The Pew poll found strong support for policies such as legalizing accessory dwelling units, commonly known as granny flats, on single-family zoned areas; legalizing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes; reforms to create affordable housing development near major transit; and simplifying the housing permitting process.
Efforts to expedite permitting processes gained the broadest support, with 86%, while at the lower end, 49% approved of the ideas of allowing smaller lots and homes to be built closer together.
…
In Minneapolis; Portland, Oregon; New Rochelle, New York; and Tysons Corner, Virginia, new zoning rules that allow more housing have helped slow rent growth, according to a study this year by Pew Charitable Trusts. Towns and cities in the same metro areas that did not reform zoning laws generally saw faster rent growth. While rents nationwide grew 31% nationwide from 2017 to 2023, rents in those four cities all grew under 5%, according to the study.
Despite the favorable polling on housing reforms, local political opposition to new housing development in single-family neighborhoods often can remain strong. People tend to be supportive of more housing in general, just as long as it’s not right next to them.
If you care about affordable housing, make sure to attend your own city council’s meetings to voice support for affordable housing because there is 2-12 NIMBYs already advocating against it.
Judge Timothy Gilligan gave her the choice of a 90-day jail sentence or a 30-day sentence on top of 60 days working in a fast food job.
After watching the video of her assault, I think she got it too easy.
If Judge Gilligan believes that the trauma of being assaulted at work by a customer lasts only 90 days, perhaps she should try working in a fast food job, too.
I think the idea here is to force them to develop some sort of empathy for what people who work in fast food have to deal with on a day to day basis and learn from it (which should reduce recidivism) as well as some punishment, hence the 30 day jail sentence and 60 days working in the job (or just 90 days in jail).
I’m personally in favour of this. A jail sentence is purely punishment, whereas this feels like a combination of punishment and rehabilitation which is rare but tends to provide better outcomes (this tends to be contentious so I won’t provide links, but please do look it up if you get the chance).
Yes, I totally agree, but a few months isn’t enough.
I’m of the belief that the consequences of a crime should never be shorter than the effect it had on the victim.
Someone who’s been assaulted at their place of work may develop ongoing trauma beyond a few months. It’s unfair to the victim if they have to suffer longer than the instigator.
I don’t see it as revenge justice, but more like siding with victims.
You can’t “rehabilitate” an abuser by having them work 60 or 90 days as a fast food worker. It could be part of a broader, long-term strategy to turn a horrible person into a normal one, but that doesn’t seem to be what’s happened here.
Despite the favorable polling on housing reforms, local political opposition to new housing development in single-family neighborhoods often can remain strong. People tend to be supportive of more housing in general, just as long as it’s not right next to them.
No. The court is ordering the state to allow the necessary medical procedure, NOT mandating to the pregnant woman that she must have an abortion. You either need to read the article more closely, or stop changing the words into different meanings, whichever is relevant.
No no no this is just a cover to be used when the 5G vaccines activate and start causing mass preborn child deaths. These good god fearing women are part of the silent majority and would never actually want an abortion, this is the deep state’s doing!
Oh and something something Jewish space lasers too
The problem really isn't the choice to get divorced, it's stuff like child support and alimony crossed with a court system very biased towards giving those to women when they probably shouldn't be
Divorce has or had become a "no fault" leave and make money system. I see literally zero reason to get married the way things are now. All loss and no gain.
I think you might have a fair point. I have a different opinion though.
If men are treated unfairly, although I don't take sides on this exact issue, that's a separate thing that should be fixed. Doesn't mean to abolish no fault divorce. In theory. I don't know enough to decisively argue how practical that theory is.
Right-wing commentators like Steven Crowder and Matt Walsh have ramped up complaints in recent months that it is too easy for people — specifically women — to get divorces. All states currently have some version of a no-fault divorce law, but Republicans in Texas and Nebraska list the dissolution or restriction of no-fault divorce in their state party political platforms.
In Louisiana earlier this year, state GOP members debated officially backing the dissolution of no-fault divorce, but no decision was made.
So we have the Democratic Party protecting and even expanding women’s rights in the states they control while the GOP has already dismantled reproductive rights and are now angling to repeal no-fault divorce.
Yet millions of people will say “Both sides” as they either not vote, vote Republican, or vote 3rd party while agreeing that no-fault divorce should be allowed…
Without even reading that article, I’m going to guess that no fault divorce is something that benefits women. I’m basing this solely on the fact that conservatives don’t like women much- as most of their policy seems to be designed to hurt them in some way.
