Feel free to clarify the subject but

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-admini ... soc_trk=fb

The tRump administration decided that what goes on in the bedroom is reason enough to fire people. They argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect LGBTQ people. Never mind other rulings since. And this, after we were told this administration was so good and kind to the LGBTQ community.

Do you normally post year old articles?

What you conveniently left out was that the court ruled in favor of the employee and that the Trump administration chose not to appeal. The administration did a bad thing and then did a good thing. But why mention that when you can spin it?

cargolex wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

What you conveniently left out was that the court ruled in favor of the employee and that the Trump administration chose not to appeal. The administration did a bad thing and then did a good thing. But why mention that when you can spin it?

What you conveniently left out was Trump administration clearly made a legal choice that will come up again in court. The administration did a bad thing and then realized it was hopeless to try further on this when it could stack the deck with stolen judicial appointments later But why mention that when you find some way to excuse it?

I see. You now have a crystal ball. Do you keep it under your tin foil hat?

VTKillarney wrote:

What you conveniently left out was that the court ruled in favor of the employee and that the Trump administration chose not to appeal. The administration did a bad thing and then did a good thing. But why mention that when you can spin it?

What you conveniently left out was Trump administration clearly made a legal choice that will come up again in court. The administration did a bad thing and then realized it was hopeless to try further on this when it could stack the deck with stolen judicial appointments later But why mention that when you find some way to excuse it?

Okay. Let's not talk about making Latinos and LGBTQ second class citizens. Let's discuss the "joke" he tried to make in Montana and people like you, VTKillarney, laughed and applauded. The "joke" about Elizabeth Warren and sexual assault.

But, you are a moderate and both sides do it so he gets a pass with that, too.

Or, but he has a gay staffer so he loves the LGBTQ community.

Or whatever your excuse is to support literally the worst president in the history of the Republic.

seb146 wrote:

Okay. Let's not talk about making Latinos and LGBTQ second class citizens. Let's discuss the "joke" he tried to make in Montana and people like you, VTKillarney, laughed and applauded. The "joke" about Elizabeth Warren and sexual assault.

But, you are a moderate and both sides do it so he gets a pass with that, too.

Or, but he has a gay staffer so he loves the LGBTQ community.

Or whatever your excuse is to support literally the worst president in the history of the Republic.

I know it’s hard for you to comprehend, but I am not wedded to any one side. Trump’s joke was crass and unpresidential, for sure. Why would I think otherwise?

That said, Warren should be called out on her appropriation of Native American culture. Whatever benefits she has received by making up her heritage were literally stolen from someone who was deserving of them. If Warren was a conservative, you’d be screaming from the rooftops.

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Okay. Let's not talk about making Latinos and LGBTQ second class citizens.

Yes, let's not. The 14th Amendment means no one is a second class citizen.

It’s definitely important to remember that Trump has been completely deferential to the courts when they have placed restrictions upon him. Hardly the actions of a dictator.

If the OP had to go back a whole yea to find something to be outraged about, things don’t seem too bad.

The real dangers will be the SCOTUS and Federal agencies narrowing GLTBQ rights as so workplace and public discrimination either specifically or generally understood to be under Federal government protection.

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Okay. Let's not talk about making Latinos and LGBTQ second class citizens.

Yes, let's not. The 14th Amendment means no one is a second class citizen.

Why are people still fired for being gay or trans? Why are people having the cops called for shopping or walking? Why is this notion of "I only bake cakes for who I want" a thing? If the Fourteenth were really important, people would be outraged. But, because Muslims, LGBTQ, Blacks, Latinos are lower than WHEM (white heterosexual evangelical men)....

That's the whole point: WHEM are so butthurt that they have to be equal to everyone, they started the whole "fake news" and "special rights" movement years ago. IF we were all equal, WHEM would not be all crying and pearl clutchy over any of this. But, they are so blind with their privilege, they don't (won't?) get it.

If Fourteenth Amendment were actually followed, we would not need the Civil Rights Act or any of the EQUALITY laws coming after. But, righties (NOT REPUBLICANS IN GENERAL) are so obsessed with gay sex for some reason, here we are.

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Yes, let's not. The 14th Amendment means no one is a second class citizen.

