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

a reply to: andy06shake

Fact is we really don't require to know what most people get up to under most circumstances as its nobody business but there own.

I agree. The law should be written to prohibit discrimination solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The problem is, it isn't written that way and Congress won't change it. And that's somehow Donald Trump's fault? What?

I just wanted to set the record straight. There are obnoxious gay folk just like there are obnoxious people of all persuasions and races and colors and sizes. The problem comes in when it becomes protected to be obnoxious, not when it is protected to be gay. The Civil Rights Act has been used for that in the past by people in protected groups.

TheRedneck

a reply to: M5xaz

You seem to think in circles with a hatred of Hillery Clinton at the center of your being. Give it up man, she is never going to threaten you again except apparently in your dreams. Meanwhile, in your hatred for her you have allowed a total nincompoop and a fraud into the White House who in his incompetence is bringing about the very fears of all REAL conservative hopes

Majority rule??? Bosh. The rule you have allowed to happen is the rule of a few who control the emerging alternative hate media and you have drunk it like cool aid. CNN? Who cares about CNN, not me, not many others on this site. But this network of ''truth'' that many here subscribe to as truth and continue to bring to this site as proof of your erratic belief system is rotting your brains.

Sure, listening to the msm with little to no discernment is childish but to toss them all and turn to this ''underground'' network of idiotic propaganda that is backed up by your nincompoop is madness. SNIP

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

a reply to: M5xaz

Peterson's propaganda has been debunked years ago.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Brag, like mention your wife or husband, girl friend or boy friend?


Can't remember a time I've ever had a job and didn't have a girlfriend or wife and never once bragged about it. I only talked about it if I was asked.

So, mentioning your wife, if your a woman, is bragging?

You've never mentioned your significant other at work before?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I know a few people who I avoid like the plague, not because they are gay, but because they won't shut up about it!

There you go. There's a old song "One Note Samba" I used to reference until it became obvious no on e knew anymore what I meant.

I too avoid those folks who are one-dimensional and don't seem to be able to discuss anything but That. One. Thing. Could be religion or politics or sexual orientation or veganism or their kids or the Instant Pot or... anything. But any and all discussions will get pulled back to that One Thing the absolutely dominates their lives and conversations.

I can't even.

Unless it's NFL football or fishing. I can roll with that. It's two notes.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your a bit ridiculous when it comes to Trump. Once again since you seem to have reading comprehension skills, Trump has spoken out in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include a protected status for the LGBTQ, the link is in my previous post.

The brief filed by DOJ clarifies the current interpretation of that Act by DOJ since 1964. They have not changed positions, nor did the advocate for any particular ruling unlike a previous President whom attempted to direct a ruling from the court. It is not Trump nor Pence's interpretation but the government's interpretation that has been over and over by many courts upheld.

It's pretty simple to understand but blinded by impetuous hatred will not allow some to see. It is normal procedure for DOJ to file briefs informing the court how the government interprets the law and to ask for clarification. Has zero to do with the VP and since it is a basic function of DOJ, little to do with the President who AGAIN is on record as asking for Congress to amend the ambiguous law.

Oblivious to the fact that previous administrations have interpreted the law in the same exact fashion and oblivious that many courts also have ruled using the exact same interpretation does not make it untrue. It simply makes you oblivious of the facts due to the uncontrollable rage festering within some people.

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That is not true. In the very Buzzfeed article cited, it clearly states the Obama administration also filed briefs arguing that the Civil Rights Act does not cover sexual orientation. They did this several times before changing tactics to encourage the court to "overlook" precedent and rule basically something that even the most liberal of courts have not ruled. Briefs are to ask the courts to clarify what the law states so they can at DOJ act accordingly.

Just because it fits your argument to say the Obama administration didn't do something doesn't mean they didn't actually do the opposite of your claim which if you read the article that they actually did do the opposite of your claim. Congress are the ones who must make it right and include the language barring discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation but they are spineless and will continue to investigate investigate investigate. Perhaps one day those investigations will disclose who stole their backbones

Amazing how obtuse people are willing to get just to bash the man that beat them and made fun of them.

a reply to: yeahright

Yeah, that's a great point; it doesn't even have to be about sex. Anything that has to be discussed ad nauseum regardless of what the conversation is, is a problem. I've known people who can take a conversation about a road needing repaired and turn it into their version of the Sermon on the Mount!

