It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Houston's Equal Rights Ordinance Discussion/Results

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

How about Males that are born with two X Chromosomes, who still have a "Mans Body", are they still "Male" if a "Female" is XX Chromosome ?

How about Intersex people, how would you "Define" them. we exist outside of a Binary system, it's not "Black and White" a Trans Woman is a Woman, their Body Part doesn't define them, and same with a Trans Man

are you Upset that a Woman could pretend to be a trans Man and go into a Males Restroom and Abuse a Little Boy?




posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

A jerk? Maybe you're just itching for a fight but what I wrote was meant to be a realization that those n office don't actually care about the ramifications of their legislation and the ones that are supposed to benefit from it are the ones that get hurt the most!

Why don't you take that chip off your shoulder and have a drink. Seems like you need one.


Sure, sure ... anyone who disagrees with minimizing the equal rights of Americans is just mad, right?

Slam the politicians because, hey ... who likes politicians, right??? Amiright?

It's not about the politicians. It's not about who pees where. It's not about people who can't understand that everyone in the world is not exactly like them.

It's about equal rights and equity before the laws. You're right, this silly legislation in Houston should have been completely unnecessary except for one thing ... and anyone can see it very clearly in this very thread: many people don't want others to have equal rights.

"Just get over it" they say.

"You're not normal, anyway, who cares what you think?"

Right?

WRONG.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

Society should not be expected to stop everything and let some special snowflakes get preferential treatment based on how they feel inside, in direct opposition of what unbiased biology makes blatantly obvious.


I'd like to quote you the next time you're complaining about Christians being mistreated ... right?

Because Christians (aka "Holy Special Snowflakes") who feel like they're being mistreated have to be catered to, right?

Your hypocrisy is utterly disgusting.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Stay angry. It's a good look for you.

Most people could care less about sexual identities or inclinations. As long as those of us who could care less about a persons sexual identity where we piss, then there won't be an issue. There will always be loud mouthed jerks on both sides of the debate.

I'll practice ignoring both sides.

Good night.



posted on Nov, 4 2015 @ 11:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Stay angry. It's a good look for you.

Most people could care less about sexual identities or inclinations. As long as those of us who could care less about a persons sexual identity where we piss, then there won't be an issue. There will always be loud mouthed jerks on both sides of the debate.

I'll practice ignoring both sides.

Good night.


LOL ... yep, when you have no factual basis ... talk about me.

I'm well aware that you don't care about equality or equability before the law.

That was not news.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Stay angry. It's a good look for you.

Most people could care less about sexual identities or inclinations. As long as those of us who could care less about a persons sexual identity where we piss, then there won't be an issue. There will always be loud mouthed jerks on both sides of the debate.

I'll practice ignoring both sides.

Good night.


LOL ... yep, when you have no factual basis ... talk about me.

I'm well aware that you don't care about equality or equability before the law.

That was not news.


I have no idea where you get that. that flies in the face of everything I've written here. You just like to be angry and mean and hate people who won't wave a banner for you.

Get over yourself.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Stay angry. It's a good look for you.

Most people could care less about sexual identities or inclinations. As long as those of us who could care less about a persons sexual identity where we piss, then there won't be an issue. There will always be loud mouthed jerks on both sides of the debate.

I'll practice ignoring both sides.

Good night.


LOL ... yep, when you have no factual basis ... talk about me.

I'm well aware that you don't care about equality or equability before the law.

That was not news.


I have no idea where you get that. that flies in the face of everything I've written here. You just like to be angry and mean and hate people who won't wave a banner for you.

Get over yourself.


Still talking about me.

Didn't you go to bed? When do you start the ignoring?
edit on 0Thu, 05 Nov 2015 00:14:33 -060015p1220151166 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So in Houston Texas it's legal to discriminate against a homosexual ? It's legal to discriminate against the elderly ? I find that hard to believe. The article states, these groups are covered under State & Federal discrimination laws.

Can you show that they are not ?



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: CrawlingChaos
a reply to: Gryphon66

So in Houston Texas it's legal to discriminate against a homosexual ? It's legal to discriminate against the elderly ? I find that hard to believe. The article states, these groups are covered under State & Federal discrimination laws.

Can you show that they are not ?



Discrimination against LGBT is not Federal ---- unless it's government related.

Some states, counties, cities have enacted there own LGBT anti-discrimination laws.

Many states, areas have no anti-discrimnation laws for LGBT.

There is a campaign to include LGBT in the Federal anti-discrimination law.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Exactly what Annee said, Sexual Orientation and Gender-Identity are not a Federally protected class, and Some states have Anti-Discrimination Laws that cover both those, some don't.. too many don't



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Exactly what Annee said, Sexual Orientation and Gender-Identity are not a Federally protected class, and Some states have Anti-Discrimination Laws that cover both those, some don't.. too many don't


Yes, and at least one state tried to pass a state wide discrimination law that would revoke the right of individual counties/cities from enacting their own LGBT anti-discrimnation laws.

Fortunately, it did not pass.






edit on 5-11-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I don't believe that to be entirely true.




See Tex. Lab. Code § 21.051 (2002) and Tex. Prop. Code § 301.021 et seq. (2002).

All government employees are protected by the U.S. Constitution against irrational discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In addition, some measure of protection already exists under Title VII based on gender, which has been held to include gender identity and expression.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and several courts have interpreted Title VII to protect transgender employees, and the EEOC has interpreted Title VII to cover sexual orientation discrimination. The Supreme Court has held that the EEOC's interpretations of Title VII are entitled to "great deference."



Seems those protections are actually already enshrined, and legal precedence set.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Yet, many states are trying to pass laws that allow Discrimination, Florida being the latest



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

For Government Employees not for Citizens



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

The EEOC jurisdiction includes private businesses.

Oddly enough, as a side note Title 7 does allow for discrimination, against members of the U.S. Communist party, under the 1950 Subversive activities control act.
edit on 5-11-2015 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

Well, if you want to really be accurate i would say the 14th Amendment covers protections for everyone... Not every state is protected because they wont put it into Law, with States purposing Pro-discrimination Laws, Sexual Orientation and Gender-Identity should be federally protected



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

The Supreme Court agrees with the EEOC's interpretation of Title 7, again, going so far as to label their interpretation deserving of "great deference." Meaning, the court will refer to that interpretation and enforce it as such. So, any Government employment, and any private employment (of more than 15 people) is already protected Federally thru out the entire country. Thus making the law superfluous, and it's failure to pass a non-event.





edit on 5-11-2015 by CrawlingChaos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

You want to tell that to the States where it's Legal to Fire someone and Deny them services, Public Accommodations, Housing, Property, Jobs etc



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

You want to tell that to the States where it's Legal to Fire someone and Deny them services, Public Accommodations, Housing, Property, Jobs etc


Not trying to be rude, but that's emotional hyperbole. I've just shown, that isn't the case.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

www.eeoc.gov...


General Coverage
If you have a complaint against a business (or some other private employer) that involves race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information, the business is covered by the laws we enforce if it has 15 or more employees who worked for the employer for at least twenty calendar weeks (in this year or last).


I don't see Sexual Orientation or Gender-Identity ?

www.eeoc.gov...



Unfair treatment because of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

Harassment by managers, co-workers, or others in the workplace, because of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.


No Sexual Orientation or Gender-Identity ?

am i missing something?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join