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

[JoeB131]

Lol.... hate to break it to you s0n but a vast majority of the population thinks these people are mental cases.

Do you have polls to back that up?

Didn't think so.

 

[Political Junky]

Lol.... hate to break it to you s0n but a vast majority of the population thinks these people are mental cases.

Do you have polls to back that up?

Didn't think so.

Of course not, but he might be a mental case himself.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

What do you mean you are not ready for PT?

Now I'm ready Sarge!

 

[Zoom-boing]

Stop projecting, Sally.

My remark was nothing more or less than a valid than an accurate application of your logic. If there was any projection involved, it was inherent in your logic.

Your remark was nothing more than you projecting your inane shit onto me, expecting me to what ... argue from that? Typical leftist m.o. Period. smh

Whut? You're the one who wanted to belittle an entire group because you found one member of that group who was nuts. I was just seeing if your blanket judgments applied to all groups, or just the ones you don't like.

^ more projection.

People who believe they are a different gender, or species, or should have a limb removed, or are anorexic, etc suffer from a form of body and/or gender dysphoria. They need compassion, professional mental help, support. But your ilk cheers them on, tells them mutilating their bodies by lopping off bits, adding bits, and injecting hormones of the opposite sex for the rest of their lives is 'normal', and call those who don't lock/step with that insanity the cruel ones.

<blink, blink>

So you think accepting someone as they are is more cruel than belittling and degrading them. How Trumpian of you..

What I actually said:

They need compassion, professional mental help, support

What you project (I told you it was a leftist m.o. folks and this dimwit has consistently proven me right. How do leftists remember to breathe on their own??):

belittling and degrading them


Leftists believe that helping people with their mental illness = belittling and degrading

You. Fucking. Git.

 

[Lysistrata]

Which of the characteristics I listed above don't you have? The "designated" classes are those I listed. There is no such thing as a "non-member" in general.

I am an American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage. Definitely NOT a protected class.

You are protected as to every characteristic you mentioned, except for being heterosexual, as sexual orientation has not been added to federal law, so a suit for discrimination on that basis would depend on the state law in your state. You can base a discrimination claim on one characteristic or on any other combination of characteristics in your description of yourself. I think your mistake is in thinking of "a" protected class. You are a member of several.

Unfortunately, in some circles these days, there is a tendency to blame "discrimination" any time somebody doesn't get what s/he wants. Remember that there is an order of proof that must be met to prove that unlawful discrimination was the actual motivation of the accused. Example: the fact that a single woman of Asian heritage got the job you wanted doesn't prove that discrimination played a part in the hiring decision. She may simply have superior qualifications and did better on the test and the interview.

A suit for discrimination concerning access to private sector public accommodations is state and local jurisdiction dependent, but that’s not the case with regard to public sector/government discrimination, which is what this thread topic is about.

As a fact of Constitutional law government may not seek to disadvantage citizens through force of law because of choices those citizens have made concerning their personal, private lives, such as gender identification.

And the ridiculous notion that there is a tendency to claim discrimination when someone doesn’t get what he wants is an inane, tedious rightwing canard.

I'm afraid that I was not clear in my reference to a tendency to claim discrimination. Billy's assertion that he, as an "American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage," was not in a class protected by our civil rights laws suggested to me that he might be a member of this group of white guys who are running around claiming that guys who fit his description are the most discriminated-against group of people in the U.S. today, who seem to have a feeling that their combination of characteristics somehow entitles them to win every time, and if they don't, it must be due to discrimination. What is ironic is that many of these guys mock other people for "playing victim," and then go out and play victim themselves.

I have never been discriminated against to my knowledge. My self-description merely tics off the various categories considered dispensable by the Left.

I have been responding to your assertion that not everyone is in a class entitled to legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, which is absolutely untrue from a legal standpoint. Now you are switching to politics. I don't know who you think "the Left" is, as the term is commonly used as a designation for anyone who does not agree with right-wing ideologies, which could be anybody. However, there are many people fitting your precise description of yourself who think differently than you do. Why would anyone be considered "dispensable?"

 

[BS Filter]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Since when? the concept covers everyone and his or her immutable characteristics. Doesn't everyone have a biological sex, age, race, ethnic background, and although it is just now being recognized, a sexual orientation. The only covered characteristic that one is not born with is religion, which is chosen and changeable at will.

Protected class is purely a leftist political invention designed for votes. You know that.

 

[BS Filter]

I am an American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage. Definitely NOT a protected class.

