California Ballot Propositions Posted by: Dale Franks
on Friday, October 24, 2008
Once again, it's time for that regular celebration of the Progressive Era that every election in California brings: The march of the ballot measures.
This year, there are 12 of the troublesome little measures, so let's take a look at them.
PROPOSITION 1A: SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT Provides for a bond issue of $9.95 billion to establish high-speed train service linking Southern California counties, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area. Provides that at least 90% of these bond funds shall be spent for specific construction projects, with private and public matching funds required, including, but not limited to, federal funds, funds from revenue bonds, and local funds.
MY VOTE: NO So, let's see...the state's budget has collapsed, and we're cutting back so badly that I can't even get a part-time job as an adjunct professor of business at a junior college. But we want to borrow 10 billion dollars, because a bullet train from LA to Frisco would be cool.
I don't think so.
PROPOSITION 2: STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS Requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.
MY VOTE: YES The factory farmers hate this proposition, but I'm going along with it, since we have an obligation not to treat animals with gratuitous cruelty.
PROPOSITION 3: CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND ACT Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals. Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements. Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals.
MY VOTE: NO See Prop 1A above. We got no money. The children will just have to die. Maybe we'd have the money if we weren't spending $10 billion or so each year to educate and provide health care for illegal immigrants, but we are, so we don't.
Sorry, kids.
PROPOSITION 4: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY Changes California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian. Permits notification to certain adult relatives if doctor reports parent to law enforcement or Child Protective Services. Provides notification exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver. Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests. Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors. Authorizes damages against physicians for violation. Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.
MY VOTE: YES In California, minors are not allowed to get their ears pierced or get a tattoo without parental consent. But minor girls can get abortions. So, no ear piercings, but politically-favored favored surgical procedures are OK. that makes no sense whatsoever.
PROPOSITION 5: NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES, SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION Allocates $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses. Limits court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole. Substantially shortens parole for certain drug offenses; increases parole for serious and violent felonies. Divides Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation authority between two Secretaries, one with six year fixed term and one serving at pleasure of Governor. Provides five year fixed terms for deputy secretaries. Creates 19 member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy.
MY VOTE: YES The increased costs of this bill are more than offset by savings in incarceration costs. The rebuttal argument for this proposition starts with: "Proposition 5 shortens parole for methamphetamine dealers and other drug felons from 3 years—to just 6 months." Well, that's all I need to read. Good. Let's reserve prisons for predators who rob, rape, and kill other people.
PROPOSITION 6: POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING, CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS Requires minimum of $965,000,000 each year to be allocated from state General Fund for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, adult probation, jails and juvenile probation facilities. Some of this funding will increase in following years according to California Consumer Price Index. Makes approximately 30 revisions to California criminal law, many of which cover gang-related offenses. Revisions create multiple new crimes and additional penalties, some with the potential for new life sentences. Increases penalties for violating a gang-related injunction and for felons carrying guns under certain conditions.
MY VOTE: NO Essentially, this costs us an extra billion dollars plus per year through increasing jail time for gang-related crimes. No new cops. No new gang-prevention programs. Just more jail time. We've tried that, and it isn't working. So, apparently, some people have decided to try it some more to see if something different will happen. It won't.
PROPOSITION 7: RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Imposes penalties, subject to waiver, for noncompliance.
MY VOTE: NO I always wonder if I'm right when I find myself on the same side as the Sierra Club, but, frankly, this is a stupid proposition. You can't mandate that renewable power generation technologies will magically appear. All of the big utilities, the League of Conservation Voters, the California Solar Energy Industries Association, and the California Taxpayers’ Association are all arrayed against this proposition. If such a collection of extraordinarily strange bedfellows are banding together to oppose this, then it's probably a good bet that it's an extraordinarily bad idea.
PROPOSITION 8: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
MY VOTE: YES This is actually a hard one for me. But about 8 years ago, the citizens of California passed a similar ballot initiative to ban gay marriage and it passed by 60%. This year, a divided California Supreme Court declared that change to the Constitution invalid, and approved same-sex marriage. Now, I don't really give a fig about same sex marriage one way or the other. But I do care that judges can find "rights" that escaped the legislature and citizenry of the state for the last 150 years.
PROPOSITION 9: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, VICTIMS’ RIGHTS, PAROLE Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole. Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole. Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings. Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled. Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights. Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.
MY VOTE: NO This is pretty much an unnecessary duplication of existing California law. For the most part, it mandates that the state does things that it already does, and has done since the 1982 Victim's Bill of Rights was passed.