Why are people still fired for being gay or trans?

Can you cite specific examples of an employer terminating an employee based on their sexual orientation? I’m sure the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice would like to know of these cases.

Me. 1992. Oh, statute of limitations. How convenient.

OR THE ONE I POSTED BEFORE

And DOJ sided with tRump and not with THE CONSTITUTION

seb146 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why are people still fired for being gay or trans?

Can you cite specific examples of an employer terminating an employee based on their sexual orientation? I’m sure the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice would like to know of these cases.

Me. 1992. Oh, statute of limitations. How convenient.

OR THE ONE I POSTED BEFORE

And DOJ sided with tRump and not with THE CONSTITUTION

I meant to click the "edit" button....

Anyway, the Fourteenth Amendment does not specifically say LGBTQ so, righties assume the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to LGBTQ because those letters are not specifically part of the Constitution. That is the thing about the right: We follow the law for ALL Americans! Also the right: It is not in the Constitution, so you LGBTQ and Blacks and Latinos and Women are out of luck....

seb146 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why are people still fired for being gay or trans?

Can you cite specific examples of an employer terminating an employee based on their sexual orientation? I’m sure the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice would like to know of these cases.

Me. 1992. Oh, statute of limitations. How convenient.

OR THE ONE I POSTED BEFORE

And DOJ sided with tRump and not with THE CONSTITUTION

1992 huh? You do realize that protections were NOT in place back then right? Statute of limitations wouldn't apply because the employer acted in accordance with state and federal law.

seb146 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Can you cite specific examples of an employer terminating an employee based on their sexual orientation? I’m sure the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice would like to know of these cases.

Me. 1992. Oh, statute of limitations. How convenient.

OR THE ONE I POSTED BEFORE

And DOJ sided with tRump and not with THE CONSTITUTION

I meant to click the "edit" button....

Anyway, the Fourteenth Amendment does not specifically say LGBTQ so, righties assume the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to LGBTQ because those letters are not specifically part of the Constitution. That is the thing about the right: We follow the law for ALL Americans! Also the right: It is not in the Constitution, so you LGBTQ and Blacks and Latinos and Women are out of luck....

Seb, you couldn't be further from the truth. Us on the right don't have an issue with blacks and Latinos. What we have an issue with is identity politics and those that enter this country illegally. You knew that though right?

Bud, you need to start meeting folks that are actually conservative and stop watching the garbage that we have on t.v.

LittleSprocket wrote:

seb146 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Can you cite specific examples of an employer terminating an employee based on their sexual orientation? I’m sure the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice would like to know of these cases.

Me. 1992. Oh, statute of limitations. How convenient.

OR THE ONE I POSTED BEFORE

And DOJ sided with tRump and not with THE CONSTITUTION

1992 huh? You do realize that protections were NOT in place back then right? Statute of limitations wouldn't apply because the employer acted in accordance with state and federal law.

The right brought up The Fourteenth Amendment like it applies to ALL Americans EQUALLY. That is why I brought up me.

In Oregon in 1992, they had the same "Fourteenth Amendment" view that "all legal Americans" was implied. No one really questioned it. That what goes on in other's bedrooms was basis for firing. Watch the Tom Hanks film Philadelphia. I did not have HIV but when the Bible is higher than the Constitution, this is what happens. "Well, it does not specifically SAY LGBTQ or HIV or Black or Latino..."

LittleSprocket wrote:

seb146 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Me. 1992. Oh, statute of limitations. How convenient.

OR THE ONE I POSTED BEFORE

And DOJ sided with tRump and not with THE CONSTITUTION

I meant to click the "edit" button....

Anyway, the Fourteenth Amendment does not specifically say LGBTQ so, righties assume the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to LGBTQ because those letters are not specifically part of the Constitution. That is the thing about the right: We follow the law for ALL Americans! Also the right: It is not in the Constitution, so you LGBTQ and Blacks and Latinos and Women are out of luck....

Seb, you couldn't be further from the truth. Us on the right don't have an issue with blacks and Latinos. What we have an issue with is identity politics and those that enter this country illegally. You knew that though right?

Bud, you need to start meeting folks that are actually conservative and stop watching the garbage that we have on t.v.