You are protected as to every characteristic you mentioned, except for being heterosexual, as sexual orientation has not been added to federal law, so a suit for discrimination on that basis would depend on the state law in your state. You can base a discrimination claim on one characteristic or on any other combination of characteristics in your description of yourself. I think your mistake is in thinking of "a" protected class. You are a member of several.

Unfortunately, in some circles these days, there is a tendency to blame "discrimination" any time somebody doesn't get what s/he wants. Remember that there is an order of proof that must be met to prove that unlawful discrimination was the actual motivation of the accused. Example: the fact that a single woman of Asian heritage got the job you wanted doesn't prove that discrimination played a part in the hiring decision. She may simply have superior qualifications and did better on the test and the interview.

A suit for discrimination concerning access to private sector public accommodations is state and local jurisdiction dependent, but that’s not the case with regard to public sector/government discrimination, which is what this thread topic is about.

As a fact of Constitutional law government may not seek to disadvantage citizens through force of law because of choices those citizens have made concerning their personal, private lives, such as gender identification.

And the ridiculous notion that there is a tendency to claim discrimination when someone doesn’t get what he wants is an inane, tedious rightwing canard.

I'm afraid that I was not clear in my reference to a tendency to claim discrimination. Billy's assertion that he, as an "American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage," was not in a class protected by our civil rights laws suggested to me that he might be a member of this group of white guys who are running around claiming that guys who fit his description are the most discriminated-against group of people in the U.S. today, who seem to have a feeling that their combination of characteristics somehow entitles them to win every time, and if they don't, it must be due to discrimination. What is ironic is that many of these guys mock other people for "playing victim," and then go out and play victim themselves.

I have never been discriminated against to my knowledge. My self-description merely tics off the various categories considered dispensable by the Left.

I have been responding to your assertion that not everyone is in a class entitled to legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, which is absolutely untrue from a legal standpoint. Now you are switching to politics. I don't know who you think "the Left" is, as the term is commonly used as a designation for anyone who does not agree with right-wing ideologies, which could be anybody. However, there are many people fitting your precise description of yourself who think differently than you do. Why would anyone be considered "dispensable?"

Are you really going to deny the left protects muslims and attacks Christians?

 

[BULLDOG]

You are protected as to every characteristic you mentioned, except for being heterosexual, as sexual orientation has not been added to federal law, so a suit for discrimination on that basis would depend on the state law in your state. You can base a discrimination claim on one characteristic or on any other combination of characteristics in your description of yourself. I think your mistake is in thinking of "a" protected class. You are a member of several.

Unfortunately, in some circles these days, there is a tendency to blame "discrimination" any time somebody doesn't get what s/he wants. Remember that there is an order of proof that must be met to prove that unlawful discrimination was the actual motivation of the accused. Example: the fact that a single woman of Asian heritage got the job you wanted doesn't prove that discrimination played a part in the hiring decision. She may simply have superior qualifications and did better on the test and the interview.

A suit for discrimination concerning access to private sector public accommodations is state and local jurisdiction dependent, but that’s not the case with regard to public sector/government discrimination, which is what this thread topic is about.

As a fact of Constitutional law government may not seek to disadvantage citizens through force of law because of choices those citizens have made concerning their personal, private lives, such as gender identification.

And the ridiculous notion that there is a tendency to claim discrimination when someone doesn’t get what he wants is an inane, tedious rightwing canard.

I'm afraid that I was not clear in my reference to a tendency to claim discrimination. Billy's assertion that he, as an "American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage," was not in a class protected by our civil rights laws suggested to me that he might be a member of this group of white guys who are running around claiming that guys who fit his description are the most discriminated-against group of people in the U.S. today, who seem to have a feeling that their combination of characteristics somehow entitles them to win every time, and if they don't, it must be due to discrimination. What is ironic is that many of these guys mock other people for "playing victim," and then go out and play victim themselves.

I have never been discriminated against to my knowledge. My self-description merely tics off the various categories considered dispensable by the Left.

I have been responding to your assertion that not everyone is in a class entitled to legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, which is absolutely untrue from a legal standpoint. Now you are switching to politics. I don't know who you think "the Left" is, as the term is commonly used as a designation for anyone who does not agree with right-wing ideologies, which could be anybody. However, there are many people fitting your precise description of yourself who think differently than you do. Why would anyone be considered "dispensable?"

Are you really going to deny the left protects muslims and attacks Christians?

Pretty broad statement there, don't you think? I'm on the left, and I do my best to protect innocent Muslims who are the victims of racist Alt-Right Nazis. I will also oppose people who claim Christianity as an excuse to deny basic human rights to anyone who doesn't look, act, and believe exactly like them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Brilliant! Care to elaborate on that ?

