Excellent News: Trump Appointed Judge Rejects Biden Administration's LGBT Health Protections

[Stann]

Ever thought about going to the middle east for a roof top party with some Muslims?

The Middle East is dangerous for gays, any public display of affection between two males can land you in jail. However they are making progress besides Israel Lebanon, Oman, Bahrain and Jordan are somewhat reasonable about it. And everyone's making progress on LGBTQ rights. Tunisia in North Africa has allowed gay marriage since April of 2020. The others will follow but it will take a long time, especially giving all the other turmoil in the region.

 

[Stann]

Are you a homosexual supporter and their lifestyle?

There is no gay lifestyle just as there isn't a straight lifestyle. The subculture is as diverse as the main culture.

 

[Stann]

Yes we do!

Actually our laws are supposed to be based on ethics rather than morals because they do not change and they serve everyone equally. I'm surprised this judge is still a judge. Such bigotry and hatred is unheard of in honest judges.

 

[Stann]

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo ruled that a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2020 holding that a law barring workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees did not apply to the healthcare law.

Now read the last 7 words. Gays and trannies have nothing to do with healthcare. It isn't discrimination against anyone. Healthcare is a human thing, not a man and woman thing, or a straight or gay thing, not even a freakzoid tranny thing. Healthcare is about human beings. Tranny's and fags don't deserve any less or anymore than anyone else and shouldn't be protected above or below anyone else.

Workplace discrimination has absolutely nothing at all in any way, shape, or form to do with healthcare.

Might want to go get some ibuprofen for that muscle you pulled patting yourself on the back for championing your moral high ground based off not actually knowing what you're talking about.

This judge has a definite anti-gay agenda and other people seeking the same thing are seeking him out. They should all be prosecuted.

 

[Stann]

It should be overturned because it is discrimination against others.

This judge has a definite anti-day agenda and should be disbarred. He isn't fit to be a judge.

 

[Stann]

You damned right I'm for discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace and beyond. They spread disease and have a mental disorder. They're also pedophiles who prey upon children. That's why they want same sex marriage so they can adopt and sexually abuse children growing up.

You are very sick individual. Just look at the statistics. Gays are actually better parents because in all cases they choose to be pets it isn't thrust upon them by accident as it occurs with up to 40% of the heterosexual population.

 

[Captain Caveman]

You are celebrating a judge saying on the court record, that it is OK to discriminate in the workplace and in healthcare, against gay people and the transgender nut-balls?

What kind of person would be in favor of discrimination in healthcare or the work place? I am not gay and certainly not transgender, but he ought to leave these people alone. I have nothing against gay people, as long as not trying to be gay with me, and think the trans people have enough problems without a federal judge pronouncing it, OK to discriminate in healthcare and where they work. Discrimination gets a bad rap, because it is generally bad.

It's more to do with channelling resources in more useful areas of healthcare.

 

[Stann]

Based on what?

An agenda of prejudice and hatred

 

[Stann]

Can't you see the difference between (a) whether this would be a nice policy, and (b) whether the law actually says that?

What if a doctor or a clinic decided they would not treat anyone over 400 pounds? "If they let themselves get that fat, they have a death wish and we don't want to waste our time on them." Would it be a good idea to prohibit doctors from doing that? Maybe. But to take an existing law that is silent on the issue and "interpret it" to prohibit such discrimination is a step too far.

Discriminating on the basis of gender identity or homosexuality is probably a bad idea, but the law doesn't address it. If Congress wants to modify the law, they can do that. Otherwise, it is what it is.

Actually that's why rulings are appealed. No one person gets to decide other people's Fates without challenges.

 

[OKTexas]

And why was this action necessary ? Hatred and bigotry backed it.

What did you fail to understand about the law and supreme court precedent? Those are things judges are bound by, whether you like it or not.

.

 

[Stann]

What did you fail to understand about the law and supreme court precedent? Those are things judges are bound by, whether you like it or not.

.

Are you failed to recognize is only crummy people bring up these issues that attack gay people. Their is absolutely no good intent in filing this action.

