Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everyone keeps missing the fact that the new gay laws are designed to discriminate against straight people. It is actually there to remove straight people from the workforce.
Oh that fact was not missed on me at all. The laws are written as to and is required to provided equal protection, but the real intent and actuation will be preference for gays and reverse discrimination against straights.
Just like with the protected class "Race", the law is written and is required to protect white and black equally. But it was based on a fallacy that whites were always the victimizer and blacks the victims. But sometimes whites are the victim, but the law was never really intended to protect and be applied equally. It was intended to search out cases of only discrimination against one group whether it really exists or not and ignore the other.
In this example, the distinguishing characteristic between A and B is their sex, not their marital status. The only reason A is fired under your reasoning (homosexuality) is that A has a different sex than B. That is prohibited under federal law. There is no need to speculate what would have happened if A weren’t married, weren’t dating, weren’t this or weren’t that.
No because if A wasn't homosexual, A would still be a different sex than B but A would not be fired. And if B was homosexual too both A and B would be fired even though they are different sex. So the sex of the person is not the basis.
No because if A wasn't homosexual, A would still be a different sex than B but A would not be fired. And if B was homosexual too both A and B would be fired even though they are different sex. So the sex of the person is not the basis.
You are refusing to acknowledge that one’s sex is essential to the definition of homosexuality, to the point of being comically obtuse. Federal law prohibits adverse action towards employees on the basis of sex. If you terminate A and B because of their sex (which is inherent to the definition of their homosexuality), you are violating federal law, man or woman.
But you're not unless you're rule is no male homosexuals but yes female homosexuals or vice versa.
You accused me of making this about sex acts but it's you that is using that argument. Once again the basis for his opinion has nothing to do with homosexuality.
If you are going to fire a male for having sex with a male but not apply the same rule to females having sex with a female it's sex discrimination. The homosexual relationship is irrelevant. It's that simple.
If a school board fires a woman teacher who enters a boys bathroom topless but not a male teacher who does the same thing, is that discrimination based on sex.
You are only providing half of the question that would be relevant to his decision. If a male teacher were to walk into the girls bathroom topless and they did not fire him then it would sex discrimination against the female.
You are only providing half of the question that would be relevant to his decision. If a male teacher were to walk into the girls bathroom topless and they did not fire him then it would sex discrimination against the female.
Those whining and pouting about Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion are whining about pouting about the result - but they only have themselves to blame.
The decision is a sound manifestation of textualism. The text of the Civil Rights Act states that discrimination based on sex is unlawful. Firing a man for being attracted to and having sex with men when a woman would not be fired for those same attributes is by definition discrimination based on sex.
Now, maybe you're not a textualist. But Neil Gorsuch is. He has long been a vocal advocate of textualism. He spent more than a decade on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (to which he was appointed in 2006 by a Republican president and confirmed unanimously by a Republican Senate) establishing a resume of textualism.
So, you don't like textualism as a formalist theory of the interpretation of law? All right.
THEN WHERE WERE YOU IN 2017 WHEN TRUMP NOMINATED GORSUCH THE TEXTUUALIST TO THE SUPREME COURT?
You were gushing. You were giddy over 'owning the libs'. You were cheering Trump until you were hoarse. You were doing everything but saying 'Hey, wait a minute, this guy's a textualist, let's slow down here.'
Just as with Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Reagan), who spent a career writing decisions that protected LGBTQ individuals, it's never the failure of Republican presidents to appoint the right justices. It's never the fault of people like you who vote for those Republican presidents who can't figure out how to appoint the right justices.
You just throw tantrums and blame 'the libs' when you don't get your way.
Those whining and pouting about Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion are whining about pouting about the result - but they only have themselves to blame.
The decision is a sound manifestation of textualism. The text of the Civil Rights Act states that discrimination based on sex is unlawful. Firing a man for being attracted to and having sex with men when a woman would not be fired for those same attributes is by definition discrimination based on sex.
Now, maybe you're not a textualist. But Neil Gorsuch is. He has long been a vocal advocate of textualism. He spent more than a decade on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (to which he was appointed in 2006 by a Republican president and confirmed unanimously by a Republican Senate) establishing a resume of textualism.
