wwest5829

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practicesbecause of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Evitedently having a problem with the website sdaniel....

The Constitution of the U.S. is one document. All Amendments are part and partial of that one document, they are not separate entities. Thus, the Supreme Court of the U.S. rules on the constitutionality found in the total document. I do not know your background but I find your understanding of the U.S. Constitution curious.

That horse has already left the barn...sorry, U.S. Southern talk. Those opposed on religious grounds badly mishandled the issue IMHO. Those opposed from the get go should have united in arguing that the institution of marriage was one of the traditional seven sacraments of the Christian Church. Thus government, recognizing the Separation of Church and State, would not be allowed to interfere in purely a religious matter. The government would, in its public interest govern, "civil unions" with all equal rights under law being given.

By demanding government not abide by the Separation of Church and State, the U.S. conservative churches have left the door open for all other religions to demand equal rights. Watch for it as Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist prayers are demanded equally before government meetings, public events. This and the 2016 Presidential Campaigns promise a world of entertainment in the near future!

Are you seriously trying to claim marriage as Christian? Are you totally unaware that religions older than Catholicism were performing marriages long before Christ was born? As for the second paragraph, all other churches already have equal rights... what Constitution have you been reading?

As this issue being discussed deals with the U.S. I was using a U.S. arguement which could have been utilized. I am very well aware of world history and cultures much older than the U.S. but those traditions do not hold sway if you are focusing on a U.S. Issue. As to all other religions having equality, well, let me cite this example. I grew up in an area where alcohol sales is still forbidden, by law, to be sold on Sunday. Why? Because it is the traditional holy day of the majority held Christian belief. OK, if I am Jewish, or Seventh a Day Adventist for that matter, does the law forbidden the same on the Sabbath? If I am Moslem all alcohol is forbidden, somehow I don't see equality as a reality. Traditional allowances have been used, as the U.S. finds itself with more diversity changes will be calling for changes.

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Just like you and others should be banned from this site for pushing your agenda,same arguement in my opinion,in other words if it does not suit the minority,which you are then ban it.The other question is does the majority have a say?

Ironic, considering your TVF handle.

c

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

We are not all yanks,I don't think your fore fathers foresaw the problems of the modern world,much like when the magna carta was written.

Do I have any sympathy for bigoted clerks refusing to do their jobs? No. None.

Would you bake a cake for a Queer Wedding which would violate your moral code?

We have to bow down to the lowest common denominator these days - enough is enough.

From what I remember it cost a baker $145,000 for doing just that, refusing to bakle a cake for a Gay Wedding somewhere in the South.

In reality it was nowhere in the South. It was in Oregon and the fine was $135,000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians

By Todd Starnes Published July 03, 2015

The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/03/christian-bakers-fined-135000-for-refusing-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbians.html

It is a matter of secular Constitutional law being superior to sacred cannon law. The rule of sovereign civil law versus the rule of personal anarchy based in personal religion, i.e., eccentricism.

The right just doesn't get it nor will the right ever get it.

Born losers over there.

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Just like you and others should be banned from this site for pushing your agenda,same arguement in my opinion,in other words if it does not suit the minority,which you are then ban it.The other question is does the majority have a say?

Ironic, considering your TVF handle.

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Seems Castro, along with many others, allied themselves with the wrong partner.

Castro came to power in 1959 following a revolution. Relations with the United States were broken in 1961 as Castro led Cuba rapidly into a socialist model allied with the Soviet Union.

For your information.

When Fidel and Che came to power, they were nationalists.

There was a communist party in Cuba, but Fidel and Che were not members.

The American government took the side of Batista, and pushed Cuba in the arms of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union did not say no.....

As we have with many others. What was it Truman said of Samosa in Nicaragua? He may be a Son of a Bitch, but he's our Son of a Bitch....

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

the problem is the marry word.....the country should be involved in religious matters.

have private partnership contracts, with some recommended from government. No matter what sex the people have.

Everything marry should happen in the temples....

