Supremes: LGBTQ Landmark Decision

[schuylaar]

We The People -1
Trumpy* - 0


On Friday, the Trump administration finalized a regulation permitting health providers to discriminate against LGBTQ patients. Three days later, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which casts the legality of this regulation into serious doubt.

The Supreme Court’s new decision could sink Trump’s anti-LGBTQ agenda

Bostock v. Clayton County is a potentially transformative victory for LGBTQ rights.

www.vox.com

 

[Rob Roy]

I discriminate between grocery stores. One has all those stupid directional arrows taped on the floor, and fear mask signs and fear mask sheep all over the place and another has far fewer fear masked people. I think being able to discriminate my choices makes me respect others right to make their individual choices too, even when their choices are idiotic and self contradicting.

If a gay person was having trouble getting insurance, that presents a great opportunity for an entrepreneurial type to offer insurance to gay people. A free market can provide a solution.

Government mandates are never real solutions, since they require the use of offensive force right from the beginning, rather than consensual and peaceful measures. Always being told who you can and cannot associate with or do business with is a clear sign that your "public servants" are really your masters.

 

[schuylaar]

I discriminate between grocery stores. One has all those stupid directional arrows taped on the floor, and fear mask signs and fear mask sheep all over the place and another has far fewer fear masked people. I think being able to discriminate my choices makes me respect others right to make their individual choices too, even when their choices are idiotic and self contradicting.

If a gay person was having trouble getting insurance, that presents a great opportunity for an entrepreneurial type to offer insurance to gay people. A free market can provide a solution.

Government mandates are never real solutions, since they require the use of offensive force right from the beginning, rather than consensual and peaceful measures. Always being told who you can and cannot associate with or do business with is a clear sign that your "public servants" are really your masters.

insurance isn't the issue- their right to work was..the decision landmark because 6-3..do the math Trumpy* can't.

 

[Rob Roy]

insurance isn't the issue- their right to work was..the decision landmark because 6-3..do the math Trumpy* can't.

Gay people certainly have a right to work if somebody willingly hires them. Gay people certainly have a right to associate with others that wish to associate with them, just like everyone else. Gay people don't have a right to force somebody to associate with them, nobody does and that's kind of creepy and rapey to do that anyway.

What if a guy in a bigfoot suit whined about "discrimination" if an employer refused to let him wear a bigfoot suit at work? Or had protesty parades featuring people who's inner bigfoot wanted government to force companies to have bathrooms that are bigfoot friendly? Try using a regular urinal when you're ummm, "massive" and 8 feet tall.

 

[hanimmal]

Gay people certainly have a right to work if somebody willingly hires them. Gay people certainly have a right to associate with others that wish to associate with them, just like everyone else. Gay people don't have a right to force somebody to associate with them, nobody does and that's kind of creepy and rapey to do that anyway.

What if a guy in a bigfoot suit whined about "discrimination" if an employer refused to let him wear a bigfoot suit at work? Or had protesty parades featuring people who's inner bigfoot wanted government to force companies to have bathrooms that are bigfoot friendly? Try using a regular urinal when you're ummm, "massive" and 8 feet tall.

If someone joins a baseball team on their off time and their boss takes offense because it is a gay team and fires that person, it is discrimination and it is now illegal. That boss could still decide to fire that person, but it doesn't mean that there would not be a cost associated with it in the form of legal fees and likely settlement. Nobody is taking your free will away.

 

[UncleBuck]

In case anyone is wondering, the bigots own son is gay

His family hates him as much as we do

 

[Unclebaldrick]

The song "My Girl Bill" has not aged well.

 

[schuylaar]

Gay people certainly have a right to work if somebody willingly hires them. Gay people certainly have a right to associate with others that wish to associate with them, just like everyone else. Gay people don't have a right to force somebody to associate with them, nobody does and that's kind of creepy and rapey to do that anyway.

What if a guy in a bigfoot suit whined about "discrimination" if an employer refused to let him wear a bigfoot suit at work? Or had protesty parades featuring people who's inner bigfoot wanted government to force companies to have bathrooms that are bigfoot friendly? Try using a regular urinal when you're ummm, "massive" and 8 feet tall.

what do you mean by 'willingly'? careful, your racism is showing.

so you're comparing someone's sexual orientation (nothing they chose but I bet your one of those who thinks they can be re-programmed) to someone's dress code?

strawman in the worst way..see schuylaar signature quote same stinkin' thinkin' lizard brain mindset..

10 Tips to Manage Stinking Thinking

Common cognitive distortions, such as overgeneralization, can influence how you feel. But there are strategies to help you manage "stinking thinking".

psychcentral.com

 

[dandyrandy]

Rob can't help it. He a Bigfoot.

