3RU7AL

Perhaps someone can show how throwing more money at something like this will fix the system?

I'm confused: how would giving rich kids and poor kids the exact same amount of 'funds' give the poor kids any advantage?

Ok, (IFF) every child in the country actually gets the exact same voucher dollar value, (THEN) I'm on board 100%. 

in the country wouldn't be possible or practical due to cost of living etc, but it should be as level a playing field as possible.  I don't think a school in a very affluent area where property prices are sky high deserve more than kids in the next town over, somehow that needs to be more fair.  Now if people want to donate then that's their choice.  But I generally believe the amount should be fairly standard, they are give x amount, you make the most with it.

I guess what I'm trying to explain and articulate is the charter school concept and technical schools but in a more comprehensive way.  If a child doesn't want to peruse science but excels at a trade then there shouldn't be barriers to that.  In some places that opinion exists, sort of, they won't provide transportation and may include additional costs which is why I would argue that student has money earmarked and they should be able to choose how it's spent.  A hybrid type system.  Not I want to go to school x because my friends are there or their food is better, nothing so chaotic but logical, rational arguments should be entertained and accommodated more than the current system allows.

The problem with that to my way of thinking is that not everyone pays in the cost of education in any given year in taxes. I would call it a form of social security. 

No not reality. Putting words in my mouth again. I am definitely here as far as I can tell. Just denying your ridiculously unfounded claims. You also use reality and Ultimate Reality interchangeably, which implies you don't really know what you are talking about. As I said, wall of logic. 

In my last post, I meant to say that if rocks had those properties - they would evolve (and they would). They should don’t have those properties. There are some very interesting examples of non life forms that have those properties: can you think of a few? :)

Read as "State should tax then refund the portion for education to people who don't want to use public education." 

Nope, no refund mentioned.

if the private schools want to take that amount or require the parents pay the difference, that's a choice

holding back better students to help special needs is wrong on many levels and imo is anti freedom and anti American, stifling potential for the sake of equality is counter productive.

there should be some kind of voucher system for gifted students at least and if that means they wish to attend a private school then they should have that option and whatever tax money is earmarked for that student that should follow them as well, it's going to be spent on them so let them decide how it should be spent.

it's funny how people say blacks are being held down which in reality is they are not being let out, which demographic makes up a majority in these shit hole schools, this could be a chance for some of them, with real promise, to escape and potentially give back to their very communities, how can that be a bad thing?

Again, refunding taxes for services not used...should I get a refund every year my house doesn't catch on fire because shit, I don't use the fire department! Or maybe if I never report a crime, should I get my portion of the police funding back? This is not how taxes work, nor am I being coerced by paying them. 

If their attendance rate is going down, why do you think that is?

Because the parents who prefer religious education and can afford the extra money take the voucher.

NOT necessarily because the private school "provides a better education".

Who determines what is better education?

Funding is still equal per child, regardless.

Equally lean for poor areas and equally fat for rich areas.  Not what I normally call "equal".

They should literally get the same amount, or more if you would like.  This is ridiculous.

what exactly is your option as the parent of this child? Take the handout and what, exactly?

Some neighborhoods will still only have one option.

This has been the plan from day one.

The poor deserve nothing.

FREE-MARKET ALL THE WAY BABY!!

Do not associate me with this please.

If their attendance rate is going down, why do you think that is?

Funding is still equal per child, regardless.

Would the total pool for public education then be reduced by the number of kids who take the vouchers? If the answer is yes, it does sound like a way to defund public school while providing the more affluent with better options than the more vulnerable. 

The question is has the public school systems in these areas gotten better, worse or stagnant?

I am not advocating for specific system.  The funds are already available to being apportioned to children in the current system, but only if they are used to prop up the public school system.  I'm saying that those state funds, which are substantial, should be apportioned in a more fitting manner.

individualizing that burden immediately puts people at the lower income levels at a severe disadvantage.

Why would you take the money in the first place then?

To help people in need, unlike your state.  Your state's goal is to take advantage of desperation, and meddle in people's lives.

It seems ridiculous to take people's money and then just give it back to the same people.

Why not simply close all public schools and just cut everyone's property taxes?

I'm not saying that.  I want my community to have public education.

We can go back to the days when we had PRIVATE firefighters and PRIVATE police officers too!!

Hey, if you can't afford your monthly firefighter and police bill, then they won't take your call!!

This system works out great for the rich but probably not so great for everyone else.

Its a form of social security, like it should have been in the first place.  You are contending that I am mandating the abolition of state coercion.  I am only demanding decency from you, by giving people the dues that are already apportioned if they don't find that state subsidized education best suits their interest.  

No I'm not talking about UBI, but allotting the funding already apportioned for education in a manner which doesn't lend to coercion from whatever interests currently preoccupy the state government, whether they lend to neglect, standardized improvement, or intrusion.  Actually, give people back the money that the state uses to artificially prop up public education, for education. 

If a mother doesn't want her son to attend their failing state subsidized inner city school, she should not be forced to rely on it.

Nonsense, criminal law is not coercive in nature.  You commit the crime, and are brought to justice.  

Social security would be personal apportionment.  At the very least, the state should apportion what has already been set aside for people interested in other options.