I am not programming savvy, so I can not condense two posts into one.

I grew up in conservative land. I was fired because I and my gay best friend were gossiping about the other gays in the area. No lewd acts, no PDAs or anything. Just talking. That is what I was fired for. In "open minded" and evangelical right wing hate filled rural Oregon. I know these people. I grew up with these people. They REFUSE to open their minds. They project. "You 'liberals' will not be open minded" well, there is a reason for that. Because we have been spat on, hit, fired at, yelled at, and/or attacked by you 'open minded' righties. Yes, these things ACTUALLY HAPPEN in 'open minded' evangelical conservative America in the 21st Century. I see it every day. I live in rightie evangelical Oregon again. That is another thread.

Here is the break down:

Righties only want WHEM* in control. "Liberals" only want LEGAL Americans in control. Righties only want laws interpreted through the eyes and minds of WHEM*. "Liberals" only want laws interpreted through the eyes and minds of LEGAL Americans.

If you can not see the difference, you are part of the problem.

*WHEM=White Heterosexual Evangelical Men

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I was fired because I and my gay best friend were gossiping about the other gays in the area. No lewd acts, no PDAs or anything. Just talking. That is what I was fired for.

If you're truly saying that's the case, I'd love to see a copy of the notice of discipline or discharge you were provided with, outlining what company rule or regulation you violated. I guarantee it doesn't say, "Being gay is not permitted" but probably DOES say something along the lines of "Inappropriate conduct or language in the workplace" or "Threatening, intimidating, or discourteous behavior or language toward customers or co-workers will not be tolerated," etc.

You are telling me what I faced and what I saw and what happened was fake? Really? You are gaslighting me? What I went through was not real? Get out of here. Do not tell me what happened to me did not happen. I have so many words for you but I would be banned.....

EDIT:

"We have heard some things..." and "Some people have said...." are trigger words. Those are "we don't have proof but we just don't like the thought of and you can't/won't fight back" signs. They have zero proof but are more concerned by what goes on in my bedroom. And it still pis*es me off. Y'all don't care what goes on in people's personal life but y'all NEED to fire everyone that does not agree with you.

OMG!!! HE IS WEARING SOCKS AT THE POOL!!!
OMG!!! HE IS SELLING WATER!!!
OMG!!! SHE IS AT THE PUBLIC POOL!!!
OMG!!! SHE IS GAY!!!
OMG!!! HE IS DRIVING!!!

Y'all wonder why we are angry? Are you effing serious? Really? And then y'all tell us to calm down and be civil? We are way effing beyond that, man. Way effing beyond that.

VTKillarney wrote:

That said, Warren should be called out on her appropriation of Native American culture. Whatever benefits she has received by making up her heritage were literally stolen from someone who was deserving of them. If Warren was a conservative, you’d be screaming from the rooftops.

If Warren's family has deep roots in Oklahoma she may well have some Native American blood in her. While she does have high cheekbones traditionally associated with the Indians that is not a guarantee either way. Republicans go after Warren just like they go after Hillary - they can't stand that a Democrat can be superior in intelligence than their candidate. Warren has certainly done more for the Average American than Trump ever will, which explains why he hates her. That and he can't grab her by her p***y.

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I was fired because I and my gay best friend were gossiping about the other gays in the area. No lewd acts, no PDAs or anything. Just talking. That is what I was fired for.

If you're truly saying that's the case, I'd love to see a copy of the notice of discipline or discharge you were provided with, outlining what company rule or regulation you violated. I guarantee it doesn't say, "Being gay is not permitted" but probably DOES say something along the lines of "Inappropriate conduct or language in the workplace" or "Threatening, intimidating, or discourteous behavior or language toward customers or co-workers will not be tolerated," etc.

Oh come on...... you know very darn well that no employer will write the real reason onto the termination notice if that reason happens to be illegal, they will always cook something up that would stand in court, or at least try to do so. Try proving that wasn´t the real reason employment got terminated.

You can only find out about those things statistically, and we don´t have the data to see if gay people are more likely to be terminated that heterosexual people.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I was fired because I and my gay best friend were gossiping about the other gays in the area. No lewd acts, no PDAs or anything. Just talking. That is what I was fired for.