It's also classic "XYZ behavior that most people agree is not a preferable outcome is against our preferences, but instead of creating a safe and protective society that prevents people from ending up in bad situations in the first place we'll instead legislate the preference directly."
See: abortion, war on drugs, the entire carceral system, etc.
“Fulton County prosecutors are recommending a sentence of six years probation. Powell will also be required to testify at future trials, write an apology letter to the citizens of Georgia, pay nearly $9,000 in restitution and fines and turn over documents.”
That’s it?! Must be nice to try and undermine a presidential election, to only potentially face probation + $9000.
I wonder if the lenient sentence relies on the fact that a) she is genuinely mentally unwell and b) without the people she is about to testify against she can’t organise anything.
In order to prove RICO, you need to prove in court that crimes were committed and that they were part of an organized effort.
Having lower level actors plead guilty establishes that there were actual crimes that were committed. You can’t argue that something is not a crime after there’s a conviction.
Now add in the promise to point fingers in future trials, and you can connect the bosses to these proven crimes to establish the organized efforts.
False equivalence, he's not being forced to do anything.
Lady is a shit stain let's be clear but she is well within her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds. in fact her being honest about her bigotry is a good thing as it allows others to avoid her.
her rights to refuse service to anyone on any grounds
Usually true, except when it comes to discrimination against people of protected class for being under that protected class, which is why this ruling is so concerning.
The reality is that this sort of discrimination happens all the time under the guise of other rationale and is hard to stamp out (see: real estate redlining, gerrymandering, employment and rental discrimination, etc.), but theoretically a disenfranchised person with documentation can still seek recourse under the law.
This ruling (as well as the general apprehension around queer people living publicly) has laid the groundwork for christofascism to further underclass those (and other marginalized) communities and makes the violent rhetoric coming from "family values" white supremacist extremists more palatable to the public.
It is incredibly dangerous and further damages whatever remains of SCOTUS' credibility.
The first amendment is the thing you're missing with all of this. People can discriminate against gay people. But only if it takes away their first amendment. The courts ruled that art should not be forced. So they don't have to serve gay people. But if someone is selling a car, that has nothing to do with art.
It is not a protected class at the federal level. It is in many states.
However, part of the argument in favor of making same sex marriage a right, as ordered in Obergefell, so that no state can refuse to marry same sex couples, is that the only difference between an opposite sex couple and a same sex couple is the sex of one of the people. Hence, the discrimination is on the basis of sex, which is a protected class federally.
Why that same argument wouldn't apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.
Why that same argument wouldn’t apply to the more recent web designer case is beyond me.
Ahh, about that, well… welcome to the new Robert’s Court, where the facts are made up and the precedent doesn’t matter.
From courtroom to Congress, it seems these days conservatives only look at getting things their way, with consequences & the nation at large be damned. At times there’s startlingly little ideological consistency being proffered to justify their actions, and sometimes they even punish other conservatives to force getting their way (see recent rejection of a multitude of bills in Texas because the governor didn’t get his favored legislation through, for instance). I don’t see how this can be kept up long term… it’s like venture capitalism has infected the government and we’re working on burning out all the assets still.
Homophobes hate gay people because of their sex. Not them having sex, but that they are the same sex and Ina relationships ship.
Sex is a protected class in the US, so logically sexuality would be covered by any common sense reading of the law.
Also the SCOTUS decision is pure bullshit as any creative work I causing commercial business is creative work and the free speech justification is bullshit.
Sex is a protected class. There's no discrimination against gay or trans people that is not inherently discrimination based on sex. So no, it is absolutely a protected class.
Conservatives just allow their hatred of queer people to easily, easily, easily overcome their desire to appear to respect the law.
and being a lying pos doesnt give you standing. but here we are commenting on a case where someone lied to have standing and now rights are being eroded away.
They literally just said they think that's OK. You don't need to ask. This person thinks it's perfectly fine for a business to refuse service for any reason. They think it's fine to refuse service for nationality, race, gender, religion, disability, social caste, physical attractiveness, or whatever.
Which in the US us explicitly illegal as clearly outlined in civil rights legislation, but the current court would probably throw that out too as long as the person discriminating is a white Christian.
I 100% disagree with the ruling, but this is apparently what the court had to say. They effectively sectioned out "expressive services" as able to discriminate, versus non-expressive services, like restaurants , which are still covered by the first amendment.
