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.

 

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

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 08:33 PM
link   
It is true


The first civil rights laws protected only race and color. As the principle of discrimination evolved over the years more laws were passed and more groups were added. Federal protected classes now include race, color, national origin, religion, sex (or gender), age (over 40), and disability


Protected Class Law and Legal Definition

Federal Law DOES NOT protect sexual orientation
State Law can

All it took was 2 minutes and a web search
Shame you could not verify your own material

Done,
Next

Denying Ignorance
Why ?
Some folks actually BELIEVE the MSM as a god




posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 08:37 PM
link   
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



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's not asking for "clarification". It's making the argument that Title VII doesn't protect LGBT employees from being fired based on their sexual orientation, and asking the court the find just that.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

The Obama administration may well have failed to fully see to the protection of the LGBT community, but they did hold that Title VII applied to "sexual orientation".



The amicus brief filed Wednesday with the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York also runs contrary to the position of the Obama administration’s Justice Department as well as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Both adopted the view that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex, also applies to sexual orientation.


www.washingtonpost.com... ual-orientation/?noredirect=on



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
It is true


The first civil rights laws protected only race and color. As the principle of discrimination evolved over the years more laws were passed and more groups were added. Federal protected classes now include race, color, national origin, religion, sex (or gender), age (over 40), and disability


Protected Class Law and Legal Definition

Federal Law DOES NOT protect sexual orientation
State Law can

All it took was 2 minutes and a web search
Shame you could not verify your own material

Done,
Next

Denying Ignorance
Why ?
Some folks actually BELIEVE the MSM as a god


Really?
I disagree.

From your link:


The first civil rights laws protected only race and color. As the principle of discrimination evolved over the years more laws were passed and more groups were added. Federal protected classes now include race, color, national origin, religion, sex (or gender), age (over 40), and disability.

edit on 25-8-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Imagine being gullible enough to believe this.

Then imagine that this gullible person's vote is equal to yours.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Simply For Being Gay , Really ? Their Work Records Have NOTHING to Do with this ? .,...Ahuh.........



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

OK, I tried. Believe your MSM. I don't feel like trying to educate someone who wants to remain ignorant.

In the meantime, the rest of us are living in reality.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Gothmog
It is true


The first civil rights laws protected only race and color. As the principle of discrimination evolved over the years more laws were passed and more groups were added. Federal protected classes now include race, color, national origin, religion, sex (or gender), age (over 40), and disability


Protected Class Law and Legal Definition

Federal Law DOES NOT protect sexual orientation
State Law can

All it took was 2 minutes and a web search
Shame you could not verify your own material

Done,
Next

Denying Ignorance
Why ?
Some folks actually BELIEVE the MSM as a god


Really?
I disagree.

From your link:


The first civil rights laws protected only race and color. As the principle of discrimination evolved over the years more laws were passed and more groups were added. Federal protected classes now include race, color, national origin, religion, sex (or gender), age (over 40), and disability.

Read the thread title and the OP
Then read what you just quoted
Become informed
Then , and only then , get back to me.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Only after the filing of the same friend of the court briefs. I believe their is a misunderstanding if the Amicus brief. It is filed before the court to explain how DOJ interprets the law. Its is not an argument in favor one way or another but merely a request to the court for further instructions on the interpretation of the law in question. The Obama administration did indeed make the same request of the court as the Obama DOJ also interpreted the law the same way as the Trump DOJ. Both interperted the law according to exactly how it is written and according to previous court precedent. When the results failed to yield a ruling they wanted, they did indeed change tactics and tried a different approach.

Hopefully this giant nothing burger results in another giant nothing burger actually doing their jobs.
Trump is actually on record as far back as 2000 in calling for the 1964 Civil Rights Act to be amended to include language that specifically forbids discrimination against sexual orientation. Again in 2015 he made the same exact statements and did this before Obama or anyone else did so. One could argue that Trump was ahead if the times.