That horse has already left the barn...sorry, U.S. Southern talk. Those opposed on religious grounds badly mishandled the issue IMHO. Those opposed from the get go should have united in arguing that the institution of marriage was one of the traditional seven sacraments of the Christian Church. Thus government, recognizing the Separation of Church and State, would not be allowed to interfere in purely a religious matter. The government would, in its public interest govern, "civil unions" with all equal rights under law being given.

By demanding government not abide by the Separation of Church and State, the U.S. conservative churches have left the door open for all other religions to demand equal rights. Watch for it as Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist prayers are demanded equally before government meetings, public events. This and the 2016 Presidential Campaigns promise a world of entertainment in the near future!

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

I would like to pick my nose in a restuarant while serving food,but health and safety prohibits me,where is my human rights.It might offend people but it is something I think I have right to do.All nose pickers unite.

Cute but your nose picking is not a protected right under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, well, big difference.

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

In Kentucky, County Court Clerks are elected Kentucky Constitutional officers, so she cannot be "fired". She must be Removed From Office. Of course, she is still subject to being thrown into jail for Contempt of Court...

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Actually not that easy. As I understand it she would have to be removed by the state legislature, which tends to be very conservative - some county clerks who oppose same-sex marriages have asked the governor (a Democrat who has instructed clerks to issue marriage licenses) to call a special session of the legislature. However, the state legislature could well pass an ordinance allowing county clerks to do just what Kim Davis is doing.

My such legislative action would be ruled unconstitutional. The ruling has already been made on this issue. No inferior government entity may rule against the U.S. Constitution and have that action upheld by the courts.

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

Fortunately, you are right, the Supreme Court does not make law. It only rules on the Constitutionality of existing law. The decision already made was that all are protected by this equal right. This Court Clerk has violated the Constitution as ruled on already by the Supreme Court. No, it is not a state issue. No state can take away my U.S. Constitutional Rights. She should be found in Contempt of the SCOTUS ruling and removed from office. We have a right to our private religious beliefs, we do not have a right to press our private beliefs on others.

After removal from office, if she wishes to argue her case, that she has a right not to carry out her constitutional duties, she is welcome to do so. I would encourage that arguement. We need a resounding decision that...no, you do not get to decide who to operate on, who to fill a prescription for, to render aid to, etc. on the basis of private religious beliefs.

" But it could be achieved by returning democracy to the people, he added." These people have no idea what democracy really is.

He just doesn't like this idea because if the opposing party must also approve for a redshirt leader to run this country then it won't happen. It's time these people in these parties are blocked and banned from politics altogether. If they are not working together then they are not working in the best interest for the country. Even in the US the Senate approves of laws and schemes made by the opposition if it is fair to benefit the people. As like last time. Losing an opposition didn't stop anything because the reds had the majority in office.

I fear using the USA as an example of political party compromise and working for the benefit of all, might not be timely. My thought

here is on government shutdowns (or threats to do the same), extreme alienation by some politicians. I do hope reason is eventually

restored to see the US poltical system working more inline with historic give and take.

Hatred of everything is part of being an expat.

That's why they left their home country (hatred of their home country).

('hatred' may be a bit too strong, 'dislike' may be a better word to use)

How about cutting some slack? Perhaps some could live better hare than in the home country on the limited retirement income.

As a retired educator, I am sorry to report that, based on my past four years of observation, Thailand is not prepared to offer itself as a hub of English language. Should the Mistry of Education be interested, I would be willing to advise for a short term contract and their clearing the necessary red tape.

There are many, low cost things that Thailand could do immediately to enhance Thai students' use of English. But I also think, on the basis of observation, that there would be resistance to the changes necessary. OK, Thais certainly have the right to determine their national direction but that direction will not get the desired results regarding English language knowledge.

Retired educator?? Your field of expertise hasn't been writing I reckon...and what has education to do with English proficiency...or do you mean whoever isn't proficient in English is uneducated???

I apologize for seemingly upsetting you. Fortunately, with billions of people inhabiting the globe, you do not need to waste your time with me. Yes, we don't need no stinkin education...I reckon.