PROPOSITION 10: ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology. Provides $1.25 billion for research, development and production of renewable energy technology, primarily solar energy with additional funding for other forms of renewable energy; incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology. Provides grants to cities for renewable energy projects and to colleges for training in renewable and energy efficiency technologies. Total funding provided is $5 billion from general obligation bonds.
MY VOTE: NO Another $5 billion in borrowing. Aren't we right in the middle of some sort of brou-ha-ha about excessive credit? I'm sure I saw it on the news or something. Sorry, we're tapped out, and the state has a worse credit rating than Bolivia. I guess we'll just have to drive those gas-guzzling SUVs until we pay off some debt, or choke to death on the fumes.
PROPOSITION 11: REDISTRICTING Changes authority for establishing Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries from elected representatives to 14 member commission. Requires government auditors to select 60 registered voters from applicant pool. Permits legislative leaders to reduce pool, then the auditors pick eight commission members by lottery, and those commissioners pick six additional members for 14 total. Requires commission of five Democrats, five Republicans and four of neither party. Commission shall hire lawyers and consultants as needed. For approval, district boundaries need votes from three Democratic commissioners, three Republican commissioners and three commissioners from neither party.
MY VOTE: YES Right now, legislators draw the district lines for legislative districts. With predictable results, i.e., everybody gets as many safe seats as can be devised. This changes the process to have a bipartisan commission of registered voters do the job instead. I figure, why not give it a try? They can't do any worse than that nest of vipers in Sacramento does.
PROPOSITION 12: VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008 This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes. Appropriates money from the state General Fund to pay off the bonds, if loan payments from participating veterans are insufficient for that purpose.
MY VOTE: NO Another billion dollars in bonds. For veterans this time. To buy homes. Again, I'm almost positive I've heard something about problems with home mortgage programs in the news. Is this really the year to push a program like this?
So, there you have it. Your mileage may vary, of course, but that's the way I see it.
I’m sorry you can’t get a job, but that rail system will bring a lot of jobs to California and it’s the right thing to do. I look at it like this: we’ve either got to widen 99 and make it into an interstate or we have to build a high speed rail. Either one costs lots of money. But the rail is way smarter.
PROPOSITION 2: STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS...MY VOTE: YES The factory farmers hate this proposition, but I’m going along with it, since we have an obligation not to treat animals with gratuitous cruelty.
Divider PROPOSITION 3: CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOND ACT...MY VOTE: NO See Prop 1A above. We got no money. The children will just have to die. Maybe we’d have the money if we weren’t spending $10 billion or so each year to educate and provide health care for illegal immigrants, but we are, so we don’t. Sorry, kids.
I would presume you’re going along with Prop 2 so that some farm animals get to live and travel with basic comfort and the requirements of living as, well, what they are: animals. Nothing nasty about that, but...
Leaving aside that my actual position is market anarchist, my thinking is—accepting for the moment the existence of government—that minors are a special case in most libertarian theory: if it’s gratuitous cruelty to deprive animals of the basic requirements of living according to their nature as animals, isn’t it gratuitous cruelty to deprive children, none of whom asked to be born and none of whom qualify as adults responsible for their own existence, of comprehensive medical care commensurate with their nature as humans?
...if it’s gratuitous cruelty to deprive animals of the basic requirements of living according to their nature as animals, isn’t it gratuitous cruelty to deprive children, none of whom asked to be born and none of whom qualify as adults responsible for their own existence, of comprehensive medical care commensurate with their nature as humans?
1) The parents, having voluntarily taken on the obligation to have children, owe the children an obligation to provide adequate medical and other care. just as the owners of animals undertake the obligation to provide the animal with adequate veterinary care.
2) Neither adults nor children have a right to comprehensive—or any other kind—of medical care. Quite apart from everything else, medical care is provided mainly by others. No one, child or adult, has a right to the labor or property of others. Since that is so, medical care of any kind is not a right. Medical care has nothing whatsoever to do with rights that inhere in the nature of being human.
3) But since you’ve brought government into this, OK, let’s look at the reality. We’ve already made the decision to spend the available health care money we have on other things. That’s unfortunate, but that’s the choice we’ve made. If I was in charge of where to spend money, I’d have different priorities than those projected through our current spending. But, I don’t. So, the migrant farm workers get to use the emergency room for primary care, and the cancer kids get to die. But, to be fair, a lot of other people get to die, too, as the cost of care for illegal immigrants has forced the closure of trauma centers and emergency rooms at hospitals all across the state. So, we’re all sharing the burden.