Aside from his stance on transgender serving in the military, which he argued against due the extreme cost of the surgical procedures as well as the time it takes to recover from the procedure which would prevent any soldier unfit for duty or deployment which is the whole reason we have soldiers. One can argue that Trump has so far been the MOST pro LGBTQ president to date, an argument made here by MSNBC


www.msnbc.com...

I realize that you don't like Trump, but he has brought attention to so many issues completely unaddressed by those who need to address them that those issues are now at the forefront and is changing Republican views on LGBTQ issues in his own way. Trump is brutally honest and perhaps too honest for his own good. He spoke out against the first law preventing the transgender population to use the bathroom of their choice and was hammered for it, he is on record supporting gay marriage rights and has regularly employed gay Americans. He can make a difference if allowed too, however the political militia's have been ordered to resist and that has included the LGBTQ communities which he has a long record of support, but denied any credit because resist resit



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
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 ?



Grow up snowflake.

Hillary RIGGED the Democrat primary to win.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 09:45 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

The article refers to people within the trump admin not trump himself.
I honestly don't know if trump cares about this issue or not.

But I personally believe that a business owner should have the right to fire anyone for any reason. Period.

If you don't like a businesses hiring and firing policies then don't do business with them.

True freedom is doing what I choose to do with my property.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Have you read the opposing Amicus curiae and considered the other side's argument?
www.theusconstitution.org...


APA’s brief presents the court with scientific literature regarding gender and sexuality that supports the understanding that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity is discrimination because of sex. Accordingly, laws like Title VII that prohibit sex discrimination reach – and must continue to reach — discrimination against sexual and gender minorities.

www.apa.org...



In the meantime, the rest of us are living in reality.


Try to understand that "your side" isn't the only "reality" that exists.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 09:53 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz

EQUALITY for everyone means exactly that, equality.


The USA does not have a consistent ruling on that, you can be discriminated on, in fact in many states.

The house of representatives have already passed a bill on equality rights...the Equality Act, which covers both sexual orientation and gender identity, and much more re; discrimination. I presume that will then already be under proposal in Congress as of now.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Looks to me like it is already legal to fire someone for being gay. Trump telling them to clarify that issue isn't him trying to change any law.

Getting angry at Trump for this is stupid. Direct your anger at congress to fix the issue.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: M5xaz

So, You make an emphatic statement, even to the point of shouting NOW. A proclamation for sure. Majority rule. NOW.

When simply asked about the dichotomy there all you can do is deflect to the primaries and resort to an overly used and now way outdated slur to call the questioner. That's real big boy stuff right there, real Trumpian.



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

What about the liberty of the business owner who is forced to run his business someone else's way?

Are they able to pursue their happiness when forced to interact with people they don't like?

Definition of liberty (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint

The business owners lose liberty when the government through force of arms makes them hire people they don't like.

And because most owners aren't biased and we live in a country full of different choices and options, how would a gay persons liberty be infringed if a few places refuse to hire them?
edit on 25-8-2019 by scraedtosleep because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
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.



Haha! This plan is so MAD it just might work! Are you Sarah Sanders IRL? Awesome.




posted on Aug, 25 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: andy06shake

What about the liberty of the business owner who is forced to run his business someone else's way?

Are they able to pursue their happiness when forced to interact with people they don't like?

Definition of liberty (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : the quality or state of being free:
a : the power to do as one pleases
b : freedom from physical restraint

The business owners lose liberty when the government through force of arms makes them hire people they don't like.

And because most owners aren't biased and we live in a country full of different choices an options how would a gay persons liberty be infringed if a few places refuse to hire them?


You mean like a Muslim business owner? They 100% refuse to hire gay people. They are forced to hire gay people. I bet they HATE it and are in support of any law that allows them to deny service to gays and deny jobs to gays.

The proposed law is disgusting really. Gay or straight, does it really matter? (To muslims it does)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join