So, you don't like textualism as a formalist theory of the interpretation of law? All right.
THEN WHERE WERE YOU IN 2017 WHEN TRUMP NOMINATED GORSUCH THE TEXTUUALIST TO THE SUPREME COURT?
You were gushing. You were giddy over 'owning the libs'. You were cheering Trump until you were hoarse. You were doing everything but saying 'Hey, wait a minute, this guy's a textualist, let's slow down here.'
Just as with Anthony Kennedy (appointed by Reagan), who spent a career writing decisions that protected LGBTQ individuals, it's never the failure of Republican presidents to appoint the right justices. It's never the fault of people like you who vote for those Republican presidents who can't figure out how to appoint the right justices.
You just throw tantrums and blame 'the libs' when you don't get your way.
And we're supposed to care?
I opposed Gorsuch, because he had a pro transgender case, where he basically made the same ridicules decision.
I absolutely support the LGBTQ community. Where I live there is a much higher percentage of them than where I lived in the states. You get to know them and be friends with them. They are your neighbors.
Quote:
That said there are questions that need to be answered. How much lost time is acceptable to facilitate a transgender's surgeries? Should the company Health care be on the hook for it?
For top surgery (a boob job, to put it simply) I'd say maybe a few days. For "bottom" surgery, probably about six weeks. Many insurance companies do cover transition.
Quote:
I think about the military specifically. You sign up for 4 years and you spend a large portion in medical or with medical restrictions.
Most trans people have no problems working. A trans person could easily be given a non combat role.
Quote:
Who pays for those operations?
The same folks who pay for other surgical procedures military personnel have.
Quote:
Should the military add specialists to their medical ranks just for Transgenders?
I would imagine there are already Endrocrinologists, and Gynecologists on staff. Also Urologists.
Quote:
The coast guard has 350 rescue swimmers around the world of which only 3 are women. Transgenders may be able to handle it, but I wonder.
I imagine most trans people can swim just as well as cis people. We float, too!
Quote:
There are many jobs where physical strength and endurance are a must. Should the military say ok, you want to change your body and now won't be able to do that job, we will invest 10's of thousands more dollars and more time in your 4 year enlistment? Remember as an average enlistee, you can't
just change your job at will.
These are the countries, whose militaries allow trans people to serve: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. They don't seem to have any problems. I don't think the leaders of those countries are any smarter than ours, if they can figure it out, why can't we?
I absolutely support the LGBTQ community. Where I live there is a much higher percentage of them than where I lived in the states. You get to know them and be friends with them. They are your neighbors.
That said there are questions that need to be answered. How much lost time is acceptable to facilitate a transgender's surgeries? Should the company Health care be on the hook for it?
I think about the military specifically. You sign up for 4 years and you spend a large portion in medical or with medical restrictions. Your unit is down that person and that person isn't replaced just because. Who pays for those operations? Should the military add specialists to their medical ranks just for Transgenders?
The coast guard has 350 rescue swimmers around the world of which only 3 are women. Transgenders may be able to handle it, but I wonder.
There are many jobs where physical strength and endurance are a must. Should the military say ok, you want to change your body and now won't be able to do that job, we will invest 10's of thousands more dollars and more time in your 4 year enlistment? Remember as an average enlistee, you can't
just change your job at will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekigurl
The same folks who pay for other surgical procedures military personnel have.
Indeed.
Quote:
The military spends more on giving retirees erections than on transgender troops
Quote:
The reports noted that the estimated $8 million per year that the Defense Department will spend on health care for about 7,000 transgender troops is minuscule compared to how much the military spends to treat sexual dysfunction in men.
Quote:
Military Times first reported in 2015 that the Defense Health Agency the year before spent $84.2 million on erectile dysfunction medications for active-duty troops, eligible family members and retirees.
If one's 'concern' is merely financial, shouldn't $8 million being spent on transgendered troops be far less 'concerning' that $80+ million being spent on boner pills for 77-year-old retired quartermasters?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