If you're truly saying that's the case, I'd love to see a copy of the notice of discipline or discharge you were provided with, outlining what company rule or regulation you violated. I guarantee it doesn't say, "Being gay is not permitted" but probably DOES say something along the lines of "Inappropriate conduct or language in the workplace" or "Threatening, intimidating, or discourteous behavior or language toward customers or co-workers will not be tolerated," etc.

Oh come on...... you know very darn well that no employer will write the real reason onto the termination notice if that reason happens to be illegal, they will always cook something up that would stand in court, or at least try to do so. Try proving that wasn´t the real reason employment got terminated.

You can only find out about those things statistically, and we don´t have the data to see if gay people are more likely to be terminated that heterosexual people.

best regards
Thomas

EA CO AS, I know you are not a troll. I know you are an honest person. We have debated for a while.

I want you to go to anyplace in America with Confederate flags and MAGA hats and try to pick up someone of your own gender. Try to be honestly friends with someone not your race and gender. Listen to them. Be them. Don't just say "You don't need to tell me because I know" because you don't know. You need to actually do it. Go and do it. Be us.

Ken777 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

That said, Warren should be called out on her appropriation of Native American culture. Whatever benefits she has received by making up her heritage were literally stolen from someone who was deserving of them. If Warren was a conservative, you’d be screaming from the rooftops.

If Warren's family has deep roots in Oklahoma she may well have some Native American blood in her. While she does have high cheekbones traditionally associated with the Indians that is not a guarantee either way. Republicans go after Warren just like they go after Hillary - they can't stand that a Democrat can be superior in intelligence than their candidate. Warren has certainly done more for the Average American than Trump ever will, which explains why he hates her. That and he can't grab her by her p***y.

The simple thing to do is take the DNA test, prove she has the heritage, then tell Trump to donate the million to a group that supports something Trump hates.

EA CO AS wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

[you know very darn well that no employer will write the real reason onto the termination notice if that reason happens to be illegal, they will always cook something up that would stand in court, or at least try to do so.

It occurs to me that it's incredibly difficult, especially in today's litigious society, to "cook something up." You need documentation - lots of it - to back up a termination for cause, even in right-to-work states, even for temporary/probationary employees.

nah, you just need a reason you usually don´t care about, and use that. For example heterosexuals discussing their weekend sex adventures amongst each other is overlooked, gays doing the same is considered "Threatening, intimidating, or discourteous behavior or language toward customers or co-workers will not be tolerated".

I'm just saying that it's not anywhere near as prevalent as it is being made out to be, and if we're truly going to see everyone as equal (which we SHOULD!!) then why should there be a separate subset of laws for a separate subset of people?

I tend to agree, it isn´t the super-wide spread problem anymore, but it still exists. Even countries where murder almost never happens still have laws against it, so it being a smaller problem doesn´t mean we should stop improving our legal framework.

At that point, all that's taking place is codifying and highlighting differences between people, which seems to be the polar opposite of what a decent society would want to do.

Or am I wrong?

It would be good if we wouldn´t have to, but it would appear that some stuff has to be codified specifically to get it into peoples heads.

Look at rape in a marriage, "don´t rape your wife" seemed to be a fairly obvious rule, but still was sufficiently complicated for a bunch of people that it needed to be specifically outlawed and still faces pushback, not even all US states got around to treating it like any regular rape until today. And that is not in the US only of course, Germany only got around to banning that in 1997, and was historically being pushed back against by the Christian (!) Parties in the country, because a woman could use the claim of being raped by her husband to obtain an abortion.........

For that and other reasons along those line i am think that not a term limit for career politicians is a good idea, but taking someones passive election right away after voting in favor of 3 laws that where then canned by the supreme court of something along those line. You shouldn´t be able to hold an office in a nation where you clearly either don´t understand or care about the constitution.

best regards
Thomas

In today´s USA it will not be long before the freedom of religion will be used as a freedom to hate homosexuals legally.

Ken777 wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

That said, Warren should be called out on her appropriation of Native American culture. Whatever benefits she has received by making up her heritage were literally stolen from someone who was deserving of them. If Warren was a conservative, you’d be screaming from the rooftops.

