Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Right. You are clueless about Civil Rights laws and decide to pretend you are not.No, it is the law. That you choose to comment on things beyond your understanding is your problem."no practicing Christian may, under threat of eternal damnation, assist the spread of a homosexual cultural movement" Go find that in the bible, you lying sack of shit.
Hmmm.
Is that more of your understanding of the law?
Too funny.
It seems I've discovered another nut here. You are free to go.
All right, I will educate you.Right. You are clueless about Civil Rights laws and decide to pretend you are not.No, it is the law. That you choose to comment on things beyond your understanding is your problem."no practicing Christian may, under threat of eternal damnation, assist the spread of a homosexual cultural movement" Go find that in the bible, you lying sack of shit.
Hmmm.
Is that more of your understanding of the law?
Too funny.
It seems I've discovered another nut here. You are free to go.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has heavily influenced the way that courts determine the protected groups under discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in educational facilities and public workplaces. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a person may not be discriminated against due to the following:
- Age
- Pregnancy
- National Origin
- Race
- Ethnic Background
- Religious Beliefs
- Sexual Orientation
We are not in a court and your claim makes no sense. Mine does.
How about this, most Christians reject the suggestion that gay people should not be treated equally with straight people.
Most Christians support marriage equality.
All right, I will educate you.Right. You are clueless about Civil Rights laws and decide to pretend you are not.No, it is the law. That you choose to comment on things beyond your understanding is your problem."no practicing Christian may, under threat of eternal damnation, assist the spread of a homosexual cultural movement" Go find that in the bible, you lying sack of shit.
Hmmm.
Is that more of your understanding of the law?
Too funny.
It seems I've discovered another nut here. You are free to go.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has heavily influenced the way that courts determine the protected groups under discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in educational facilities and public workplaces. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a person may not be discriminated against due to the following:
- Age
- Pregnancy
- National Origin
- Race
- Ethnic Background
- Religious Beliefs
- Sexual Orientation
What many seem to support is equality of benefits. However, sympathy toward the recognition of constitutional rights (id est: equality before the law/due process) does not translate into an acceptance of particular lifestyles. A certain tolerance may be expected under the law, but any attempt to force acceptance on religious beliefs and practices (such as forced participation) is unconstitutional under the 1st, and will result only in backlash if pressed.
What many seem to support is equality of benefits. However, sympathy toward the recognition of constitutional rights (id est: equality before the law/due process) does not translate into an acceptance of particular lifestyles. A certain tolerance may be expected under the law, but any attempt to force acceptance on religious beliefs and practices (such as forced participation) is unconstitutional under the 1st, and will result only in backlash if pressed.
That was EXACTLY the logic that the US Supreme Court used in the language of their Lawrence v Texas Opinion. They said, "look, just because we're decriminalizing sodomy in the privacy of one's home, doesn't mean we are giving it the green light in the public venue. It just means we are tired of trying to police people's bedrooms".
Then surely you can understand why Michigan just passed its law saying adoption agents can opt-out of adopting kids to applicants who are sodomites. Thank you. We agree, finally.Sodomy in a public venue is illegal regardless of the sexes involved.
No, dipshit, from the EEOC website. And the "protected" groups are people a particular race, white or black; of any national origin, of any religion, of any ethnic background, or any religion. You are in a protected group. That is the part you are too dumb to understand with your claim of "special rights".All right, I will educate you.Right. You are clueless about Civil Rights laws and decide to pretend you are not.No, it is the law. That you choose to comment on things beyond your understanding is your problem.Hmmm.
Is that more of your understanding of the law?
Too funny.
It seems I've discovered another nut here. You are free to go.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has heavily influenced the way that courts determine the protected groups under discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in educational facilities and public workplaces. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a person may not be discriminated against due to the following:
- Age
- Pregnancy
- National Origin
- Race
- Ethnic Background
- Religious Beliefs
- Sexual Orientation
Right out of attorneys.com. Been there. Very good.
So we see. Protected groups. Thank you.
A law that is unconstitutional and will deemed such as soon as it gets in front of a Federal Judge. Are you aware of the definition of sodomy:Then surely you can understand why Michigan just passed its law saying adoption agents can opt-out of adopting kids to applicants who are sodomites. Thank you. We agree, finally.Sodomy in a public venue is illegal regardless of the sexes involved.
So, if religion is a choice and being gay is a choice, why are they both not protected?The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has heavily influenced the way that courts determine the protected groups under discrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination in educational facilities and public workplaces. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a person may not be discriminated against due to the following:
- Age
- Pregnancy
- National Origin
- Race
- Ethnic Background
- Religious Beliefs
- Sexual Orientation
Sexual orientation was never mentioned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Age is not a choice. Pregnancy isn't a behavior, it's a state of being. National origin isn't a choice. Race isn't a choice. Ethnic Background isn't a choice. Religious beliefs ARE a choice and the only exception to a static state. Sexual orientation, like drug addiction or an eating orientation like bulimia are other animals altogether. Since their origins lie in mental illness and inabilities to deal with reality on its terms, we'd do well to treat them as "not discriminating against those with disabilities".