As a retired educator, I am sorry to report that, based on my past four years of observation, Thailand is not prepared to offer itself as a hub of English language. Should the Mistry of Education be interested, I would be willing to advise for a short term contract and their clearing the necessary red tape.

There are many, low cost things that Thailand could do immediately to enhance Thai students' use of English. But I also think, on the basis of observation, that there would be resistance to the changes necessary. OK, Thais certainly have the right to determine their national direction but that direction will not get the desired results regarding English language knowledge.

Sorry, Cambodia, but the statement I just read from the Chinese news article in Xinhua, just said the U.S. is watching the procedings and it encouraged the carrying out the legal proceedings transparently, consistent to international law. I am not surprised at Cambodia's reaction. the same can be see reflected in other countries in the area. viewed as an "internal affairs". The world has changed somewhat and internal affairs will be watched internationally. If there are questions of fairness or trying to control opposition, it will be duly noted and possible international actions taken.

I say this is fair in watching U.S. actions also, so I am not being one way when watching Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand or China"s unilateral claim to some 80% of the South China Sea. A good deal of the globe takes a different approach to saving face.

I wouldn't vote for any of them. And the Democrats are not any better. The United States needs a President who will actually do something for the people- not a politician who is there for his/her own agenda which is to get elected again and while in power take care of the wealthy The American tax law needs a massive reform in which the wealthy pay for their fair share and not be able to find quirks to get away with paying nothing. Education is a disaster- way too expensive- my daughter just finished her Master's degree and owes $242,000 for her education- all financed with government loans. Even though she makes good money- it will take about 15-20 years to repay her loan. Health care needs reform- the Obamacare law is absurd- using the IRS to penalize people who can't afford health insurance while insurance companies get richer. The solution is easy- expand Medicare to cover everyone- a single payer- paid by a percentage of your income. If you are not working or retired- you get free medical care and it should apply to those of us overseas who have paid into the system for many, many years.The Department of Defense is bloated and needs to be reformed. The Veterans Administration allows Veterans to die and then covers it up. There is not one candidate who has the guts to address these issues let alone actually fix them. America is no longer a real democracy. It is a country mired in materialistic capitalism-money buys and controls everything. I am glad I am in Thailand where I don't have to hear the so called news analysts provide information based upon nonsense and a lack of what people really face in their lives. When I was growing up America was a great country- now it is a shadow of its former self. Americans are fed up with their government and their politicians-one day they are actually going to do something about it.

Can't find anything to disagree with. This is why I am following Bernie Sanders. See where the chinks in his amour is...appears to be consistent in focusing on the problems. Rather attracted to his style versus Trump, for example.

This is inside baseball.

It's an issue for Jews.

I don't know why non-Jews would care.

Yes there is a great divide between the experience and attitudes of American Jews and Israeli Jews.

Sometimes they don't really have anything to talk about.

Here is an interesting article about this.

Again, not sure why non-Jews would be interested.

Should Jews be flattered that so many people are interested in their internal conflicts?

I reckon Kurds have divides too ... don't hear about that.

http://forward.com/opinion/spirituality/312124/why-identity-anxiety-runs-so-deep-among-american-jews/

If the nervousness of American Jews saddens me, the bravado of the Israeli scares me

About the reform Judaism movement in Israel. Huge among American Jews. Tiny among Israeli Jews:

http://forward.com/news/312116/reform-in-israel-but-are-they-real-jews/

Hmm, perhaps it is a cultural thing but what happens between the U.S. And Israel can have affects on many who are non Jews. I say, perhaps it is a cultural thing, as a retired history prof here in Thailand my interests continue to be wide ranging. What happens to refugees concerns me as a human being, China's unilateral claim to sovereignty over 80% of the South China Sea concerns me....in fact, there are too many concerns to list. Thus it is from my cultural perspective, what happens to other human being is my concern....ha! Or you can just denounce another American sticking their nose in other peoples business. In the light of full disclosure, I also have deep interests in all things involving the U.S. And I recognize both positive and negative involvement.

