Free Republic

Are you pushing the homosexual agenda?

I'm certainly not intending to. I was commenting on how things are not how they ought to be. I've actually been trying to avoid those discussions until things settle down a bit.

Where in the constitution does the government have any power whatsoever to FORCE homosexuality on an unwilling Christian society?

Are you implying that states don't have the right to regulate commerce within their borders? That would seem like an argument for the primacy of the Commerce Clause -- a position I'm pretty sure that you do not hold.

Notwithstanding national security and protection from predators, the govt does not grant rights — it constrains liberty.

Which "government" are you talking about? Sexual orientation is not part of the anti-discrimination statues in my state. If you feel you're being forced to support homosexuality, then you're free to move here. It's one of the reasons states have rights.

Are you equating anal sex with being Black or Jewish?

No, I'm saying that homosexuals are a protected class under some laws in some jurisdictions. I didn't make those laws. I'm just pointing out reality.

Sorry that reality upsets you.

There are other instances of this kind homosexual tyranny.

This photographer would also be "persecuted" for refusing to photograph a black wedding, or refusing to photograph a Jewish wedding.

This may be tyranny, but it's not specific to homosexuals. There are all kinds of realms subject to non-discrimination laws and more and more "sexual orientation" is being added to the list. These are local and state laws, so if you don't like them you can 1) move or 2) work to change the laws. The problem you'll have with option 2 is that if the laws exists in your area, they probably have broad public support.

Its wrong to force any private businessman to do business with anyone he he doesn’t want to do business with short of a life and death situation.

Then be a private businessman. If you want to sell your wares in private transactions you can do whatever you want. If you want the benefits of being "open to the public" then, depending on what you are doing or selling, your business license may have restrictions. If you don't like them, you can:

1. Move.

2. Choose a business with restrictions you can tolerate.

3. Change the laws.

I am talking about PUNISHING children who do not wish to share a bathroom/shower with the opposite sex.

That is just plain sickening

I agree, but it has nothing to do with whether or not churches can be forced to perform same-sex weddings, which is what I was talking about.

But its not legal for a photographer to refuse to photograph a gay wedding party.

I guess it would depend on whether you live in a state where 1. photographers must have a professional license to do business as photographers and 2. one of the conditions of having that license is non-discrimination.

I am not a lawyer, so I'm not sure of the details of how that works.

They are already going to punish kids who don’t want to share bathrooms (showers?) with the opposite sex in MA.

We were talking about churches being forced to perform same-sex marriage. This has nothing to do with that. There is no Constitutional Amendment that deals with who gets to use which bathroom. There is a Constitutional Amendment saying that the government cannot make rules about how your religion works. If your church doesn't recognize marriage between same-sex or transgendered people, that's not going to change.

Never thought I'd say it, but this is my last input to FR; enjoy your own little world folks.

Don't give up like that. There's room for disagreement on many issues -- it's just not FR style to admit that.

When you force the Government to force Priests/Rabbi/s etc to preform an act against their will, that is not liberty.

Nobody is suggesting this. Just because a type of marriage is legal doesn't mean all clergy must perform those ceremonies. It's legal for Hindus to marry Mormons, and it's also perfectly legal for a Catholic Priest to refuse to perform the marriage. If a same-sex couple can be legally marriage according to the state, they still can't be married in my church (Catholic) and probably not yours either.

Is there a prize for most ironic science project?

Excuse me?

Perry could have completely opted out of Medicaid??

Tell me all about it.

There's not much to tell. Participation in Medicaid by a state is entirely voluntary. That includes Texas.

The circumstances regarding the Medicaid program of today are different from what they were through the years. It was always a disaster in the making as the years passed. It could not help but lead to a bad result, or brokenness, as Perry says.

Perry has been governor for around one quarter of the time Texas has had Medicaid. When, exactly, did times change? Perry never said anything about Medicaid before about 2010. He still hasn't vowed to kill the program completely.

Anyone who brings up Perry’s debate problem (he did better as the debates went on, but what the hay do YOU care, right?...as he got past his back surgery and pain meds difficulties)

Sorry to break it to you, but "he was high on Oxy" isn't considered a valid excuse for a sitting Governor in other states.

Careful about getting Medicare and Medicaid confused.

Thank you for the correction. My brain said "Medicaid" and my fingers said "Medicare." It is, as you point out, and important distinction.

The point was, why did FL, AZ and OH buckle to Obamacare when, as Perry said, down that road leads to bankruptcy

This raises a question: if Medicare expansion grows a "broken" system that takes us down the road to bankruptcy, what was Medicare doing before?

Rick Perry has had over a decade as Governor of Texas; at any time, he could have completely opted out of Medicare. If he's right about it, why hasn't he gotten out completely?

And since you “know it all”, do please further enlighten us on the advantages of caving to that part of the Obamacare mandate (ruled unconstitutional) for the states to greatly expand Medicaid to put millions of uninsured into Medicaid under Obamacare.

Sure.

Let's say you're the Governor of Florida, and you notice that your state spends $2.8 billion a year covering care for uninsured people. You also know that you can cut that by 25%-50% by taking a federal grant. If you really hate the idea of taking federal money you could consider other options. (And let's be clear, we're talking about taking more federal money, on top of the billions that they've been happily taking for years.)

You could sit back and do nothing. The Feds will come in and set you up an "insurance exchange" (after all, why would you want to run your own state when you can delegate to the Feds?). The idea of the exchanges is to use market forces to lower the cost of insurance. Of course, if you punt the Medicaid expansion, all of those people will get subsidized policies from your state exchange. This huge base of artificial demand will stifle competition and cause insurance rates in your state to be higher than normal.

So, the bottom line of rejecting the Medicaid expansion is that the people who were buying insurance before are now paying more.

I think Rick Scott understands all of this from his years of business experience. I'm not so sure about career politician Rick "I can't remember the third thing" Perry.

Do Kasich, Brewer, Scott et al know less than Perry about this

Rick Scott was the Chairman and CEO of one of the largest operators of private healthcare facilities in the world. I don't know about Kasich or Brewer, but the idea that Rick Scott knows less about providing health care than Rick Perry is pretty ludicrous.

But, if free care is available for any exam or procedure, the number of parasites seeking anything free will increase 10 fold. There will be a major difference.

Two things:

1. Nobody is talking about "any exam or procedure" being "free." I don't know where you got that.

2. Preventative care is highly cost effective. We've known that for thousands of years, but suddenly everyone forgot... oh, about three years ago. Giving someone care early saves you an enormous amount over giving someone acute care later. Here's a common and obvious example: it's much, much cheaper to treat someone with Type 2 Diabetes than it is to treat someone who has gone blind or lost a foot because of untreated Type 2 Diabetes. The only way you get around that is if you say we're not going to treat anyone who can't pay.

Fine. You still have no data to support your speculation.

It might be a moot point because when you get sick, you lose your job

You need a better job.

Most obama-voters WILL NOT PAY FOR THEIR OWN INSURANCE; we the taxpayer, will pay for theirs and ours.

What do you think we're doing now? When an uninsured person shows up at the emergency room for their "free" care, who do you think actually pays that cost?