Judge rules transgender people are protected, keeps hold on troop ban

[Bob Blaylock]

Nope, believing marriage is a male and female is quite clear in Christianity, not invented. The Scriptures are clear and precise that marriage is a male and female.

Not just Christianity. The same has held true in nearly every viable human society that has ever existed—even those that never heard of Christianity. Marriage is not so much about religion, as about basic biology. It takes a man and a woman to create and raise a child. Not two men. Not two women. A man and a woman.

It takes families, built on marriage between a man and a woman, to form the basis of a stable human society. No human society of any size ever has thrived, or ever will thrive, that was not built on that foundation. God created us this way; but regardless of what you believe about God, or even if you believe in God, the consequences of deviating from this structure remain the same.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You're never going to get it because you refuse to acknowledge that Christians have a Constitutional RIGHT to believe marriage is a male and female. Talk about closed minded.......

Holly shit! When did I ever say that they did not have that right. I said WHAT THEY DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO IS TO IMPOSE THEIR BELIEFS ON OTHERS OR TO DISCRIMINATE AGAIST [sic] THEM. It that really so hard for you to understand?

And yet you demand that morally-degenerate sexual perverts have a right to impose their sick beliefs on sane, decent people. You demand that faggopts have a right to impose their sick mockery of marriage on those who hold marriage sacred. You demand that “transgenders” have a right to impose their insane delusions on sane people.

Why do you support the right of evil and madness to be imposed on sane, decent people, but not for sanity and morality to be imposed on the insane and the immoral?

 

[jillian]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

no. they aren't. because protected classes PROTECT equal protection.

pissant

 

[BS Filter]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

no. they aren't. because protected classes PROTECT equal protection.

pissant

But they aren't equal if they're a protected class. This is a political move to garner votes.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

no. they aren't. because protected classes PROTECT equal protection.

pissant

14th Amendment, Sec. 1.

Nematode waste product.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They must prove it isnt prejudice?
Why do they keep people with recurring nightmares out of the military?
Transgenderism is a MENTAL ILLNESS. You deny reality to live in your own delusion.
Holy fucking SHIT

They used to consider homosexuality a "mental illness".

Heck, the term "hysterical" comes from notion that a woman's uterus made her irrational.

the only thing that makes transgender people "mentally ill" is that you don't like them.

Oh, by the way, I was in the military for 11 years, and never heard anyone asked if they had recurring nightmares. Which is good, because I kept having this one about it being final exam day, and I was in my underwear.

You were asked when you joined.

 

[JoeB131]

The WHO still does.
How is it not a mental illness? I am QUITE sure you know all about mental illnesses so maybe you can explain

Are they able to function in society?

Not a mental illness.

 

[JoeB131]

Unless normal decent people accept and encourage mentally deranged freaks and perverts, we're hateful bigots. Um, I don't think so.

50 years ago, people who wanted blacks to stay at the back of the bus thought they were "normal, decent" people.

 

[JoeB131]

You're never going to get it because you refuse to acknowledge that Christians have a Constitutional RIGHT to believe marriage is a male and female. Talk about closed minded.......

So when was the last time Chrisitans burned a witch like the bible says to?

Or stoned their daughters for having pre-marital sex?

 

[JoeB131]

Not just Christianity. The same has held true in nearly every viable human society that has ever existed—even those that never heard of Christianity. Marriage is not so much about religion, as about basic biology. It takes a man and a woman to create and raise a child. Not two men. Not two women. A man and a woman.

Except most of history, the woman in that arrangement was considered property, (and in some parts of the world, she still is) who had little say in who she married. A woman could be forced to marry her rapist in many societies.

Basic biology? Most animals just fuck their partners and leave. Except for black widow spiders, they eat their mates, but the males totally had it coming.

Only humans have this bizarre notion that you have to stick to the same partner. Other animals just fuck as many partners as they can so the strongest genetics win.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Except most of history, the woman in that arrangement was considered property, (and in some parts of the world, she still is) who had little say in who she married. A woman could be forced to marry her rapist in many societies.

Basic biology? Most animals just fuck their partners and leave. Except for black widow spiders, they eat their mates, but the males totally had it coming.

Only humans have this bizarre notion that you have to stick to the same partner. Other animals just fuck as many partners as they can so the strongest genetics win.

That's exceptionally ignorant, even for you. As it happens, there are many animals that mate for life. But that's not really relevant to humans.

Among humans, it turns out to be rather harmful, to those involved, and to society as a whole, for a man to sire children, and then not stick around to help protect and provide for those children and their mother.

 

[Silhouette]

Just thought I'd point out that there are no such thing as "transgender people". There are only regular males & females living in a delusional state. See military handbook on fitness to serve for details.

The courts keep making this mistake over & over & over. They keep wrongly assigning a separate identity to people based on on behaviors. Therefore, drug addict people & drunk driving people must have equal protection under the 14th Amendment. See how this doesn't work?

Behaviors are regulated by the majority. This nonsense should've stopped immediately after Lawrence v Texas where PRIVATE acts of sodomy were merely decriminalized. The public & the military are under no obligation to promote behaviors that don't fit with a smooth running unit.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They really don't. The exact same behavior will be legal, or illegal, based on the expression of bias. That is what's being targeted. I don't think this would be hard for you to admit, if you weren't trying to defend the constitutionality of the laws, if you were simply describing their purpose.

Wrong. You might want to look at post 250. A business must justify the refusal of service regardless of whether or not they expressed bias.

