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

[OKTexas]

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.

Now wait a damn minute, isn't this thread about faggots and trannies? Is there a reason you're acting like a ADD riddled 5 year old, jumping all over the place? Are you a manic bipolar or just a run of the mill meth head?

.

 

[Stann]

Now wait a damn minute, isn't this thread about faggots and trannies? Is there a reason you're acting like a ADD riddled 5 year old, jumping all over the place? Are you a manic bipolar or just a run of the mill meth head?

.

No I'm simply pointing out the Injustice of it all by using this and other examples. The minority view of Thomas and Scalia was used to subvert the law and they're not going to get away with it the people of this country understand what's going down and it's not good for anyone.

 

[otto105]

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.

.

Sure sure

 

[The Original Tree]

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.

The Mentally and Spiritually Ill do not deserve to have other people pay to have their genitals mutilated. No one is stopping them from obtaining Health Care.
So what is your problem?

 

[White 6]

The Mentally and Spiritually Ill do not deserve to have other people pay to have their genitals mutilated. No one is stopping them from obtaining Health Care.
So what is your problem?

I don't think we should be paying to have somebody surgically reassigned either. My problem was with the way the judge worded his ruling and how it was reported. Discrimination is discrimination Gay people, have nothing to do with it, and the degree and place of the discrimination against the nut-ball trannies, should not be extended to the workplace or other healthcare, just to "get" those people. Like I said, discrimination is almost always bad and wrong.

 

[OKTexas]

No I'm simply pointing out the Injustice of it all by using this and other examples. The minority view of Thomas and Scalia was used to subvert the law and they're not going to get away with it the people of this country understand what's going down and it's not good for anyone.

What the F are you talking about? How about providing specifics, with links.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Sure sure

Ok you condescending retard, tell me what I got wrong.

.

 

[iceberg]

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.

did you even read it? if you did, then you know this isn't what the court is saying. it is simply saying that:

"Instead, the law incorporated the bar against discrimination "on the basis of sex" in Title IX, a 50-year-old federal civil rights law that bars such discrimination in education programs."

they are already included. the court is saying it is NOT necessary to specify all the acronyms of the day into the order to know that ALL ARE INCLUDED.

from the article:

"The Obama administration introduced rules in 2016 that made clear that LGBT people would be protected under the healthcare discrimination provision."

so, why the grandstanding about not including people when they are simply saying they are already included and don't need a special call out?

 

[White 6]

did you even read it? if you did, then you know this isn't what the court is saying. it is simply saying that:

"Instead, the law incorporated the bar against discrimination "on the basis of sex" in Title IX, a 50-year-old federal civil rights law that bars such discrimination in education programs."

they are already included. the court is saying it is NOT necessary to specify all the acronyms of the day into the order to know that ALL ARE INCLUDED.

from the article:

"The Obama administration introduced rules in 2016 that made clear that LGBT people would be protected under the healthcare discrimination provision."

so, why the grandstanding about not including people when they are simply saying they are already included and don't need a special call out?

We read it differently. I read it as rolling it back, so these citizen tax payers are not protected.

 

[otto105]

Ok you condescending retard, tell me what I got wrong.

.

Does the Dobbs decision respect precedence?

 

[Stann]

The Mentally and Spiritually Ill do not deserve to have other people pay to have their genitals mutilated. No one is stopping them from obtaining Health Care.
So what is your problem?

I do not like it when our courts are used to enshrine hatred and bigotry, no one should. And to use a faulty Supreme Court decision to do so is especially egregious.

 

[easyt65]

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

Another loss for the party that doesn't know what bathroom to use, doesn't know what a woman is, think a biological male can give birth, believe cognitively impaired candidates are the best they have to offer, and who want to ignore the Constitution IOT give $400 billion of your tax dollars to a small number of Americans who don't want to pay off the college debt they willingly signed up for.

 

[easyt65]

Does the Dobbs decision respect precedence?

Was the Dobbs decision Constitutional?

 

[OKTexas]

I don't think we should be paying to have somebody surgically reassigned either. My problem was with the way the judge worded his ruling and how it was reported. Discrimination is discrimination Gay people, have nothing to do with it, and the degree and place of the discrimination against the nut-ball trannies, should not be extended to the workplace or other healthcare, just to "get" those people. Like I said, discrimination is almost always bad and wrong.

So is it discrimination if insurances don't cover other elective procedures, like boob jobs, nose jobs, tummy tucks, botox etc.? The fact is people are trying to bastardize what "healthcare" has always meant, to care for your physical health.

.

 

[The Original Tree]

I do not like it when our courts are used to enshrine hatred and bigotry, no one should. And to use a faulty Supreme Court decision to do so is especially egregious.

Telling the mentally ill and spiritually corrupt that The Courts aren't going to make other taxpayers, or policy holders pay for Genital Mutilation or Puberty Blockers is not hatred and bigotry. They will pay for counseling though. Get help if you are confused about what sex you are and don't know what bathroom to use. And stay out of your mother's closet, and quit raiding her wardrobe.

 

[iceberg]

We read it differently. I read it as rolling it back, so these citizen tax payers are not protected.

of course you do. the issue to me is that unless this segment is specifically called out, they cry discrimination. the ONLY solution is to add all their acronyms into the mix and demand that.

then do we need to do this for all different segments of people? when we say "all are covered regardless of sex" - why do we have to also say "this includes LGBT-whatever".

this segment keeps demanding to be identified on their own, but yet takes offense when you address them as a segment, not a part of the whole. it can only be one or the other.

i simply do not believe we need to cover every lifestyle out there to show that ALL PEOPLE are in fact included in this.

as it should be. now keep in mind that because i don't believe we need to call them out doesn't mean i feel they should not be included. i simply feel "all people" means all of us.

 

[OKTexas]

Does the Dobbs decision respect precedence?

Yeah, it does. It goes to the Supreme Law of the Land, AKA the US Constitution. The Constitution is the original precedent.

.

 

[Stann]

Was the Dobbs decision Constitutional?

Technically yes, actually no.

 

[OKTexas]

Technically yes, actually no.

Wow, that's a feat not many could pull off, contradict themselves in 5 words.

.

 

[Stann]

Wow, that's a feat not many could pull off, contradict themselves in 5 words.

.

That's why the supreme Court ratings are so low they have lost their legitimacy. Three new supreme Court justices committed perjury in their pathway to the supreme Court lying under oath once on the supreme Court they align themselves with the minority view of Scalia and Thomas that the constitution is a limited. That's why the ruling is incorrect. If the Constitution was limited then there would be no need for all the amendments that were done to it. It is a living document and it's life does not need to be terminated by such a ruling.