The Trump Administration Asked The Supreme Court To Legalize Firing Workers Simply For Being Gay

a reply to: DJMSN

There are more sources that just Buzzfeed through.

originally posted by: BetoDeLeon
Unfortunately, this is fake news.

This is what I figured as well. What is happening here is the same thing the left, and the news media does against African Americans and other groups to create victim groups they can then role play as advocating for, when all they are doing is demeaning those people by pigeon holing groups into classes that are being discriminated against, calling attention to them and using examples of actual discrimination as fuel to further the agenda. And they blame the other side for the whole thing. The side that lost the last election.

Obama promised to help all kinds of different people but those groups suffered even more oppression after his 8 years were up. False advocacy to add numbers to the ranks, but doing nothing good for anyone.

Any discrimination against common groups is a bad thing and does happen, but what the news media and the left are doing is even much worse than what they are pretending to be against. Candace Owens will attest to that, and many others who aren't afraid to stand up to these phonies. And decent intentioned people are also caught up in it and deceived to become co-advocates of this ultimate plan whose real purpose is only to divide and conquer.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MisterSpock

www.nbcnews.com...

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...

www.newsweek.com...

Here a few other links pertaining to the subject in question.

And if you compare those stories and the facts of the stories to what BUZZFEED reported, youll realize just how full of crap Buzzfeed is.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



Lets face facts, Trump could rape an America bald eagle on national TV then wipe his member on the nations flag, and half his support would probably find a way to praise him for such or at least not even bat an eyelid.

I bet you could take it and not squeal like a pig.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes its all just ""Fake NEWS". LoL

How come anything you don't like amounts to fake news?

It's really beginning to get old that chestnut.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yes its all just ""Fake NEWS". LoL

How come anything you don't like amounts to fake news?

It's really beginning to get old that chestnut.

Except its been pointed out several times on this thread already, that what Buzzfeed reported, and what the actual facts are , are two completely different things.


The only chesnut thats really getting old, are news agencies , and i use to therm loosely, totally forfeiting facts in favor of complete BS, that appeals to emotional knee jerk reactions, knowing full well their viewers wont look any further into the subject matter.

Its almost like the leftist "news" agencies know their readers are butt stupid, and wont do their own research to find the truth, therefore they can just appeal to emotion and move the needle.

In all honesty , those on the left should be insulted by that fact. Theyre calling you stupid w every article they write.

a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Not my cup a tea.

But if the rumors regarding the size of Trump's mushroom are correct i might not even notice, so you could be right.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

Not my cup a tea.

But if the rumors regarding the size of Trump's mushroom are correct i might not even notice, so you could be right.

How do we know that? Is it a fart or a yawn?

a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

You have lost me now.

Which is probably for the best really.

Maybe you should ask Stormy Daniels, she would know.

Civil Rights Act of 1964
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark civil rights and US labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It prohibits unequal application of voter registration requirements, racial segregation in schools, employment, and public accommodations.Wikipedia

Sex is covered but sexual preference doesn't seem to be. Maybe he is right.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

You have lost me now.

Which is probably for the best really.

Maybe you should ask Stormy Daniels, she would know.

Is that your mom under the front porch with her new litter? Is that more direct. See people can get as nasty. When you fart it looks like yawn.

a reply to: M5xaz

Majority Rule. NOW !
If majority rule is good for South Africa it is also good for everywhere in the West.

Would you say that this proclamation should hold true for the presidential election of 2016 ?

a reply to: andy06shake

Is being gay a civil right with any constitutional basis? I dont recall this being part of the civil rights act of 1964. Being as I have a sole proprietorship for so long I honestly do not know why a business would be legally compelled to employ homosexuals against their will. Moreover, i cannot understand why a homosexual would want to work for someone who is more focused on the employees sexuality than outcomes.

Educate me on this topic.

a reply to: andy06shake

From title VIIL

(k) The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-­related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 2000e-2(h) of this title [section 703(h)] shall be interpreted to permit otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to abortion.

So Trump is bad because he is saying that that law that doesn't say anything about homosexuals applies to homosexuals somehow?

a reply to: drewlander

Well, they may wish to make some money, that could be a reason for one.

Not everyone enjoys the luxury of working for people they like.

It helps all the same.

I can't understand why any employers would care as to a person's sexual preference in this day of age.

a reply to: drewlander

I must admit that this seems like Trump pointing out once again that congress is elected to make laws and amendments to ensure that the constitution reflects American modern day values. Basically, they need to do their job, not just have the justice system willy nilly turn a blind eye to obvious discrepancies.

Congress needs a spine! Shut up and truly stand behind your statements! Sick of pandering from both sides...time for action. If you can't represent and stand up for your constituency, then politics may not be the career for you in the Great America.

a reply to: funbobby

The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to

Seems to me firing an individual based on sexual preference is covered there. At least, that's what Obama's DOJ asserted, that Title VII already provided protection for the LGBT community.

It's been linked in this thread once already, but since no one seems to have noticed it, here it is again:

The actual brief filed in the United States Supreme Court

This is not Donald Trump encouraging discrimination. This is The Trump administration asking for clarification on an already-entered ruling that says the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to sexual orientation. Why? Because the primary purpose of the Executive branch is to execute (enforce) laws passed by Congress. As is stands right now, this moment, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to sexual orientation, as interpreted by the Judiciary.

If that is what someone wants, then that someone will complain about the administration filing the brief. If, however, someone wants to ensure no discrimination against people for sexual orientation, they will support the administration filing this brief. There are only two ways that the lower courts rulings can be overturned: for the Supreme Court to overturn them, or for Congress to pass a clarification to the law. I highly doubt Congress would interrupt their impeachment/investigation/slander agenda against Trump long enough to bother actually protecting people (they certainly wouldn't with DACA), so that leaves the Supreme Court.

Personally, I want to see this overturned. I want to see people protected from being fired for being gay, That's why I support the filing of this brief.

As usual, the MSM has, in their frenzy to twist anything and everything against the evil administration that dares to not be headed by a Democrat or establishment Republican, gotten it exactly backwards. And as usual, we have a plethora of people following them in lockstep, many of them probably the very people this could actually protect from discrimination.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The courts disagree. Read the brief.

TheRedneck

a reply to: andy06shake

You don't read sources only headlines. I read the actual court documents and local accounts. It has nothing to do with Trump but simply DOJ arguing that the Civil Rights Act does not cover sexual orientation, again the same arguments that Obama's DOJ made. The county claims he was fired for improper conduct related to his duties after an investigation involving funds he managed. He was never told he was fired for sexual orientation that is "his belief".

No way to know for certain, however 4 courts is far decided against him at least in regards to his misinterpretation of the Civil Rights Act. Congress needs to act to change the law. So far no administration has been able to push them to do so and it's been around since 1964. Both political parties have held enough power to change but have not. No one but Buzzfeed can hang this one on Trump and they only do that in the headline, actually reading the article reveals the problem is with Congress and the law. The other case involves transgenderism and also attempts to use Title VII which is an invalid argument