If Warren's family has deep roots in Oklahoma she may well have some Native American blood in her. While she does have high cheekbones traditionally associated with the Indians that is not a guarantee either way. Republicans go after Warren just like they go after Hillary - they can't stand that a Democrat can be superior in intelligence than their candidate. Warren has certainly done more for the Average American than Trump ever will, which explains why he hates her. That and he can't grab her by her p***y.

And none of that excuses Warren’s stealing an opportunity from someone who we know deserved it.

seahawk wrote:

In today´s USA it will not be long before the freedom of religion will be used as a freedom to hate homosexuals legally.

You can hate anyone or anything you want legally. A little document called the Constitution gives you that right.

If you are looking for a country where the government can punish you for your thoughts, try North Korea.

VTKillarney wrote:

seahawk wrote:

In today´s USA it will not be long before the freedom of religion will be used as a freedom to hate homosexuals legally.

You can hate anyone or anything you want legally. A little document called the Constitution gives you that right.

If you are looking for a country where the government can punish you for your thoughts, try North Korea.

But maybe it will soon mean that you can refuse to hire homosexuals.

seahawk wrote:

In today´s USA it will not be long before the freedom of religion will be used as a freedom to hate homosexuals legally.

I always get a great laugh out of the fact that the same assholes who talk about "religious freedom" are constantly carrying on about Sharia Law.

Perhaps they have some plan for when they find out 'freedom' applies to brown people too?

seahawk wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

seahawk wrote:

In today´s USA it will not be long before the freedom of religion will be used as a freedom to hate homosexuals legally.

You can hate anyone or anything you want legally. A little document called the Constitution gives you that right.

If you are looking for a country where the government can punish you for your thoughts, try North Korea.

But maybe it will soon mean that you can refuse to hire homosexuals.

Well, now you’ve moved the goalposts. And now I agree with you inasmuch as I hope that doesn’t happen.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

seahawk wrote:

In today´s USA it will not be long before the freedom of religion will be used as a freedom to hate homosexuals legally.

I always get a great laugh out of the fact that the same assholes who talk about "religious freedom" are constantly carrying on about Sharia Law.

Good chunk of them would also be totally fine with "Sharia" Law in the US, if the Koran got just swapped out with the Old Testament.

best regards
Thomas

VTKillarney wrote:

seahawk wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

You can hate anyone or anything you want legally. A little document called the Constitution gives you that right.

If you are looking for a country where the government can punish you for your thoughts, try North Korea.

But maybe it will soon mean that you can refuse to hire homosexuals.

Well, now you’ve moved the goalposts. And now I agree with you inasmuch as I hope that doesn’t happen.

To be honest I accidentally deleted a part in my original post as I had problems with finding a working wording.

It should have read .... it will probably soon be legal to refuse hiring homosexuals, because your religious believes include a hate of homosexuals...

EA CO AS wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I know you are not a troll. I know you are an honest person. We have debated for a while.

Thank you; and I hope you realize that despite our many differences of political opinions, I do respect you a great deal. Even though it may not seem that way at times.

seb146 wrote:

I want you to go to anyplace in America with Confederate flags and MAGA hats and try to pick up someone of your own gender. Try to be honestly friends with someone not your race and gender. Listen to them. Be them. Don't just say "You don't need to tell me because I know" because you don't know. You need to actually do it. Go and do it. Be us.

There are two different thoughts going on here; the first I have to disregard because honestly, I wouldn't even know where to begin in trying to "pick someone up" of the same gender.

Having said that, you mention being friends with someone not my race and gender (for the record, I have more female friends than male, and my friends are of varying races and ethnicities) and I believe I understand the premise, that I "can't understand someone whose shoes I've not walked in" but by that logic, isn't that true of anyone, regardless of race, orientation, gender, or even if all of those are identical?

Getting back to the point at hand, I do believe, as was more eloquently phrased in "The West Wing" episode I linked, that it would be demeaning to someone to insist they need their own special legislation to "protect" them from disparate treatment when the 14th Amendment already does precisely that. And if you or anyone else were mistreated in a manner inconsistent with the protections afforded to each one of us under that Amendment, I'd be the first in line to shout, "Sue the bastards!"