The decision suggests that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to offer what the court called expressive services if doing so would run contrary to their beliefs. But that’s different from other businesses not engaged in speech and therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.
That distinction is horsecrap. A hotel manager can be forced to offer their wedding package for a gay wedding and a chef can be forced to cook for a gay wedding because they run venues that have been declared "nonexpressive" by 6 people who don't know the first thing about those professions. But a website designer cannot be forced to sell websites while running a website shop.
They don't believe in that distinction. They're just taking a step towards outright illegalizing queerness. They'll tear down that separation as soon as doing so can result in more discrimination.
Apparently you can be too queer for this lady to make your website, bit the cake decorator, DJ, caterer, wedding planner, dress designer and everyone else involved aren't real artists.
The conservative justices declaring which jobs do and don't show human creativity and expression was not on my Christofascist dystopia bingo card, but probably should've been.
You sweet summer child, how can you possibly think Obergefell isn't going to get challenged and killed by these same anti-queer justices?
Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote the dissent to it. Gay marriage would still be federally unprotected if they had their way, and they have since netted 2 more allies to their cause to make it happen.
Is cooking not an expressive service... what about a really good mechanic with some flair... it Def covers lawyers and would most likely apply to ER nurses and doctors... this is fucked when you follow it to their intended conclusion...
Here's the thing. Her business isn't real. There is no "wedding website" business model and the person she alleged asked her to make a website for his gay wedding is straight and has been married to a woman for 15 years. This entire sham business exists for the sole purpose to get the court to rule against Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.
I am surprised that this is not being talked about more. It's a fake case, the situation never happened, some cash changed hands and our sham of a court made this ruling to set a precedent.
100% this. I read the article about the fake request for service a couple of days before I switched to kbin. it was really incomprehensible to me that the supreme Court would even hear the case given the false allegations. it was just to set the precedent.
Except for the fact that nobody was actually asking her to do a website for gay couple. The client she named in the suit isn't gay and is already marries and is a web designer.
It was a bullshit case put in front of the supreme court just so they can attack gay people again. The supreme court wants to disenfranchise gays, trans, women and other minorities.
initial reports weren’t all that far off (22 dead vs 18, 3 locations vs 2) but yes most of this is because there’s not that much to report other than sheer number of fatalities and the fatalism people have toward mass shootings in this country. there are only so many novel things you can say when we have a minimum of one or two double-digit death toll mass shootings a year.
Woke up to this news, here in Maine, and they’ve closed down most of our school districts while the manhunt is under way. I’m locked and loaded at my house.
I might have this wrong, but my understanding is that his plea deal only covers state prosecution, but not federal. It is possible the feds could prosecute him, but I haven’t seen nor heard if there is a side-deal to keep that from happening. Surely his lawyers would have tried to secure that, but did they succeed?
Has he been charged at federal level yet? Would imagine that federal prosecutors prefer to negotiate deals separately, but who knows what strategic arrangements go on behind the scenes.
Even if this won’t touch the federal case, it would be worth his while, purely because state prisons are far gnarlier than federal. He’s still likely to get some credit for having eventually cooperated at state level.
This fucking ghoul gets off with an apology letter and probation, meanwhile a mom in Alabama was forced to give birth in a prison shower and sentenced to 15 years for having an addiction that she tried to seek help with and was denied resources for (convicted of endangering the fetus). The legal system is a fucking joke
Supposedly this is part of how racketeering cases go. Those defendants who flip early get the best deals, basically little more than a slap on the wrist. The next ones get good deals but not quite as lenient, and so on. Because they’re not even the real target. The real win here is the “testify in future trials” part.
What the prosecution actually wants is to snowball a critical mass of the conspirators to all plead guilty and point their fingers at the holdouts, especially the kingpin. That’s how you collapse the whole racket.
If you don’t make them turn on one another then the criminal conspiracy club can hold together and protect each other with plausible and consistent lies. But when some of them start squawking “yep we did it all and here’s how”, the other crooks’ alibis start looking a whole lot less believable.
Oh I get the mechanics of it (attorney myself) but it still exposes a two-tier justice system where those with power and influence get overall better deals for much worse crimes than the poor and those deemed “useless” for future prosecutions. The system doesn’t care about justice but rather prosecutorial efficiency and conviction rates.
Ah apologies then, your awareness is well beyond what I realized when posting.
And yeah that situation is definitely unfair in the larger picture. I have no law experience and no idea how to make it better. Happy to read from experts though.
cnn.com
Active