Hmm, OK, but what does the accused mismanage the of water in 2012 have to do with the current water shortage? I am truly a little confused on that point.

The storage dams were full in Jan 2012. Yingluk via her minister, ordered the dam levels lowered to the low operating curve rather than the higher curve between Jan and Jul 2012. From Oct 2012 to now, dam levels have been dropping steadily, never getting back to the lower curve, because of low rainfall and high demand.

If she hadn't ordered dropping to the lower curve and used the higher, there would have been an EXTRA 7.5 billion CM in the 2 largest storage dams alone.

These dams are multi purpose, the 2 major purposes being storage and flood prevention. She ordered flood prevention to be the major priority (because her government had been blamed for worsening the 2011 flood) at a time when floods were increasingly unlikely and when drought storage should have been the prime concern.

Yes, I saw the point concerning 2012. My confusion is what that has to do with 2015? Is there not a three year gap? To blame a 3 year gap in the rainfall to the administration decision of 2012 seems to me, to be holding any administration responsible for natural rainfall or the lack thereof. We have both read the weather forecasts over time. I find there can be a substantial difference in forecasts and reality. To hold the gov't solely responsible, it seems to me, to leave something wanting in reasoning.

and how about not flying over warzones dummies.

Depend on what you class as a war zone...

Here there was no declaration of war just a bunch of separatists being armed to the teeth by a by a bully boy supper power.

It did cause me to pause to reflect on "war zones" around the globe today. How many of the over 100 zones should we not be permitted to fly?

Just wondering if bringing the question forward to the UN would do any good. Yes, I know there is no power there in this case...other than the court of public opinion. I think we might discern the outcome of the Thai bid for a seat on the Security Council at this time. Of course this is the reason Thailand and China have a basic similar outlook on matters like this...it's an internal matter (international reporting or South China Sea questions).

Earlier he blamed the water shortage on the previous rice scheme using too much water. Now the previous govt. did not manage the dams.

Oh and 14 students were agitated by a 'politician outside the country'. And the bombs in the south are due to the two political parties.

There's only one thing leaky here.

"Now the previous govt. did not manage the dams." And he is exactly RIGHT. Yingluk ordered the operating curves of the major storage dams changed to a lower level because she did not want to be blamed for mismanagement of another flood. Between Jan and July 2012, 7.5 billion Cubic Metres of additional water (ie over and above normal level reduction) were dumped from Bhumipol and Sirikit Dams, the 2 largest, despite obvious evidence an el Nino event was imminent.

From October 2012 the levels in these dams dropped below the new lower storage levels and have never recovered back to that operating level.

http://www.thaiwater.net/DATA/REPORT/php/rid_dam_1.php?lang=en

Clicking on each dam will produce an inter-active graph (which I can't link to) giving daily levels in each of the dams.

His statement regarding catchment areas sounds off to me, but the allegation that Yingluk AGAIN mismanaged dams is indisputable.

Hmm, OK, but what does the accused mismanage the of water in 2012 have to do with the current water shortage? I am truly a little confused on that point.

Fortunately I have found a coffee shop (two locations in malls) who offer free wifi so, while the wife is shopping I sit, drink coffee and cruise the Internet or read a book on my iPad. I do understand when the business is being taken advantage of and there is demand for seats by their paying customers. Hmm, I also can see some benefit to having seats filled as an advertisement of the business popularity...it all depends doesn't it?

I only halfway joke with my wife that in Thailand I continuously look ahead, behind, left, right and up and down as I never know where the action will be coming from.

If you drive in Thailand without harm to life or limb, you cannot have altzeimer's!!

Thanks for this, so the best place to start is at Thai immigration once I have my extended visa issued here in New York City and arrive in Thailand? I understand that I can get a 90 day or more tourist visa from the local Thai Embassy here, right, then do the rest in Thailand. I am a pensioner with sufficient income to meet the annual requirement for the retirement visa once I get the paperwork done there in Thailand.

I found it easy enough to apply through my regional Thai Consulate in Chicago. Everything was outlined on what needed to be submitted. Submitted same, Visa for reason of retirement came back without any issues.