But writing special laws just creates subsets of people and divides us rather than unites us. Or at least that's my take on it.

I would love to have laws interpreted that way. Equal protection means equal protection. There are no laws specifically banning transgender people from using the bathroom they are comfortable with, but some legislatures have tried. Because the law does not specifically say and they think it should. Like wise with marriage and housing and adoption. That was literally what the fight for marriage equality was about. One man, one woman vs. let consenting adults do what they want.

No, we should not have to put specific words into law. But, we do because some people think that is a loophole.

As far as "sue the bastard" I had another job lined up. They didn't care what I did off the clock. I even started playing around with one of my co-workers at the new job in our off time. Besides, I was not ready to be that out. I had been subjected to bullying in school and I did not want to go through that again.

I have a feeling that LGBTQ rights are going to become a sticky issue now that we have a Supreme Court that is willing to stand up more actively for religious rights.

Religious freedoms are protected in the Constitution. People may not like that idea, but you don't get to treat the Constitution like an a la carte menu. Compared to LGBTQ rights, religious freedoms are certainly much more clearly defined in the Constitution. LGBTQ rights had to be read into the Constitution whereas religious rights did not have to be.

Religious viewpoints are often at odds with LGBTQ rights - as the cake baker case clearly demonstrated.

The Supreme Court said that Colorado did not weigh the religious rights of the baker. This was true. People are reading more into the decision than they should. The Supreme Court essentially kicked the can down the road.

But aren't there situations in which these rights come to a head that just can't be reconciled so that everyone has their rights maintained? If this is the case, where do you draw the line?

The emotional side of me says that it is easier for a religious baker to suck it up and bake a cake. The logical side of me says that since religion is specifically protected in the Constitution, and LGBTQ rights are not, then religious rights should take precedence when there is a conflict.

This issue has me genuinely stumped because I can't come up with a scenario in which everyone has their rights preserved.

EA CO AS wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

[you know very darn well that no employer will write the real reason onto the termination notice if that reason happens to be illegal, they will always cook something up that would stand in court, or at least try to do so.

It occurs to me that it's incredibly difficult, especially in today's litigious society, to "cook something up." You need documentation - lots of it - to back up a termination for cause, even in right-to-work states, even for temporary/probationary employees.

I'm not saying that there have never, ever been situations where intolerant, hateful, narrow-minded business owners have terminated someone for less-than-honest reasons directly related to performance or reliability, mind you. I'm just saying that it's not anywhere near as prevalent as it is being made out to be, and if we're truly going to see everyone as equal (which we SHOULD!!) then why should there be a separate subset of laws for a separate subset of people?

At that point, all that's taking place is codifying and highlighting differences between people, which seems to be the polar opposite of what a decent society would want to do.

Or am I wrong?

"Cook something up" is probably the wrong phrase because it doesn't exactly capture what happens, at least not what I've seen. It's not, per se, a conspiracy. I've seen managers document poor employee behavior in order to justify a termination. The problem in the cases I dealt with is that these weren't issues unique to the individual, or really issues that the individual committed more often than others in the office. These issues were used as a "smokescreen" to terminate someone's employment based upon job performance when, in fact, they were being terminated for entirely different reasons. So that's what, I believe, tommy is getting at. Employers will often use perectly legitimate arguments to justify termination, when in reality a spiteful manager is terminating an employee for being gay or a woman or looking at them cross eyed. Now, go ahead and prove that you were terminated for the latter reasons, it's usually next to impossible because the paper trail is going to point to employee performance issues, not someone's sexuality or whatnot.

VTKillarney wrote:

seahawk wrote:

VTKillarney wrote:

You can hate anyone or anything you want legally. A little document called the Constitution gives you that right.

If you are looking for a country where the government can punish you for your thoughts, try North Korea.

But maybe it will soon mean that you can refuse to hire homosexuals.

Well, now you’ve moved the goalposts. And now I agree with you inasmuch as I hope that doesn’t happen.

Wait, you realize we are talking about humans, right?

To use a crude but effective example:
"Wish/hope in one hand, shit in the other. See which one gets filled first."