I don’t understand how anyone can have a problem with gay marriage. It’s none of my concern what consenting adults do with their own lives.
If people such as yourself weren’t so eager to shove your interpretation of morality down the throats of people who disagree (Let’s say, the Christian Photographer in Arizona who wanted to decline accepting a lesbian couple as a client in photographing their "wedding.") I might tend to agree with you.
If people such as yourself weren’t so eager to shove your interpretation of morality down the throats of people who disagree (Let’s say, the Christian Photographer in Arizona who wanted to decline accepting a lesbian couple as a client in photographing their "wedding.") I might tend to agree with you.
That is part of the goals and tactics of the gay activists pushing this thing. So, that is who you’re standing with.
You read like you’re a little upset with Jason because he doesn’t see any reason to concern himself with what consenting adults do with their own lives.
You think Jason is just another snowflake in an avalanche. So what should Jason do? Should he now concern himself with what consenting adults do with their own lives?
Thanks for doing this, Dale. I’m about to send out my absentee ballot today, and I haven’t had much time to delve deeply into each issue — I’ve been working insane hours (and liking it). So I’m mostly going by instincts.
On the bond measures (1A, 3, 6, 7, 10), I’m with you. Every election there are more of these ridiculous bond measures, despite the fiscal problems CA has had for... I don’t even know how long. I expect these boondoggles to continue for some time. To Jeff, who wants to "bring jobs" to California: Please, stop with the public-works-to-create-jobs nonsense. You know that spending perhaps $10,000 on behalf of every family in CA is going to require job-killing taxes down the road, right? And what about rail makes it "smarter" than widening arteries for vehicle traffic and/or expanding air travel?
I’m leaning against Prop 12, although not fully decided. The bond is advertised as self-liquidating — no cost to anyone who’s not taking the loan. It’s been working that way for decades now, although with the current housing-based financial problems, this might be the year that changes. I don’t know because I just haven’t been able to look into the issue. As much as I’d like to provide more benefits to veterans (thereby encouraging more people to sign up), on reflection the CA state government is probably not the best way to go about that. Especially not with the current state fiscal crisis and housing-based financial problems. -=-=-=-=-=- On Prop 2, I’m torn. I’m definitely personally opposed to animal cruelty. I think I would intervene personally to stop gratuitous cruelty to an animal, though I don’t have a solid intellectual basis for doing so.
I think I’m typical in that the more I identify with something (Can it reason? Does it show affection and loyalty? How clever is it at solving problems? Can it feel fear or pain?), the more dignity I feel it should be accorded. Certainly I would shun and shame anyone who was gratuitously cruel to animals. But at the same time, I don’t know how I get from there to forcefully intervening against another human being. That would seem to imply that animals have natural rights.
I’m thinking of leaving that one blank. I think a better solution would be for humane farmers to advertise how humane they are, and shame their competitors. -=-=-=-=-=-=- I traded some messages with somebody regarding Prop 4. She was against the measure.
My first message included the following:
I’ll hear you out on this one: Minors may not purchase alcohol, tobacco or firearms, nor may they vote or gamble. Minors also require parental consent and a certain minimum age to drive, get a job, decide to leave school, or commit to joining the military.
Anyone having any kind of sexual contact with a minor — even another minor, even if both say they consent — is at very least guilty of misdemeanor statutory rape under CA law. CA minors need parental consent to get a tattoo.
But under CA law, minors *do* get sole consent for several kinds of medical care: emergency care (only if the parents are unavailable to give consent, though even then the parents do have to be informed), infectious/communicable disease treatment, drug and alcohol treatment, outpatient mental health treatment, and... a bunch of stuff dealing with sex, about which the provider simply may not inform the parents or guardians.
Now, I understand the argument that minors will seek out dangerous "back-alley" abortions if they can’t obtain such services legally. And I understand why minors with abusive parents might not want to tell those parents. And I definitely understand exceptions for medical emergencies.
But the argument for Prop 4, in full, seems to be that unemancipated minors—who apparently can’t be trusted to do anything else on their own—should be able to get an abortion, with the attendant health risks, in the absence of a medical emergency, without the consent or even knowledge of a parent, guardian, or (if the minor is willing to allege that her parent or guardian is a child abuser) a substitute adult relative.
By what principle does one arrive at that conclusion?
I forgot to mention that minors need parental consent for a piercing or to get a salon tan. I won’t post her response or my reply (at least not yet)... rather, I wonder what answers anyone else has on this. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Prop 5 - With you all the way. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Prop 6 - You mis-titled this one. But yeah. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Prop 8 - Hadn’t thought about it that way. What bugs me is that the courts didn’t just extend the right to contract, they extended state privileges. All the same, I don’t particularly mind voting to allow gays to continue to get married. Again, I’m torn.