 

[OKTexas]

This coming from a judge who defended the bakery that turned a great a gay couple during pride week, the judge who called transgender a delusion, called homosexuals disordered, is both an active anti-LGBTQ activist and is a religious hardliner. All this was mentioned in the references in the article. This judge clearly should have recused himself from many many cases involving anyone that's a little bit different than he is. He obviously has a lot of hatred and bigotry wrapped up in his religious beliefs.

See post #30, and learn the language commie, your shit is all over the map,

.

 

[OKTexas]

Are you failed to recognize is only crummy people bring up these issues that attack gay people. Their is absolutely no good intent in filing this action.

Poor little commie, are you a faghadist? You're getting your ass kicked and now you're trying to move the goal post. People have every right to file the action if someone is violating the law and supreme court precedent. You're not from around here, are ya boi?

.

 

[Billy000]

Can't you see the difference between (a) whether this would be a nice policy, and (b) whether the law actually says that?

What if a doctor or a clinic decided they would not treat anyone over 400 pounds? "If they let themselves get that fat, they have a death wish and we don't want to waste our time on them." Would it be a good idea to prohibit doctors from doing that? Maybe. But to take an existing law that is silent on the issue and "interpret it" to prohibit such discrimination is a step too far.

Discriminating on the basis of gender identity or homosexuality is probably a bad idea, but the law doesn't address it. If Congress wants to modify the law, they can do that. Otherwise, it is what it is.

Lol the law doesn’t address it?! Do you realize you could use this logic for anything you wanted?

 

[Stann]

What did you fail to understand about the law and supreme court precedent? Those are things judges are bound by, whether you like it or not.

.

But what you don't seem to understand is that these are deliberate actions taken to attack certain people. The law isn't supposed to work this way. At least not in a free and Democratic Nation.

 

[bodecea]

Another win for President Trump. Morality and Decency wins out over evil. About the judge.

Matthew Kacsmaryk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

[He has worked on religious liberty cases opposing certain LGBT protections in housing, employment and health care. He has referred to homosexuality as "disordered", and to being transgender as a "delusion" and a "mental disorder"]

U.S. judge rejects Biden administration's LGBT health protections

A federal judge in Texas ruled on Friday that President Joe Biden's administration had wrongly interpreted an Obamacare provision as barring health care providers from discriminating against gay and transgender people. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo ruled that a landmark U.S...

news.yahoo.com

Karma coming. Diseases don't stay put if you don't take care.

 

[OKTexas]

But what you don't seem to understand is that these are deliberate actions taken to attack certain people. The law isn't supposed to work this way. At least not in a free and Democratic Nation.

Laws are supposed to work the way legislators write them. Another concept you seem to have a problem grasping. It's not a courts job to fix legislation, it's the job of the legislature. So stop the whining and tell your congresscritters to do their damn job.

.

 

[Stann]

Karma coming. Diseases don't stay put if you don't take care.

New abortion law in Texas is going to allow the gene pool and the intelligence levels of the citizens of Texas to spiral downward. At the same time the health costs are going to increase drastically to try to take care of all these children that should have never been born in the first place. They're just too busy with their hatred and ignorance to realize what they're doing to themselves. This is simply another ill-conceived idea on their part. Most women are not equipped to handle down's syndrome children that's why 70% of the fetuses that this shows up in are aborted. Plus they don't allow for rape and incest that makes it even worse. In a very short time, just a few decades this will be quite evident in the populace of Texas. Like I said most women can't handle raising these children so they will end up being wards of the state. You have to pity state of Texas for what they are doing to themselves.

 

[Grumblenuts]

OK Texas

 

[Stann]

Laws are supposed to work the way legislators write them. Another concept you seem to have a problem grasping. It's not a courts job to fix legislation, it's the job of the legislature. So stop the whining and tell your congresscritters to do their damn job.

.

I'm sorry repressive abortion laws serve no one, especially not the people who create them. They are useless in a free Nation, they only exist in places like Russia and other repressive regimes.