Wait, are the criminals catching something in your talking point? Why would the criminals thinking that they will be released with no consequences stop the police doing what the taxpayers pay them to do?
If you park in the Mission District, chances are someone’s gonna smash your window and grab your stuff. Calling the cops? Eh, don’t expect much. They show up late or not at all, and even if they catch someone, they're out again fast. So, what’s the point?
Top rated answer:
>> Give criminals more hefty punishments because they are usually not put in jail for long and charges are often dropped. Usually when arrested the same offenders are smashing and grabbing again right after release.
I don’t think you addressed the point that it is the job of the police to apprehend those who break the law. It should not matter what happens after that as that is not what the tax payers are paying them to do. Is it ok that the police are not doing their job any longer? Is this behavior of theirs positively or negatively affecting crime?
No, to repeat, the rest of it was addressed at the non-empty subset of readers who genuinely believe the claim. I love you telling me repeatedly what you assume my intent was, especially when the assumption was wrong. You could try it a third time.
Sorry; you are correct. Her title is, however, "Speaker Emerita" given her impending retirement from the House. I had seen mention of same earlier and that stuck in my head.
I don’t believe the sexes of the offender or victim matter much when it is between an adult and a child. Always wrong and that should not be sidelined or downplayed.
> Do muslims need to be forced to sell/serve non-halal items in their establishment?
No and that is a mischaracterization of the decision. This case states that they can decide who they want to sell their items to and discriminate against those they feel are unworthy of their goods.
This ruling does not stop at allowing discrimination against someone for their sexual orientation. It opens the door to discriminating on basically any feeling someone may say they have.
The idea that marriage is inextricable from procreation isn’t a pretextual assertion or “feeling.” Virtually every human society has marriage, and until recently every single one believed that the function of marriage was procreation. Most people outside the west still do.
The four largest religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and a Buddhism) all address non-procreative sex and either discourage it or limit it to specific persons. E.g. https://academic.oup.com/book/522/chapter/135275904. It’s hard to think of anything that better qualifies as a sincerely held religious belief.