Still awaiting the "get the state out of the marriage business" amendment... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Prop 9 - I was also considering leaving that one blank. I’m not clear on exactly what changes it makes to existing law, and what is redundant. You and Tom McClintock being on opposite sides of this is reinforcing that decision... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Prop 11 - With you all the way, again.
If people such as yourself weren’t so eager to shove your interpretation of morality down the throats of people who disagree (Let’s say, the Christian Photographer in Arizona who wanted to decline accepting a lesbian couple as a client in photographing their "wedding.") I might tend to agree with you.
Given the scare quotes around the word wedding, I remain skeptical that you would ever actually agree. Sounds like you’ve been given an excuse that justifies it in your mind.
What if someone decides that your marriage is immoral, because you dared use a contraceptive, or a sex toy? Do they get to vote against it?
I thought Florida was bad with its amendments. We’ve had the confined animals amendment, but applied to a lesser spread of animals. It got known as the pregnant pig amendment. And, yes, it passed, even though everyone came out against it, arguing that all you needed was a statute by the legislature, not an amendment to the state constitution. Another speed train problem is that if it’s passed, it will require another vote to get rid of it once people realize what the finances are versus the actual need. We had a similar experience. Businessman who wanted to build it paid for a big ad campaign to get it passed, then the legislature gave it minimal funding for a few years, and then finally the governor (Jeb Bush) led a campaign to get rid of. Taught by experience, the last go around the voters approved an amendment that requires all amendments (including those on the ballot at the same election) to be approved by a supermajority—60%. We now have a version of your prop. 8 on the ballot, but apparently it goes further, because it bans all civil unions and anything else that "is treated as a marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof". Practical effect is nil,because there’s already a statute on the books. Polls say it will get over 50% but not over 60% so it won’t become law. I was going to vote against it until I got an ad against it. Featured an older heterosexual couple complaining Amendment 1 (as it’s listed here) would keep them from being able to help each other during medical problems because it would outlaw their registered domestic partnership. Ad openly said they didn’t want to marry because the woman wanted to keep her deceased (first) husband’s Social Security payments. Says I, "Oh, you want to have your cake and eat it too? Sorry." So I’m voting for it.
I don’t agree, but your philosophy is consistent and lucid. I actually agree that California shouldn’t be borrowing money these days. It should be raising revenue, and lots more of it.
Sometime in the next five years, Californians will find out that massive cuts in services make businesses flee just as hard as massive increases in taxes.
What if someone decides that your marriage is immoral, because you dared use a contraceptive, or a sex toy? Do they get to vote against it?
What if they do? I’ve heard from more than one raving statist things to the effect of "Someone in a clown suit blowing incense at you in a church doesn’t make you married!" simply because my wife and I chose only to take vows in a church and to forgo statist sponsored sanction. They are certainly entitled to their opinion. If they was to have "The State" sanctify their marriage in some way, or regard my arrangement as lesser, it’s their choice.
It’s also my choice to have the personal integrity and courage of my convictions to tell them to sod off, get out of my life, and not do business with them - all without invoking the Great White Mommy.
Anticipating someone’s veiled insinuation that I might be lying, why, yes Pogue. I do. You stand corrected. Though I did think it’d be MK doing it.
You read like you’re a little upset with Jason because he doesn’t see any reason to concern himself with what consenting adults do with their own lives.
You think Jason is just another snowflake in an avalanche. So what should Jason do? Should he now concern himself with what consenting adults do with their own lives?
Keep it in your own lives and behind your bedroom door, and I don’t give a hoot.
Force someone to give tacit approval of your personal life choices by - oh, let’s say photographing a ceremony they neither believe in nor approve of- and ... well, you’re then making it public business. Not private business.
Now - why are you so concerned with what unconsenting adults choose not to do with THEIR own lives?
First, the best way to hurt an economy that’s already struggling and sinking fast, is to push to spend more money on nonsensical props that will weight us even further. Schools can’t get the proper funding and teacher pay out of their own pockets to give our children an education and we are to pay for trains, sick kids, bunk law enforcement props that won’t put more boots on the street! Ugh-ugh! As for gay marriage, I could give a flying fig about those who have chosen to be together in any condition. I’m a reverend in a non-denominational group and I’ve seen when men and women are married for all the wrong reasons, cheating on each other(even the good christians)! I think that if two people have that kind of commitment to each other, it will be a breath of fresh air. Let’s get state out of this and let people choose for themselves what they want.