Fair enough. But at the same time as we provide a wheelchair ramp for the crippled, we don't insist that being crippled is "normal, healthy and fine" and encourage children to become crippled as well so they can be part of the new vogue. We need to treat that last one very very carefully when being urged to give it legal loopholes.
Then surely you can understand why Michigan just passed its law saying adoption agents can opt-out of adopting kids to applicants who are sodomites. Thank you. We agree, finally.Sodomy in a public venue is illegal regardless of the sexes involved.
No, dipshit
from the EEOC website.
And the "protected" groups are people a particular race, white or black; of any national origin, of any religion, of any ethnic background, or any religion. You are in a protected group. That is the part you are too dumb to understand with your claim of "special rights".
"Then surely you can understand why Michigan just passed its law saying adoption agents can opt-out of adopting kids to applicants who are sodomites. Thank you. We agree, finally." That is not what they passed. They said that purely religious organizations that offer adoption services can opt out of placing children with gay couples. That would not be a problem except for the fact that they use public funds to provide those services so the gay couple whose taxes pay for the adoption service will be denied services they pay for. Will not last long enough for the ink to dry on that bigoted governor's signature.Then surely you can understand why Michigan just passed its law saying adoption agents can opt-out of adopting kids to applicants who are sodomites. Thank you. We agree, finally.Sodomy in a public venue is illegal regardless of the sexes involved.
Explaining things to stupid people is really frustrating. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of those distinctions. Pretty simple. Race is the protected class, not the black race. So, no particular groups are given "special protection" as you seem to think. We are all protected from discrimination based on those characteristics.No, dipshit
BZZZT! You lose.
from the EEOC website.
Same chunk at attorneys.com. Shrug
And the "protected" groups are people a particular race, white or black; of any national origin, of any religion, of any ethnic background, or any religion. You are in a protected group. That is the part you are too dumb to understand with your claim of "special rights".
Interesting. So, back to my previous question -
If the "protected groups" contain everyone, why is it necessary to have "protected groups"?
Explaining things to stupid people is really frustrating.
What special protections? Like not having to pay taxes?What the future of the LGBTQ movement holds Portland Pride 2015 OregonLive.com
Debra Porta, president of Pride Northwest – the nonprofit that organized this weekend's Portland Pride festivities – said the LGBTQ movement has a very strong future ahead, but it hinges on the community all sticking together...."Gay" became LGB to recognize lesbians and bisexuals. It grew into LGBT with the addition of the trans community, then to LGBTQ with those who identify as queer or questioning. Some intersex people have even pushed for an extension to LGBTIQ....It's a mouthful, to say the least....The "alphabet soup" as some in the community call it, is consistently under discussion, Porta said, leading to alternative catchall terms for the diverse group. Some have suggested GSRM – Gender, Sexual and Romantic Minorities – or the increasingly popular description "gender non-conforming."...The word "queer" has gained a lot of steam lately, but older people in the movement bristle at a word that was once thrown so commonly as a slur...."The phrasing that someone chooses to use is very sort of individual, and a lot of it is very generational," Porta said.
So a shifting sexual deviant group that morphs within the individual and the group and morphs through time as well, wants special class recognition and protections.
This presents a problem. In order to identify a person who is deserving of a special class distinction, that person himself needs to recognize what he or she or it or ?? is first. And once recognized, that person can't change away from that static status day to day or year to year. That would be a legal nightmare to nail down and apply in actual courtrooms. You could literally make up any type of deviant behavior you like and include it under this shifting rainbow umbrella. One year you could sue someone for not recognizing you as a woman. The next year, for not recognizing you as a man when you switched back.
I like the soup analogy better than an umbrella though. Trying to nail down what exactly an 'LGBT...??' person is is like trying to eat soup with a fork. Have fun parsing out all the lawsuits in the future!
Exactly. Which race can be discriminated against and which cannot?Explaining things to stupid people is really frustrating.
No kidding. Again, the question -
If the "protected groups" contain everyone, why is it necessary to have "protected groups"?
Exactly. Which race can be discriminated against and which cannot?Explaining things to stupid people is really frustrating.
No kidding. Again, the question -
If the "protected groups" contain everyone, why is it necessary to have "protected groups"?
And when will LGBT get their tax-exempt status so the 14th can actually apply to their non-static, shifting and little understood characteristics? (besides just being adamant about rebellious sexual behavior and delusional gender identity issues)
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 14th Amendment Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
