It isn’t just the Old Testament, Chris.

    Romans I: 26-32 is not something any devout Christian could or would “ignore”:

    But I already mentioned Paul, who wrote Romans. And as I said, Christians do ignore his writings about women in church; not only did he say they should cover their heads, he also said they should not speak in church or ever be in a position of authority over a man, nor should they teach men.

    If devout Christians can ignore these parts of Paul’s writings, why can they not also ignore his statements about homosexuality? It seems that Christians do not consider his statements about women to be the “word of God;” or if they do, they understand that it was referring to a specific time and culture. Again: why can’t they also come to the same conclusion regarding Paul’s views on homosexuality?

    I think that not only can Christians do this, but that they absolutely will do this within the next couple of decades. Religions change and evolve based on the views of their members; texts are interpreted differently over time. If Paul’s views on women have been dismissed as a cultural relic or simply one man’s view, and not God’s, his views on gays can be put in the same category.

    People with strongly held religious convictions are protected under the Constitution and you blithely dismiss them.

    Yes, and LGBT people also are protected under the Constitution. When we say that businesses can discriminate against LGBT people due to their religious beliefs, we are setting up a conflict of rights. Public accommodation laws seem to indicate that when this conflict arises, the customer’s right to equal treatment supersedes the right of the business owner to discriminate. But we will see whether this ends up extending to LGBT people as well as other minority groups.

    • Tina says:

      “The question is…should they have to? ”

      There is no perfect world. (I suggest that at this level of protest the motivation is more about political power than actual cases of discrimination).

      Some public places have single bathrooms. Others now have three bathrooms. Some don’t have bathrooms available to the public at all.

      Areas like SF/Bay Area are already stepping all over themselves to accommodate. As the citizens of SF have found out over the years some people simply vote with their feet and move to areas where they feel more at home.

      Most communities find ways to handle such problems without the need of lawsuits and headlines that demean and harass people with fundamental religious beliefs.

      This issue is just the latest in a long string of “sexual/reproductive” fronts. The next is waiting on the horizon. People are being used. The goal is to remove all remnants of religion from society one step at a time and by any means necessary.

      The CA travel ban is another front in the great American divide.

  4. Tina says:

    “…because we have established “businesses should not be allowed to discriminate” as a general principle.”

    The principle regarding discrimination in general was firmly established in 1965. It should apply to everyone and it should include religion.

    The left LBGT community refuses to practice the generally established principle regarding civil rights. Indeed I doubt they give it a thought in most cases, seeing themselves as above the possibility. They step on civil rights laws by singling out and attempting to force those who deny service based on personal religious reasons and by refusing to go elsewhere, and by bringing lawsuits that require an expensive defense.

    Where is the understanding, the empathy, the charity, the inclusiveness, the respect for them?

    “…transgender people would not have alternative choices under the laws favored by conservatives.”

    You don’t know that. Major chain stores, movie theaters, restaurants and such in future will probably have three bathrooms to avoid lawsuits. Smaller stores will stick with one single stall bathroom that everyone uses by locking the door. (As people use the internet more and more it could become a mute point!)

    One size does not fit all. Trying to force people into tight little boxes is not going to works and dies create a great deal of division and animosity.

    Live…and let live!

    • Chris says:

      The principle regarding discrimination in general was firmly established in 1965. It should apply to everyone and it should include religion.

      It does include religion. A business owner cannot turn away a customer for being Christian.

      The left LBGT community refuses to practice the generally established principle regarding civil rights.

      Do you have any examples of LGBT business owners discriminating against Christian customers? If so, I’ll condemn them.

      Indeed I doubt they give it a thought in most cases, seeing themselves as above the possibility. They step on civil rights laws by singling out and attempting to force those who deny service based on personal religious reasons and by refusing to go elsewhere, and by bringing lawsuits that require an expensive defense.

      Where is the understanding, the empathy, the charity, the inclusiveness, the respect for them?