 

[dblack]

They really don't. The exact same behavior will be legal, or illegal, based on the expression of bias. That is what's being targeted. I don't think this would be hard for you to admit, if you weren't trying to defend the constitutionality of the laws, if you were simply describing their purpose.

Wrong. You might want to look at post 250. A business must justify the refusal of service regardless of whether or not they expressed bias.

LOL... I think it depends on the specific implementation of the law. But they can always offer a bogus reason. We don't yet have mind reading down.

In any case, you're still desperately running away from the point - the entire purpose of these laws is to suppress bigotry. They target certain unpopular biases for eradication from society. In most cases, I'm in agreement with eradicating the bigotry. I just think government is the wrong tool for the job, and granting it the power to dictate our personal values and decisions is even more dangerous than the bigotry in question.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Clearly the goal of these laws is to suppress unpopular bigotry. It's certainly not to ensure the everyone is treated equally. If that were the case there wouldn't be protected classes, there would just be a law that required that everyone treated everyone else equally.

More hogwash. Protected classes do in fact ensure the equal treatment of everyone. The various minorities are not protected to the exclusion of others. Discrimination is prohibited bases on race, gender, religion sexual orientation etc. Discrimination against a white, cisgender, Christian, heterosexual male is also prohibited. Protected class designation ensures that the minorities that actually need protection get it. To say that the law should simply required that everyone treated everyone else equally is overly broad and unenforceable

 

[dblack]

Clearly the goal of these laws is to suppress unpopular bigotry. It's certainly not to ensure the everyone is treated equally. If that were the case there wouldn't be protected classes, there would just be a law that required that everyone treated everyone else equally.

More hogwash. Protected classes do in fact ensure the equal treatment of everyone.

You're kidding yourself on that one. Lots of people are discriminated against for all kinds of reasons not covered by protected classes. Ugly people, stupid people, fat people, poor people, etc, etc, etc.... are discriminated against routinely. The sad fact of the matter is that these kinds of laws will really only ever "protect" minorities that don't need it, ie. minorities that have enough public support to add to the protected classes list in the first place. The real downtrodden minorities will never get that.

To say that the law should simply required that everyone treated everyone else equally is overly broad and unenforceable

I agree. So let's drop the pretense that that is the intent.

 

[BS Filter]

Unless normal decent people accept and encourage mentally deranged freaks and perverts, we're hateful bigots. Um, I don't think so.

50 years ago, people who wanted blacks to stay at the back of the bus thought they were "normal, decent" people.

Yep, some did, and they were wrong. That was a civil rights issue. This isn't. This is a cultural and moral issue. I understand the need for the left to keep deliberately intertwining the civil rights movement with the trannie fad. Not the same at all.

 

[BS Filter]

You're never going to get it because you refuse to acknowledge that Christians have a Constitutional RIGHT to believe marriage is a male and female. Talk about closed minded.......

So when was the last time Chrisitans burned a witch like the bible says to?

Or stoned their daughters for having pre-marital sex?

Name me one Christian church that burns witches or stones their children for sinning. You can't. You could find some muslims, though. Confused much?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They really don't. The exact same behavior will be legal, or illegal, based on the expression of bias. That is what's being targeted. I don't think this would be hard for you to admit, if you weren't trying to defend the constitutionality of the laws, if you were simply describing their purpose.

Wrong. You might want to look at post 250. A business must justify the refusal of service regardless of whether or not they expressed bias.

LOL... I think it depends on the specific implementation of the law. But they can always offer a bogus reason. We don't yet have mind reading down.

In any case, you're still desperately running away from the point - the entire purpose of these laws is to suppress bigotry. They target certain unpopular biases for eradication from society. In most cases, I'm in agreement with eradicating the bigotry. I just think government is the wrong tool for the job, and granting it the power to dictate our personal values and decisions is even more dangerous than the bigotry in question.

Straw Man logical fallacy. I never argued that the purpose of the law was not to eradicate bigotry, yet you assign that viewpoint to me. Additionally, I'm not so sure that you really do want to eradicate bigotry. If not left to government, then who ? The bigots? Your either being dishonest, or, at best your judgment is clouded by your fear of government.

 

[BS Filter]

They really don't. The exact same behavior will be legal, or illegal, based on the expression of bias. That is what's being targeted. I don't think this would be hard for you to admit, if you weren't trying to defend the constitutionality of the laws, if you were simply describing their purpose.

Wrong. You might want to look at post 250. A business must justify the refusal of service regardless of whether or not they expressed bias.

LOL... I think it depends on the specific implementation of the law. But they can always offer a bogus reason. We don't yet have mind reading down.

In any case, you're still desperately running away from the point - the entire purpose of these laws is to suppress bigotry. They target certain unpopular biases for eradication from society. In most cases, I'm in agreement with eradicating the bigotry. I just think government is the wrong tool for the job, and granting it the power to dictate our personal values and decisions is even more dangerous than the bigotry in question.

Straw Man logical fallacy. I never argued that the purpose of the law was not to eradicate bigotry, yet you assign that viewpoint to me. Additionally, I'm not so sure that you really do want to eradicate bigotry. If not left to government, then who ? The bigots? Your either being dishonest, or, at best your judgment is clouded by your fear of government.

Government is your nanny and enforcer. That's not the purpose of our Constitutional government. Rights of the people do not come from government. That's why Americans are having a cultural civil war, misuse of government by the left.