It's really a paradox about how nice of a man you are with such an absurd relationship towards people of the LGTBQ+ community. So, I guess my question would be: Is there a section on lawmakers trying to pass legislation for an issue that has never existed?
I bear no ill will to the LGBTQ+ community. But I think we need to accommodate them in their own private school places and not the private places in schools of those who do not align with their perceived gender. I also respect religious freedom and would not force those who for religious or moral reasons do not want to mislabel biological sexes. I want a reasonable compromise.
Are you really calling for separate but equal spaces based upon immutable characteristics? I thought that tired old trope was relegated to the dustbin of racist history.
That's the kind of crap I'm talking about. "...religious or moral reasons to MISLABEL BIOLOGICAL SEXES..." As the kids say, what the actual F, John? Calling me Alice if that is what I prefer or Mrs. Kurland has absolutely ZERO effect on anybody else. You can have an issue with showers ( even though it doesn't happen) but you can't respect religious freedom while not respecting personal freedom. That is really crazy talk.
Nobody, especially the government, should force people to say things beyond compelling court testimony so long as it doesn’t violate the fifth amendment.
Teachers and the like most definitely should respect their students or be fired. There isn't a law that needs to be made. I would also hope the citizens would do the same with a politician. No laws need to be made to force people to say things. BUT, they should most certainly be consequences for people's actions. Just as it is legal to fire some dipshit who goes on a KKK rant with a tiki torch with his friends in Virginia. If someone wants to disrespect the minimal wishes of parent/student they can go teach at a religious school.
PS. State Legislatures: An Owner’s Manual is available on Amazon for $14.95 digital, $19.95 paperback, and $1,995 lobbyist editions.
It's really a paradox about how nice of a man you are with such an absurd relationship towards people of the LGTBQ+ community. So, I guess my question would be: Is there a section on lawmakers trying to pass legislation for an issue that has never existed?
I bear no ill will to the LGBTQ+ community. But I think we need to accommodate them in their own private school places and not the private places in schools of those who do not align with their perceived gender. I also respect religious freedom and would not force those who for religious or moral reasons do not want to mislabel biological sexes. I want a reasonable compromise.
Are you really calling for separate but equal spaces based upon immutable characteristics? I thought that tired old trope was relegated to the dustbin of racist history.
Just immutable sex.
That's the kind of crap I'm talking about. "...religious or moral reasons to MISLABEL BIOLOGICAL SEXES..." As the kids say, what the actual F, John? Calling me Alice if that is what I prefer or Mrs. Kurland has absolutely ZERO effect on anybody else. You can have an issue with showers ( even though it doesn't happen) but you can't respect religious freedom while not respecting personal freedom. That is really crazy talk.
Nobody, especially the government, should force people to say things beyond compelling court testimony so long as it doesn’t violate the fifth amendment.
Teachers and the like most definitely should respect their students or be fired. There isn't a law that needs to be made. I would also hope the citizens would do the same with a politician. No laws need to be made to force people to say things. BUT, they should most certainly be consequences for people's actions. Just as it is legal to fire some dipshit who goes on a KKK rant with a tiki torch with his friends in Virginia. If someone wants to disrespect the minimal wishes of parent/student they can go teach at a religious school.
My bad! I threw a link in tomorrow's edition, but for those of you who read the comments, https://www.amazon.com/State-Legislatures-John-Kavanagh-Ph-D/dp/B0FH5LLJ6T/ref=sr_1_1
Did Mr. Kavanagh discuss evading term limits?
Yes. In the advanced legislating chapter.
I’ll have to read it just to see what you have say. 19 years. Hmmm
Actually, you will find it in the Reforms chapter and I give a fair representation of the pro and con arguments.
Obviously you're not just con, but very con term limits. Shouldn't you pass the torch after spending practically a generation there?
Just convince the voters, and I will tread softly into twilight.
Well, not softly.
Let Jerry Nadler and Thom Tillis be your guides.
All that aside, I do appreciate your sponsoring and voting for legislation that protects animals. Thanks (for real) for that.
Regardless of whether one agrees with him, Sen Kavanagh does care for Arizona.