That's actually what disgusts me about politics today, come to think of it. Take this thread. It's about a need for clarification and probably a change to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but so many people want to talk about Donald Trump and how bad he is. It's frankly as disgusting as showing me the same boring vacation photos you already showed me 37 times in the past three weeks, which I didn't care about the first time.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: DJMSN

I realize that you don't like Trump

I don't believe for one minute that Trump really cares one way or the other about LGBT issues. This is Trump feeding his base red meat. This is Mike Pence, and his band of evangelical Dominionists, that Trump sold the vice presidency to.

And you think democrats care? The only time they make an effort to do anything is when it's election time. Same with blacks and illegals. Democrats dangle that bait to keep y'all in line. Get out of line and it's to the lion's den you go. UNLESS it's an election year.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LSU2018

Already had this conversation with someone else.

Any gay people i know or have met don't go around announcing their sexuality anymore than straight people do.

People are simply people, of all shape, sort, and size.

Would you want to work for a boss that doesn't care for gays?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LSU2018

Well my brother in law and his partner are physiotherapists, they are gay.

As to the other people i know who are gay, i don't know really keep tabs on their employment status, they have mortgages and other financial commitments, so i would assume so.

Then what's the problem? They've kept their jobs.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LSU2018

Or just treat them like any other person which is exactly what they are.

That works also.

I agree. So why do they require special treatment?

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for polite political debate will be enforced.
Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)

ALSO......
Community Announcement re: Decorum



You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Yep. Just like the movies. You don't know if the character is gay until a gay innuendo about sucking something comes up. Either that or they talk about how hot another guy is. Pretty #ing gross.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LSU2018

Whatever you got up to in high school is your own concern. LoL

Go to any working man's bar or pub and listen to the banter mate, plenty of dick jokes and references ta go around. LoL

In jokes, yes. When was the last time you said "Bet the dude's dick is tiny! HAR HAR HURR DURR!" because you didn't like the guy? Hopefully before you were old enough to get in a bar.

a reply to: andy06shake

The hand with "bet" filled up first.

People get the boot or suspended/sent home from school because of republican views all the time.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed






So, mentioning your wife, if your a woman, is bragging?

You've never mentioned your significant other at work before?

*you're

No. I've never mentioned my significant other unless someone asked me if I was married or in a relationship.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
It's frankly as disgusting as showing me the same boring vacation photos you already showed me 37 times in the past three weeks, which I didn't care about the first time.

TheRedneck

Fine. No more panoramic shots of Alexandria, IN and the World's Largest Ball of Paint for you, Mr. Grumpydrawers.

originally posted by: TheRedneck

I agree. The law should be written to prohibit discrimination solely on the basis of sexual orientation. The problem is, it isn't written that way and Congress won't change it. And that's somehow Donald Trump's fault? What?

Exactly. I agree completely. Many don't understand the US Congress is the body creating Federal Laws; rarely structured or full of clarity for political reasons etc.

The DOJ initial mission Statement is clear:

"To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; ...[snip]" (emphasis added).

The law is not clear, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as entered into law today needs to be defined closely determining what the wording used pertaining decrimination upon "sex"...a very slippery slope.

The supporting briefs filed will reinforce the laws as understood, in precedence and are presented keeping within the purpose of the DOJ. All leads to forcing detailed focus by the only body that can provide clarity, the SCOTUS. In short, the DOJ is pressing for the definition while upholding current responibilities and law. Placing Trump on this shows little understang of the Federal Legal sytem or writing articles to fingerpoint anything sans political smears, evading facts.

If sexual orientation can be proven, not subjective, that will be an issue. I can easily state "I am a trapped lesbian in a male body, gay female born male" etc etc etc. Perhaps change my mind tomorrow, say just about anything... Figure that out legally.

mg