      I would think empathy, charity, inclusiveness and respect would be baking a damn cake regardless of who it’s for. Once someone has decided that they won’t serve someone because they disagree with them religiously, the person who has denied service has already withdrawn their respect. If they’re sued after that, that is a natural consequence of their disrespectful actions. I have more empathy with the person being discriminated against than I do the discriminators.

      And yes, the same would be true if an LGBT business owner discriminated against a Christian.

  5. Tina says:

    “I don’t think such laws are necessary.”

    You don’t live in a state where the vast majority still goes to church on Sunday, and has deep respect for Biblical and familial principles. In fact you live in a state that’s quite the opposite, so of course, you wouldn’t.

    “But note that neither conservatives NOR liberals who are proposing laws on the issue are in favor of businesses making their own decisions on this.”

    The conservative concern is for little children and teen-aged girls who would be subjected to males in the female bathroom.I imagie that’s the reason.

    Generally I’m in favor of individual freedom so I would agree with you that business people should decide for themselves.

  6. Tina says:

    “Reasonable people can draw reasonable limits”

    Which is what conservatives have done for several decades.

    The left always has a new trick.

    Don’t be so sure that the next layer they want to peel back is the one where children are fair game and as disposable as diapers. We’re already well on the way. I’ve watched the money and power behind these movements for decades. That is where it begins and takes shape…the masses are simply the means.

  7. Tina says:

    “I see no reason why accepting gays and trans people would logically lead to accepting child molestation and murder; do you?”

    You used the word accepting. Generally speaking, Americans accept that people are different, have different values, lifestyles and beliefs. Americans accept that people come from different races backgrounds and religions. Americans are a live and let live nation…or we were.

    This isn’t about acceptance. This is about conformity. Forcing language, living standards, and beliefs. In the last ten years it’s begun to reach fascist proportions.

    Sexual child abuse is already accepted as normal in some circles. Abortion, sale of aborted organs, and abandonment of children is much more accepted now also. Standards have been lowered considerably. Do I think they can be lowered more? Yes, I do. What ‘s to stop it? You said yourself it’s just a matter of people getting used to the new standard.

    And Chris, it wouldn’t be murder…just abortion. Why should any woman be tied down by a toddler once she’s determined that the little alien form with the insensitivity to take up residence in her body has now grown enough to be too much trouble?

    See how it’s done? Plant a seed, apply gentle pressure over time, and viola, people become convinced it’s okay. Formerly held principles of decency, science, biology, contractual agreements, obligations aren’t abandoned cold turkey, they are eroded over time.

    • Chris says:

      Tina, you’re falling victim to the slippery slope fallacy because you’re unwilling to draw distinctions between reasonable arguments and unreasonable ones. There is no reason accepting gays should lead to accepting pedophilia, and no reason accepting abortion should lead to infanticide. Don’t be unreasonable.

  8. Tina says:

    “If devout Christians can ignore these parts of Paul’s writings, why can they not also ignore his statements about homosexuality?”

    Who said they do ignore Paul’s teachings about covered heads, etc? These are personal positions of conscience. Very personal very private religious concerns. You are generalizing and demonstrating an understanding of faith that is pretty shallow.

    And we aren’t talking about a lot of people in the birth control case. The “Little” nuns who care for the elderly? Really, you want to nit pick on religion with them? Hobby Lobby. It’s 750 hobby stores and as far as I can tell and their employees agree with the owners convictions or are willing to accept them. Why is it our responsibility or business, or our governments, to force conformity that goes against their religious beliefs?

    • Chris says:

      Who said they do ignore Paul’s teachings about covered heads, etc?

      Don’t be obtuse. You know as well as I do that most Christian women do not cover their heads in church, nor do they follow Paul’s proscriptions against women speaking in church or teaching men. This is not a “generalization,” this is a fact.

      Since we both know that to be true, why not try answering the question instead of pretending its premise is debatable?

Leave a Reply to Tina Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.