There is a reason we have laws as to who has right of way at an intersection. And also why we have laws about employment etc. "Hope" generally doesn't work effectively and regularly. I mean I would hope we would have a president who doesn't insult others but where does that get me?

Tugg

seb146 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Can you cite specific examples of an employer terminating an employee based on their sexual orientation? I’m sure the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice would like to know of these cases.

Me. 1992. Oh, statute of limitations. How convenient.

OR THE ONE I POSTED BEFORE

And DOJ sided with tRump and not with THE CONSTITUTION

I meant to click the "edit" button....

Anyway, the Fourteenth Amendment does not specifically say LGBTQ so, righties assume the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to LGBTQ because those letters are not specifically part of the Constitution. That is the thing about the right: We follow the law for ALL Americans! Also the right: It is not in the Constitution, so you LGBTQ and Blacks and Latinos and Women are out of luck....

If you want something spelled out in the Constitution, then have a Constitutional Amendment passed. Otherwise, live within the laws, and the way the laws are interpreted by the Highest Court in the Land, of the nation you choose to reside in, or immigrate to a nation that has laws you can live with. Or appeal to the International Court of Justice, if you think you can get served that way.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

seb146 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Me. 1992. Oh, statute of limitations. How convenient.

OR THE ONE I POSTED BEFORE

And DOJ sided with tRump and not with THE CONSTITUTION

I meant to click the "edit" button....

Anyway, the Fourteenth Amendment does not specifically say LGBTQ so, righties assume the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to LGBTQ because those letters are not specifically part of the Constitution. That is the thing about the right: We follow the law for ALL Americans! Also the right: It is not in the Constitution, so you LGBTQ and Blacks and Latinos and Women are out of luck....

If you want something spelled out in the Constitution, then have a Constitutional Amendment passed. Otherwise, live within the laws, and the way the laws are interpreted by the Highest Court in the Land, of the nation you choose to reside in, or immigrate to a nation that has laws you can live with. Or appeal to the International Court of Justice, if you think you can get served that way.

This right here is why we have to spell out laws. Why we have to include more and more language. It is USUALLY the right complaining about adding language to existing laws to extend equal protection. Why is that? Why is it the right complaining about not being able to discriminate? Why is it the right so worried about who uses what bathroom and what does on in people's bedrooms?

DIRECTFLT makes a point that is worth considering.

The reason that the left is so scared of the Supreme Court being controlled by conservative judges is because the Supreme Court has vastly expanded their powers. This really took off under the Warren Court, which was a liberal court. The Warren Court decided to read things into the Constitution rather than adhere only to what was specifically written in the Constitution. Prior to this, the Constitution had to be amended in order to put new rights in it. The 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote is a perfect example. In today's climate, the court would have just read that right in the Constitution. They wouldn't have required an amendment.

The effect of this is that the judiciary is now MUCH more powerful than the authors of the Constitution envisioned. This has made the court a political body - which is exactly what it was not supposed to be.

Reading things into the Constitution allows courts to be much more proactive. But this has come at a cost. The cost is that if the court is now controlled by a party other than your party, they can wield much more power of you than they have ever been able to in the history of this country.

EA CO AS wrote:

it would be demeaning to someone to insist they need their own special legislation to "protect" them from disparate treatment when the 14th Amendment already does precisely that.

Sounds nice, but 150 years of reality argue against that.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

seahawk wrote:

In today´s USA it will not be long before the freedom of religion will be used as a freedom to hate homosexuals legally.

I always get a great laugh out of the fact that the same assholes who talk about "religious freedom" are constantly carrying on about Sharia Law.

Perhaps they have some plan for when they find out 'freedom' applies to brown people too?

I'm curious with the rate christianity is circling the drain in the USA, what will all these religious special rights mean in 2-3 generations, and for whom?

Employers who are obvious ion refusing to hire a gay person, or a person of color can be exposed to public pressure. For large companies that could mean a boycott at the national level. Smaller companies can also be hit with boycotts. Complaints filed with the Government can put pressure from their banks if pressure is put on their banks. Having loans called gets owner's attention.