 

[danielpalos]

Good news.

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

A federal judge in Washington ordered Friday that a halt to President Trump's transgender troop ban remain in place, saying that the government must prove its order "was sincerely motivated by compelling interests, rather than by prejudice or stereotype."

Why it matters: In addition to keeping its injunction in place, the judge overseeing the case said that transgender people represent a "protected class" and, as such, that President Trump's ban will have to meet the legal standard known as "strict scrutiny."

It Matters, Because we have a Second Amendment. The People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I am an American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage. Definitely NOT a protected class.

You are protected as to every characteristic you mentioned, except for being heterosexual, as sexual orientation has not been added to federal law, so a suit for discrimination on that basis would depend on the state law in your state. You can base a discrimination claim on one characteristic or on any other combination of characteristics in your description of yourself. I think your mistake is in thinking of "a" protected class. You are a member of several.

Unfortunately, in some circles these days, there is a tendency to blame "discrimination" any time somebody doesn't get what s/he wants. Remember that there is an order of proof that must be met to prove that unlawful discrimination was the actual motivation of the accused. Example: the fact that a single woman of Asian heritage got the job you wanted doesn't prove that discrimination played a part in the hiring decision. She may simply have superior qualifications and did better on the test and the interview.

A suit for discrimination concerning access to private sector public accommodations is state and local jurisdiction dependent, but that’s not the case with regard to public sector/government discrimination, which is what this thread topic is about.

As a fact of Constitutional law government may not seek to disadvantage citizens through force of law because of choices those citizens have made concerning their personal, private lives, such as gender identification.

And the ridiculous notion that there is a tendency to claim discrimination when someone doesn’t get what he wants is an inane, tedious rightwing canard.

I'm afraid that I was not clear in my reference to a tendency to claim discrimination. Billy's assertion that he, as an "American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage," was not in a class protected by our civil rights laws suggested to me that he might be a member of this group of white guys who are running around claiming that guys who fit his description are the most discriminated-against group of people in the U.S. today, who seem to have a feeling that their combination of characteristics somehow entitles them to win every time, and if they don't, it must be due to discrimination. What is ironic is that many of these guys mock other people for "playing victim," and then go out and play victim themselves.

I have never been discriminated against to my knowledge. My self-description merely tics off the various categories considered dispensable by the Left.

I have been responding to your assertion that not everyone is in a class entitled to legal protection under the U.S. Constitution

That is most interesting, as I have made no such assertion. My assertion is that all such designations are themselves unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

 

[BS Filter]

A suit for discrimination concerning access to private sector public accommodations is state and local jurisdiction dependent, but that’s not the case with regard to public sector/government discrimination, which is what this thread topic is about.

As a fact of Constitutional law government may not seek to disadvantage citizens through force of law because of choices those citizens have made concerning their personal, private lives, such as gender identification.

And the ridiculous notion that there is a tendency to claim discrimination when someone doesn’t get what he wants is an inane, tedious rightwing canard.

I'm afraid that I was not clear in my reference to a tendency to claim discrimination. Billy's assertion that he, as an "American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage," was not in a class protected by our civil rights laws suggested to me that he might be a member of this group of white guys who are running around claiming that guys who fit his description are the most discriminated-against group of people in the U.S. today, who seem to have a feeling that their combination of characteristics somehow entitles them to win every time, and if they don't, it must be due to discrimination. What is ironic is that many of these guys mock other people for "playing victim," and then go out and play victim themselves.

I have never been discriminated against to my knowledge. My self-description merely tics off the various categories considered dispensable by the Left.

I have been responding to your assertion that not everyone is in a class entitled to legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, which is absolutely untrue from a legal standpoint. Now you are switching to politics. I don't know who you think "the Left" is, as the term is commonly used as a designation for anyone who does not agree with right-wing ideologies, which could be anybody. However, there are many people fitting your precise description of yourself who think differently than you do. Why would anyone be considered "dispensable?"

Are you really going to deny the left protects muslims and attacks Christians?

Pretty broad statement there, don't you think? I'm on the left, and I do my best to protect innocent Muslims who are the victims of racist Alt-Right Nazis. I will also oppose people who claim Christianity as an excuse to deny basic human rights to anyone who doesn't look, act, and believe exactly like them.

Thanks for proving my point!! Muslim nations on this planet are denying human rights every day, and you believe that the American Christian conservatives are the problem. You're very confused.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Brilliant! Care to elaborate on that ?

