overcastOvercast, 68.0°

David Reynolds

Comment history

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

It is terrible this situation has been turned into a political football. It seems some are more intent on trying to gain political advantage for the mid-terms. Both sides of the political spectrum have fault in this case.

President Abraham Lincoln once said, paraphrasing: to get ride of of a bad law enforce it. This bad law is our existing immigration system & the flooding of our southern border. Like it or not, President trump is forcing a solution, by forcing it into the public domain for debate.

The issue driving this crises is illegal immigrants flooding our borders. Regardless of cause theses illegals must be vetted to try to ensure their cause is just & existing citizens are protected. Just as we are reading the current headlines about children, we seem to ignore or at least not remember the numerous US citizen women raped & murdered, and the men murdered by illegals.

The problem can be solved tomorrow by simply passing real immigration reform, permanently sealing our borders & forcing all who wish to come to the USA, to do so legally.

Those supporting illegal entry into the USA, are just exacerbating the problem.

We all want the right thing done for legitimate asylum seekers. They just need to come to the country legally.

Those lawyers and others going south of the border to offer advice on coaching illegals on what to say or do to game the system are not helping solve the problem, they are making the problem worse.

All those in this debate need to turn the temperature down, come together and really solve the problem for the long term...not just put lipstick on this pig!

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Kevin, my guess is we would get another traffic light probably @ 21st & Iowa St. That light will only add to the traffic flow problems along Iowa. Going north to exit at 19th would add to congestion on19th St, an already very busy street. Modifications would have to be made to make that intersection/street work.

It's possible some busses may go thru the neighborhood, but doubtful if there would be many.

The critical question is, what kind of detriment does the Stewart Ave location impose on an already, at times, overloaded Iowa Street?

At times traffic on Iowa St. backs up almost to 21st St waiting on a light to change.

Another light at 21st St will just further slow traffic on probably the busiest street in Lawrence.

That's not going to make many citizens happy.

On Editorial: Best choice for transit hub

Posted 14 June 2018, 10:44 a.m. Suggest removal

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

I commented on several articles regarding Prop !, saying the county commission was trying to manipulate the citizens of Douglas County into voting for Prop1 by virtue of the "all or nothing" way Prop1 was written. The above editorial proves I was correct.

This past spring the county commission has come out with a ruling that, for at least some county boards, a member must reside outside the city limits to be a member of the board. The reasoning goes that, paraphrasing, "only a non-Lawrence resident can properly represent the best interests of the county".

Of course this ignores the fact that county officials from the county administrator, to other officials and clerical staff are represented by Lawrence citizens. Additionally the county commission itself, has long been represented by Lawrence city residents. This is allowed because Lawrence exists within the county, thus making every Lawrence citizens a citizen of Douglas County. Is this another manipulation?

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Daniel thank you the insights of your thinking.

I have tried to offer you an alternative thought to this unfortunate situation.I accepted your position.

It is apparent you are closed minded to others points of view that cover a different perspective.

You have proven something regarding closed minded people: They always have their mouths open.

I also didn't know you knew my nick name "Big Open Tolerant" Dave. : )))

Good luck Daniel.

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Daniel, I said just the opposite of what you just said.

Daniel, all I have tried to do is explain how the rulings vary based on circumstances, & that the cases under discussion are all new & still working their way thru the courts.

The last case I listed I told you it was not settled. Define it as you will, but my point was the judge in California temporarily ruled in favor of the baker where the case in Colorado the judge ruled in favor of the couple. As I said, these specific case circumstances yield different rulings.

I get it, you want an absolute ruling in favor of the LGBTQ community. All I am saying is that may never happen due to the way court rulings are made. I also said it will take years for anything resembling definitive guidance is available.

In the mean time, until this issue gets reasonably settled, I believe society would be better off if: "when equal rights come in conflict, then reasonable people must reach a reasonable accommodation."

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Daniel, the issue of Religion VS Sexual Orientation cases are new & many are still in the courts.

What I provided earlier are from various legal sources willing to comment on the area of discrimination without the burden of soliciting business...ie, I like to be objective if possible. One of the firms I sourced is Legal Zoom.

The following case shows the other side of the situation. I believe it in general supports my previous comments stating the broad circumstances allowed to refuse service & my comment that it's the nuance & particulars of a case that a case gets decided on. They are never settled on a broad ruling such as "gays & lesbian" couples needs always over ride religion, national origin or anything else. it's the specific situation that is ruled on. Thus rulings go back and forth.

You might find the following case interesting.
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/judge...

This is a case where a California judge ruled in favor of the baker's refusal to bake a cake for a "gay" couple on religious grounds. The appeal has yet to be addressed, but it does point out how various circumstances yield different rulings.

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Daniel this will be interesting to see how this gets resolved. My guess is it will take multiple cases over a number of years before it's even close to being resolved. The issue will be, in every case, the "nuance" of the circumstances surrounding each individual case.

But there is something else to keep in mind. In general the law allows that a person/company can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. Example, there could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress. You must have a consistent policy and have practiced it consistently.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a shirt and then let in a shirtless white man, or indian. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

In the Colorado baker case, Mr Phillips describes himself as a "cake artist" who will "not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to his understanding of biblical teaching." It turns out Mr. Phillips has refused to make cakes to celebrate Halloween or create baked goods that have "anti-American or anti-family themes" or carry profane messages. The Colorado Commission said Phillips had to create cakes for same-sex couples, so he removed himself from the cake market until his case was resolved. He chose to stop making wedding cakes.

It appears that Mr. Phillips has met the arbitrary standard & he has not enforced his standard to just one group. But like all situations with SCOTUS, each case is resolved based on the specific particulars of each individual case, as measured against the standards of scrutiny used to evaluate each case.

Neither you nor I are lawyers, so we will see how this turns out over the years.

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Daniel, we all support equal rights. The problem is you are trying to make "one protected class" more protected than another.

According to https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pro...
Protected Class Law and Legal Definition
The first civil rights laws protected only race and color. As the principle of discrimination evolved over the years more laws were passed and more groups were added. Federal protected classes now include race, color, national origin, religion, sex (or gender), age (over 40), and disability. State law (HEPA) further protects ancestry, marital status, sexual orientation, as well as arrest and court record (in most cases).

Given the history of the founding of this country, the constitution was written the way it was to try to stop oppression. You seem to be saying biology overrides everything in the constitution & legal rulings/precedents, & thus anyone is allowed to oppress anyone who disagrees with them. If that is the case one might ask are you recommending we throw our constitution & history out?

The question remains, do we respect everyones rights under the protected class" status or do we try make some or one, right(s) more equal?

It seems this is so easy to solve. Again: "when equal rights come in conflict, then reasonable people must reach a reasonable accommodation."

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Daniel, really?

Well, there you have it. Complete bias and a complete disregard for the conversation that has proceeded your last comment.

My discussion point remains: "when equal rights come in conflict, then reasonable people must reach a reasonable accommodation."

Daniel you only see the situation from one point of view. There are always two sides in any argument. You seem to ignore the fact that Mr. Phillips may have a deep belief in his religion. You may not agree with his beliefs, as he may not yours, so why would you attack him so viciously on a personal level. This is a very good example of "intolerance" of another persons point of view. Reasonable people can reasonably agree to disagree. Your position is unreasonable.

This tells me more about you than it does about Mr. Phillips. You seem to have no further constructive comments to offer.

citizen1 (David Reynolds) says...

Daniel, why was the case brought before the commission?

Full LJWorld.com site