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.
This thread is hilarious. At the end of the day it will trump, stephen miller and a half a dozen of you guys sitting in a bunker doing maga chants.
The same people who told Dems to "get over it" after the election now seem to have an awfully hard time "getting over it" after repeated political losses. Then again, thats what happens when you elect a lazy con man who has no interest in doing any kind of work
The same people who told Dems to "get over it" after the election now seem to have an awfully hard time "getting over it" after repeated political losses. Then again, thats what happens when you elect a lazy con man who has no interest in doing any kind of work
Again, Roberts wasn't a Trump appointee. Are you guys blind or something?
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,099,287 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter
Congress DID make the law in Title VII of the CRA and the SCOTUS rewrote the law.
It is Congress's prerogative to make or NOT make laws. Neither the Executive nor the SCOTUS is free to act and encroach on Congress's law making and appropriation powers.
Sorry buddy but to quote you "WRONG!" Title 7 of the CRA was not changed this week by SCOTUS try reading.
"In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with the fact of an individual's transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex.[67][68] In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration"
So it seems the court simply ruled based on existing law, "Scary, isn't it" .....
I think it's kinda funny that all the folks who rant and rave about the evil sex acts perpetrated by LGBTQ folks are now trying to insist that the word "sex" doesn't include sex acts.
I think it's kinda funny that all the folks who rant and rave about the evil sex acts perpetrated by LGBTQ folks are now trying to insist that the word "sex" doesn't include sex acts.
"Sex" clearly means male or female in the '64 Civil Rights as a protected identity class, not sex as in sexual behavior or lifestyle. That's ludicrous. If it meant homosexuals it would've listed homosexuals. The law was talking about protecting groups and classes of people not behaviors or lifestyles.
After looking at this a little closer I believe it was done to appease the left, maybe even to prevent them from more looting, rioting, and arson. That's how they get their way, like a bunch of infants crying and screaming -- only with violence.
This is what the liberal professors wanted, and they're getting it, but it has to be stopped or the country as we know it is done. The left, and specifically BLM cannot be allowed to dictate how people live with threats of violence if you disagree with their ugly motives and destructive methods.
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.
Must think HW was a flaming communist.
