1/ The SCOTUS decision in favor of the "religious freedom" to gather in large groups despite the pandemic is part of a larger effort to elevate so called religious liberty above all other freedoms, but not in the way most agree with...

2/ Most everyone would agree that people's right to worship as they see fit should be protected, to believe as they wish, free from persecution, etc. That is not what this is, or what other religious liberty cases are about...
3/ These cases are about elevating the rights of persons claiming to be acting on the basis of religious belief, to engage in activity that injures others, without consequence. So here it means the right to worship in large groups even if it endangers public health...
4/ In other cases it means the right to discriminate against customers if you have a 'religious objection' to their sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. And what's especially disturbing is the real endgame, which few talk about...
5/ This is really about gutting civil rights protections. If you ask virtually any right wing conservative jurist, or commentator or politician, they will admit, if you push, that they don't think civil rights law should ever have applied to private businesses...
6/ They think the civil rights act of 1964, one of the shining achievements of the movement, was wrong to include such anti-discrimination restrictions in the private sector. They think the property rights of businesses are more important than human dignity...
7/ For a half century+ they have tried to figure out a way to roll back those protections without sounding like racist assholes in the process. Saying you think lunch counters should have been able to stay segregated after all is a bad look in the eyes of decent people...
8/ Now, under the guise of "religious liberty" they are opening the door for such rollbacks. Once you allow people to discriminate in the provision of commerce in the name of religious freedom you open the door to diminished anti-discrimination protections...
9/ People can begin to argue that their religious beliefs against interracial relationships or simply religiously-inspired belief in racial separation (Tower of Babel story bullshit) compels them to discriminate against blacks, Latinx folk, etc...
10/ And whether or not you even hold those beliefs, all you have to do is say you believe that crap and this court would likely say OK bc "muh religious freedoms" are under attack...
11/ not to mention, once you carve out exceptions to civil rights law for religion, you shift the cultural expectations so that the right NOT to be discriminated against is now deemed less important than the right TO discriminate...
12/ Once this mentality is accepted it becomes easy to envision other carve outs in civil rights jurisprudence: limiting enforcement of the law against businesses bc of a more restrictive reading of commerce clause, or over-application of takings clause in the 5th Amendment...
13/ Ultimately this turns on its head the old concept of "my rights end where yours begin..." Instead, the court's recent religious liberty jurisprudence says "my rights -- if I cloak them in the Bible and my reading of it -- take precedence over everything else"...
14/ In the name of God, I can basically do anything to you I wish: deny you a job, refuse you as a customer in my business, even endanger your health so I can gather to sing Hosannahs to the Lord bc I think my scripture commands such gatherings...
15/ And there is nothing you can do about it. It makes religious rights the ultimate rights, which trump (no pun intended) all others. That is neither the framers' intent (for those who care about such things), nor philosophically defensible. It is the move of zealots...

More from Politics

So let's see a show of hands: how many of you even knew Huber was digging into the Clinton Foundation? While he was assisting Horowitz in his digging into the FISC/Steele Dossier/Fusion GPS/Perkins Coie/DNC/Hillary campaign stuff?


I'm sure Huber is coming to DC *only* to discuss Clinton Foundation things with Meadows and his committee.

He for certain, like, won't be huddling with Horowitz or that new guy, Whitaker while he's in town. That would NEVER HAPPEN. [wink wink wink!] 😉

I just spent a year and a half telling you they will SHOW YOU what they are REALLY DOING when they are READY.

Not before.

No matter how much whining is done about it.

I'm exhausted but it's worth it.

Now you know why they're f**king TERRIFIED of Whitaker, the closer tapped by Trump to come in late for the hysterical fireworks that will ensue soon.

Look who's suddenly fund raising for his legal defen- er, I mean, ha ha - his reelection campaign!

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!

Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵


What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”

Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff

People also found this comparison helpful:

Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?

Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words

Another common #question:

What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”

As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie

Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"

As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an