If you refuse to get vaccines, you're refusing the remedy to measles.

the strict teachings of many things are all falling by the wayside, including formality, manners, respect etc, eventually humanity will be on homogeneous bland thing with little to no difference, biological automatons as there will be little to nothing for anyone to disagree on with any real conviction or passion.

Should these religious exempted populations be forced into an isolated geography, or have their children banned from public parks and schools?

since we are talking about legal situations and discrimination I'm not sure that is a relevant legal argument.  Can you give me some laws or cases that prove all sins must be equal to claim a religious objection?

by your opinion there could never be a religious objection because I don't believe there is one single religion/church that treats all sins the same or equally.  

...different churches teach different things with different emphasis on sins, subjects etc if they teach, believe that some sins are greater or minor,

I  used to volunteer at a Christian mission that did charity work. Not affiliated with any specific church. Still a religious organization.

A religion doesn't need any writings whatsoever.

The legislation in question is about protecting religious organizations.

It has nothing to do with say, an employee at walmart refusing to give a gay couple a cake.

If the Church chooses not to host gay weddings (themselves, at their own Church), this has absolutely no bearing on whether or not individual members are allowed to attend or otherwise participate in gay weddings (at any other location).

not talking about if they are allowed, but if the practice and teaching parishioners to not recognize gay marriages, then again it's consistent for an individual to also do the same.

Sure, but the one thing does not make the other thing mandatory.  It's not a RULE.  There's no rule that says "don't make gay cakes".

right not mandatory, which also means they can choose to follow it in the way they think and interpret is best, which for some means no gay wedding cakes.  this is very consistent, those who would attend a gay wedding or otherwise support it are the ones not being consistent when in contrast to the teachings.

as for specifics, if the baker was NOT in line with the teachings of his church/faith that would have been the primary point against him, I don't ever recall any such thing therefore it must have been consistent afaik.

it is widely known and accepted there are different interpretations/teachings based on the same books otherwise there could only be one church which could receive tax exempt status etc from the government, yet we know there are many.  Therefore your claim of inconsistency/hypocrisy doesn't matter as far as allowing some "sins" but not others, i.e. remarrying divorced people.

It has been shown how the baker's objection is consistent... 

...and must be accepted by the government on that basis as they already accept different churches and interpretations of the same book and recognize them as a church/religion.  Freedom of religion and separation of from government must also include to a large degree non enforcement of practice and interpretation by the government. 

And so you know, the [EASTERN ORTHODOX] church is very tolerant.

Being ignorant, they are in denial of the religion they themselves practice, so don't expect any of them to confirm what I am saying about it.

I'm pretty sure the next stage of our cultural development is going to be an AI council with it's own autonomous enforcement arm.

That sounds so far out to me.  Are you serious, like our lives are going to be calculated by computers?  Do you mean our children are going to use AI for consistency and impartiality?

The ideal would be something of a universal state of grace, not a reference to fallen nomadic culture.

Or ideally, there would be no one left believing in anything unprovable to use as a wedge of discrimination, like some magic voice in the sky who says "Don't make cakes for those gross queers I made for you to torment." Instead we'd just recognize that people are equal regardless of faith, sexual orientation or skin color and no one would be going around to funerals with signs saying God Hates Fags, employing conversion therapies, or telling people who love each other their love is inferior AND they're going to burn for it, forever, so you can't have a cake otherwise I'm going to burn in hell for making it. 

No, Ideally, there would be no need for men to institute government.

It appears to me that you are emotionally invested in this subject matter, because I expect a higher level of discourse from you.

The scriptures do not say "gay = bad"

It has been explained previously to you, that the man may refuse towards any offer, regardless of whatever "gay" is, if they do not want to implicate themselves in the actual act.

The idea that the man is objecting to sinners is idiotic, or an insulting presumption without warrant.

Only if the Church has a written rule specifically prohibiting making cakes for gay weddings.

that means an individual can't make any interpretation or value judgement for them selves and they don't have a choice.

The Church itself may choose not to host gay weddings. [LINK]  This alone does not prohibit members from attending or otherwise participating in gay weddings.

which is contradicted by the above.  So in the first sentence you state the Church makes the rules which must be followed but in the 2nd you say individuals have choice, which is it?

If a church does not recognize gay marriage and will not perform any ceremonies for, then it would stand to reason that members might not choose to support gay marriages/weddings would it not? 

From their p.o.v. gay weddings are like space aliens, people talk about them but they don't really exist.

So it's indistinguishable from make-believe.

You would say that if it did come from the bible. You are being disingenuous.

I'm not sure I follow, if you won't marry gays and that is the practice and policy of the church he attends, then it would be consistent to not preform a duty that would directly support or legitimize a gay wedding.

Also, I told you before that Orthodoxy is not a religion that comes from the bible.

He would also object to cater as requested by men, women, disabled people, young, old, "white", "straight", "bisexual" you name it....All sorts of "protected classes" of people. 

You know this.  I mean, seriously, consider how obvious it is what you are really doing. 

You could have just as easily selected "men" as the fake victim of the evil baker.

Anyone with eyes that can see would know the motive behind your contention isn't to "protect gays".