"Sometime in the next five years, Californians will find out that massive cuts in services make businesses flee just as hard as massive increases in taxes."
This is true. If you tax people heavily, then waste the money on paying unionized state workers, loose workman’s comp, tight environmental regs, and not providing any services, you are getting doubly screwed.
Businesses that can move can choose which tax regime provides the best balance of service and cost.
The fact that they ARE moving NOW, therefore proves that California is not currently providing a competitive value for tax dollar, so how would increased taxes help? (If its a bad deal now, how is putting more money into a bad system going to help?)
I’m voting against 8. While I agree with Franks’ sentiment above, this ballot initiative is not a referendum on judges per se or their actions/decisions; its a referendum on a modification to the constitution of California to restrict the definition of marriage. So since I am supportive of the concept of same sex marriage, I’ll vote against prop 8, even if I’m displeased with the manner that same sex marriage became allowed in California; passage (or not) of this proposition would be evidence of what Californians want.
I was against prop 5 but I only understood it as some glorified, complicated bond issue. Reading this synoposis is making me re-evaluate my opposition.
1. High Speed Rail Bonds NO. In an economic crisis involving the disappearance of credit, loading on the debt even for a good cause could result in emergency cuts later on to police, fire depts, etc., i.e. things that are urgently needed. And this project would not be a big fiscal stimulus any time soon. I say this as a fan of high-speed rail.
2. Farm animal confinement standards NO. While I oppose animal cruelty, this should be worked out in the legislature. If a proposition like this one gets some part of the solution wrong, it’s very hard to change it later. In the meantime, people should vote with their pocketbooks and buy free-range chicken, etc.
3. Kids’ Hospital Bonds NO. See #1. Also, the initiative is badly worded and misleading. Projects other than children’s hospitals could be funded.
4. Abortion waiting period NO. This will panic pregnant minors into either inaction or unsafe, illegal procedures. It won’t help to solve the problem that we all want to fix (teen pregnancies).
5. Nonviolent drug offense, etc. NO. Letting meth dealers out early creates more crime.
6. Police funding etc. NO. Locking down yet another slice of the general fund just reduces the flexibility that the government needs when a disaster (financial, geological, etc.) hits. The legislature is already too constrained by past propositions like this.
7. Renewable energy generation NO. A totally misguided prop that hurts just about everybody.
8. Gay marriage NO. Let them call it marriage. Who cares?
9. Criminal justice / victim’s rights NO. Wasteful duplication of existing law and creation of expensive confusion in the bureaucracy.
10. Alternative fuel etc. NO. This one is an attempt by T. Boone Pickens rip off California voters to the tune of $5 billion.
11. Redistricting NO. An attempt to reduce the competitiveness of electoral districts. Also the cost is not specified. Finally, don’t we have some really pressing issues to deal with right now? Entering into a massive redistricting process battle (including legal battles) in 2009 would be a horrendously bad move.
12. Veterans’ bond act YES. Unlike the other bond propositions, the state does not pay back the bonds in this prop; the veterans themselves pay back the money. This is essentially a loan guarantee program for veterans getting low-cost mortgages. This is also one program that can actually add a bit of demand back into the real estate market in areas that are currently very desperate for buyers, which could be helpful for the economy. And because we’re talking about relatively low interest loans, the likelihood is better than average that the borrowers won’t default. Seems like a win for everyone. And btw this program has been around since the 1930s. It’s not some new and untried thing.
Anticipating someone’s veiled insinuation that I might be lying, why, yes Pogue. I do. You stand corrected. Though I did think it’d be MK doing it.
I stand corrected!? I simply asked what you were talking about. I didn’t insinuate you lied. So, relax. BTW, If you anticipated "someone’s veiled insinuation", then why didn’t you link it in the first place. Anyway, about the photographers. It’s wrong in all kinds of ways that they were fined. They should have the right to refuse business to anyone, for any reason. Period. It’s none of the governments business why they refused service to anyone. I’ve refused service to people merely on the basis that they were asshats... Am I to be fined for discriminating against asshats?
Now - why are you so concerned with what unconsenting adults choose not to do with THEIR own lives?
There’s your problem, Gonzman. Commenter "Jason" and I have given you no reason to be upset. We’re not the persons fining businesses or demanding that people should be forced to do anything against their will.
So again, relax.
I don’t see why we can’t allow homosexual couples to enjoy the same rights and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy AND at the same time not force people to do anything against their will or be fined.