Ken777 wrote:

Employers who are obvious ion refusing to hire a gay person, or a person of color can be exposed to public pressure. For large companies that could mean a boycott at the national level. Smaller companies can also be hit with boycotts. Complaints filed with the Government can put pressure from their banks if pressure is put on their banks. Having loans called gets owner's attention.

So, you're saying that no matter which way the country goes... banks win. I guess in a fascist state, anyone that doesn't agree with you can and should be bankrupted. We're not there yet, are we?

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

Employers who are obvious ion refusing to hire a gay person, or a person of color can be exposed to public pressure. For large companies that could mean a boycott at the national level. Smaller companies can also be hit with boycotts. Complaints filed with the Government can put pressure from their banks if pressure is put on their banks. Having loans called gets owner's attention.

So, you're saying that no matter which way the country goes... banks win. I guess in a fascist state, anyone that doesn't agree with you can and should be bankrupted. We're not there yet, are we?

Banks always win. Welcome to now. I can never tell if you're missing half your brain, delusional, or trolling, because Trump's favorite pastime is literally demanding anyone that has crossed him be shut down. How much Ivanka Chinese-manufactured garbage have you bought so far while boycotting Nordstrom's because 'murrica?

VTKillarney wrote:

DIRECTFLT makes a point that is worth considering.

The reason that the left is so scared of the Supreme Court being controlled by conservative judges is because the Supreme Court has vastly expanded their powers. This really took off under the Warren Court, which was a liberal court.

The effect of this is that the judiciary is now MUCH more powerful than the authors of the Constitution envisioned. This has made the court a political body - which is exactly what it was not supposed to be.
.

I cannot believe I’m about to post this...

I totally agree with is statement by VTKillarney (someone I wrote off as a Russian Bot ...period)

But that post above is well laid out except it’s have the equation. But the statement that I agreed with has confirmed to me that you VTKillarney is certainly a A.net member from one or more past user accounts. Which is ok, because former behaviors can be ..well, embarrassing and/or shamelful. I’d be more respectfully to come with full disclosure vs playing games with people here.

Regardless, the statement about the courts is correct it should not politicized as it is and the FFs certainly didn’t see that coming. Or did they suspect and just hoped and prayed future generations would be smarter than that. Did they gamble erroneously? Did they place too much faith in ‘common sense’?

But the half-baked delivery by VTK is that other sides of that coin.

Why are Righties sooo terrified of a left heavy court?

....for the EXACT same reason. They fear that the liberal court would delved deeply in to the fine points generalized matters. Perfect examples have been made very clear in this thread. You have stern set of cocked laws..the. You have ‘reality’ as Mav11 pointed. So should the fine points of reality be brought into focus and addressed?

They ABSOLUTELY should!

Bacause those realities tend to swell when they present sweeping dramatic effect over large numbers of people.

If the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were adhered to and acknowledged by most (and be assured you will never ever get ALL)...
....then during and after Reconstruction, racism, discriminaction & bigotry based on race would have been short-circuited by nearly 100 years. 1960 would have occurred in 1880 in terms social cohesion. Women’s Sufferage actions occuring immediately there after. And by the time WWII arrived (if it did/would) the Gay guy who brilliantly delivered the Enigma decoding device would have championed a Gay English Hero instead of persecuted as he was.

But as we all know, that did not happen because reality had a stronger grip on humanity than it’s laws. Thus the warring battle of legal positioning and everyone disagreeing as to what and how current history will play out be judged.

Will you be on the right side of History with your views?

Or the WRONG side of it?

How you view the past tells you all you need to know. Providing that you recognize the failings and short comings of the past with a great amount of honesty.

BN747

seb146 wrote:

Righties only want WHEM* in control.

*WHEM=White Heterosexual Evangelical Men

No we don't.

Do you ever listen to yourself, as you fancy yourself crusading against bigotry?

Airstud wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Righties only want WHEM* in control.

*WHEM=White Heterosexual Evangelical Men

No we don't.

Do you ever listen to yourself, as you fancy yourself crusading against bigotry?

I know exactly what I am saying. I am just repeating what I see. Why does the right keep restricting access to health care, food, education, voting from everyone but WHEM? Why does the right keep telling us in the LGBTQ community that we have to go back in the closet because there are enough protections when we are being beaten and fired and murdered just for being?