Would it do any good to repeat myself?

 

[BS Filter]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Brilliant! Care to elaborate on that ?

Would it do any good to repeat myself?

When you're dealing with indoctrinated people, nope.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Brilliant! Care to elaborate on that ?

Would it do any good to repeat myself?

When you're dealing with indoctrinated people, nope.

Indeed. The density of their skulls is astonishing.

 

[DrLove]

My My - The Transphobia is palpable in this thread!

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm afraid that I was not clear in my reference to a tendency to claim discrimination. Billy's assertion that he, as an "American white male married heterosexual Christian of Celtic heritage," was not in a class protected by our civil rights laws suggested to me that he might be a member of this group of white guys who are running around claiming that guys who fit his description are the most discriminated-against group of people in the U.S. today, who seem to have a feeling that their combination of characteristics somehow entitles them to win every time, and if they don't, it must be due to discrimination. What is ironic is that many of these guys mock other people for "playing victim," and then go out and play victim themselves.

I have never been discriminated against to my knowledge. My self-description merely tics off the various categories considered dispensable by the Left.

I have been responding to your assertion that not everyone is in a class entitled to legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, which is absolutely untrue from a legal standpoint. Now you are switching to politics. I don't know who you think "the Left" is, as the term is commonly used as a designation for anyone who does not agree with right-wing ideologies, which could be anybody. However, there are many people fitting your precise description of yourself who think differently than you do. Why would anyone be considered "dispensable?"

Are you really going to deny the left protects muslims and attacks Christians?

Pretty broad statement there, don't you think? I'm on the left, and I do my best to protect innocent Muslims who are the victims of racist Alt-Right Nazis. I will also oppose people who claim Christianity as an excuse to deny basic human rights to anyone who doesn't look, act, and believe exactly like them.

Thanks for proving my point!! Muslim nations on this planet are denying human rights every day, and you believe that the American Christian conservatives are the problem. You're very confused.

So you think it is all right to assault innocent American Citizens who happen to be Muslim, because of what happens in other countries? What a disgusting pig.

 

[BS Filter]

Protected classes are unconstitutional.

Brilliant! Care to elaborate on that ?

Would it do any good to repeat myself?

When you're dealing with indoctrinated people, nope.

Indeed. The density of their skulls is astonishing.

They have no steer rudder. They go wherever the leftist political winds and current take them. They don't think.

 

[BS Filter]

I have never been discriminated against to my knowledge. My self-description merely tics off the various categories considered dispensable by the Left.

I have been responding to your assertion that not everyone is in a class entitled to legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, which is absolutely untrue from a legal standpoint. Now you are switching to politics. I don't know who you think "the Left" is, as the term is commonly used as a designation for anyone who does not agree with right-wing ideologies, which could be anybody. However, there are many people fitting your precise description of yourself who think differently than you do. Why would anyone be considered "dispensable?"

Are you really going to deny the left protects muslims and attacks Christians?

Pretty broad statement there, don't you think? I'm on the left, and I do my best to protect innocent Muslims who are the victims of racist Alt-Right Nazis. I will also oppose people who claim Christianity as an excuse to deny basic human rights to anyone who doesn't look, act, and believe exactly like them.

Thanks for proving my point!! Muslim nations on this planet are denying human rights every day, and you believe that the American Christian conservatives are the problem. You're very confused.

So you think it is all right to assault innocent American Citizens who happen to be Muslim, because of what happens in other countries? What a disgusting pig.

I never said that. You did.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have been responding to your assertion that not everyone is in a class entitled to legal protection under the U.S. Constitution, which is absolutely untrue from a legal standpoint. Now you are switching to politics. I don't know who you think "the Left" is, as the term is commonly used as a designation for anyone who does not agree with right-wing ideologies, which could be anybody. However, there are many people fitting your precise description of yourself who think differently than you do. Why would anyone be considered "dispensable?"

Are you really going to deny the left protects muslims and attacks Christians?

Pretty broad statement there, don't you think? I'm on the left, and I do my best to protect innocent Muslims who are the victims of racist Alt-Right Nazis. I will also oppose people who claim Christianity as an excuse to deny basic human rights to anyone who doesn't look, act, and believe exactly like them.

Thanks for proving my point!! Muslim nations on this planet are denying human rights every day, and you believe that the American Christian conservatives are the problem. You're very confused.

So you think it is all right to assault innocent American Citizens who happen to be Muslim, because of what happens in other countries? What a disgusting pig.

I never said that. You did.