 

[schuylaar]

Rob can't help it. He a Bigfoot.

but his own son?..i guess the defect in this one was Rob's sperm.

 

[CunningCanuk]

 

[CunningCanuk]

What if a guy in a bigfoot suit whined about "discrimination" if an employer refused to let him wear a bigfoot suit at work? Or had protesty parades featuring people who's inner bigfoot wanted government to force companies to have bathrooms that are bigfoot friendly? Try using a regular urinal when you're ummm, "massive" and 8 feet tall.

Very lame comparison Bob.

Swing and a miss!

 

[Budley Doright]

Rob can't help it. He a Bigfoot.

Rob can’t help it he’s ____________. This would be a fun thread lol.

 

[schuylaar]

Rob can’t help it he’s ____________. This would be a fun thread lol.

got defective sperm.

you're born gay..so the issue lies in the batter.

 

[Rob Roy]

what do you mean by 'willingly'? careful, your racism is showing.

so you're comparing someone's sexual orientation (nothing they chose but I bet your one of those who thinks they can be re-programmed) to someone's dress code?

strawman in the worst way..see schuylaar signature quote same stinkin' thinkin' lizard brain mindset..

10 Tips to Manage Stinking Thinking

Common cognitive distortions, such as overgeneralization, can influence how you feel. But there are strategies to help you manage "stinking thinking".

psychcentral.com

I'm afraid you've made an error in presenting my belief and argument, I'm sure it was unintentional on your part.

No, I am not strawmanning, but you might be. I'm comparing freedom to associate or disassociate for every person and describing how the freedom part works.

If all people are equal, that equality is based in the equal right of SELF DETERMINATION.

Every person, regardless of their race or sexual orientation should have the right to associate with others who wish to associate with them. No person or persons have the right to force an unwilling person or persons to associate with them, especially when the person being forced to associate is remaining on their own property. You do believe your property is yours to determine the use of, right?

Why a person doesn't want to associate with somebody may be interesting, but ultimately the choice to associate must be either mutually consensual , VOLUNTARY, (peaceful) or nonconsensual, INVOLUNTARY (not peaceful) .

 

[Rob Roy]

If someone joins a baseball team on their off time and their boss takes offense because it is a gay team and fires that person, it is discrimination and it is now illegal. That boss could still decide to fire that person, but it doesn't mean that there would not be a cost associated with it in the form of legal fees and likely settlement. Nobody is taking your free will away.

So, you believe that OTHER PEOPLE should decide who you MUST associate with and on which terms ?

How is that consistent with the equality of SELF determination that every person should have?

 

[howellman howell]

I'm afraid you've made an error in presenting my belief and argument, I'm sure it was unintentional on your part.

No, I am not strawmanning, but you might be. I'm comparing freedom to associate or disassociate for every person and describing how the freedom part works.

If all people are equal, that equality is based in the equal right of SELF DETERMINATION.

Every person, regardless of their race or sexual orientation should have the right to associate with others who wish to associate with them. No person or persons have the right to force an unwilling person or persons to associate with them, especially when the person being forced to associate is remaining on their own property. You do believe your property is yours to determine the use of, right?

Why a person doesn't want to associate with somebody may be interesting, but ultimately the choice to associate must be either mutually consensual , VOLUNTARY, (peaceful) or nonconsensual, INVOLUNTARY (not peaceful) .

Apparenrtly according to the constitution.... you are wrong.

 

[Rob Roy]

Apparenrtly according to the constitution.... you are wrong.

Please elaborate. I'd hate to continue being wrong.

 

[howellman howell]

This was inevitable after the fourteenth amendment was passed. All persons have equal rights and due process. It continued with Brown v board of education of topeka ks. You do not have to associate with anyone, but you may have to hire them.

 

[schuylaar]

I'm afraid you've made an error in presenting my belief and argument, I'm sure it was unintentional on your part.

No, I am not strawmanning, but you might be. I'm comparing freedom to associate or disassociate for every person and describing how the freedom part works.

If all people are equal, that equality is based in the equal right of SELF DETERMINATION.

Every person, regardless of their race or sexual orientation should have the right to associate with others who wish to associate with them. No person or persons have the right to force an unwilling person or persons to associate with them, especially when the person being forced to associate is remaining on their own property. You do believe your property is yours to determine the use of, right?

Why a person doesn't want to associate with somebody may be interesting, but ultimately the choice to associate must be either mutually consensual , VOLUNTARY, (peaceful) or nonconsensual, INVOLUNTARY (not peaceful) .

apparently the Supremes disagreed with your assessment.

Supreme Court: CONSENT NOT REQUIRED