Trump: Fine with same-sex marriage

[Moonglow]

I've explained the Hively finding to you on several occasions and you do what you always do: ignore the actual ruling and project your personal wishes instead. It's a fool's errand trying to convince someone as willfully obtuse as you.

And I've posted the actual language of the Hively finding to which you obtusely refuse to accept:

To wit: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...8/C:15-1720:J:Ripple:con:T:fnOp:N:1801805:S:0

Page 35, paragraphs 2 & "D" 3.

"In addition to the inconsistent application of Title VII to gender non-conformity, these sexual orientation cases highlight another inconsistency in courts' applications of Title VII to sex as opposed to race. As the EEOC noted in Baldwin, when applying Title VII's prohibition of race discrimination, courts and the Commission have consistently concluded that the statute prohibits discrimination based on an employee's association with a person of another race, such as interracial marriage or friendship....But although it has been clear that Title VII protects white workers who are discriminated against because they have close associations with African-American partners and vice versa, it has not protected women employees who are discriminated against because of their intimate associations with other women, and men with men..."

Continued pages 39-42

A court would not necessarily need to expand the definition of "sex discrimination" beyond the narrow understanding of "sex" we adopted in Ulane, to conclude that lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees who are terminated for their sexual conduct or their perceived sexual conduct have been discriminated against on the basis of sex...the Supreme Court has opted not to weigh in on the question of whether Title VII's prohibition on sex-based discrimination would extend to protect against sexual orientation discrimination.

Even in the watershed case of Obergefell, when the Court declared that "laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter," it made no mention of the stigma and injury that comes from excluding lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons from the workforce or subjecting them to un-remediable harassment and discrimination...the Supreme Court might someday say the same thing about locking gay men and lesbians out of the workforce..But, as we noted earlier, in the same-sex marriage case, the Court was presented with the opportunity to consider the question as one of sex discrimination but declined to do so and thus far has declined to take any opportunity to weigh in on the question of sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII.

This circuit has not remained silent on the matter, but rather, as we have described above, our own precedent holds that Title VII provides no protection from nor redress for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We require a compelling reason to overturn circuit precedent...Ordinarily this requires a decision of the Supreme Court or a change in legislation. (7th Circuit, 2016)

The ruling states that gays are not protected under the wording of 'sex' found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it comes to workplace discrimination. Why? Because sexual orientation is not specifically mentioned. You pretend this ruling means gay can't ever be classified as a protected class and/or that it is going to be used to end gay marriage. That is where your personal projections kicks in and has no bearing on the actual ruling.

The opinion of the court even sympathizes with the position of Hively:

"Perhaps the writing is on the wall. It seems unlikely that our society can continue to condone a legal structure in which employees can be fired, harassed, demeaned, singled out for undesirable tasks, paid lower wages, demoted, passed over for promotions, and otherwise discriminated against solely based on who they date, love, or marry. The agency tasked with enforcing Title VII does not condone it, (see Baldwin, 2015 WL 4397641 at **5,10); many of the federal courts to consider the matter have stated that they do not condone it (see, e.g., Vickers, 453 F.3d at 764‐65; Bibby, 260 F.3d at 265; Simonton, 232 F.3d at 35; Higgins, 194 F.3d at 259; Rene, 243 F.3d at 1209, (Hug, J., dissenting); Kay, 142 F. Appʹx at 51; Silva, 2000 WL 525573, at *1); and this court undoubtedly does not condone it (see Ulane, 742 F.2d at 1084). But writing on the wall is not enough. Until the writing comes in the form of a Supreme Court opinion or new legislation, we must adhere to the writing of our prior precedent, and there‐ fore, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED."

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...8/C:15-1720:J:Ripple:con:T:fnOp:N:1801805:S:0


You have this hysterical ability to find a case and pretend it means something totally different. You've done it with Ferber, you've done it with Massey, and, now you're doing it again with Hively. It's just what you do.

It's funny how you think you can have a rational discussion with Sil about gay marriage and gay rights.

or anything....

 

[mdk]

It's funny how you think you can have a rational discussion with Sil about gay marriage and gay rights.

I am well aware that it's a fool's errands, but I was bored and had a dash of free time. I know I would have better luck reaching a houseplant or a doily. lol

 

[Silhouette]

I've explained the Hively finding to you on several occasions and you do what you always do: ignore the actual ruling and project your personal wishes instead. It's a fool's errand trying to convince someone as willfully obtuse as you.

And I've posted the actual language of the Hively finding to which you obtusely refuse to accept:

To wit: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...8/C:15-1720:J:Ripple:con:T:fnOp:N:1801805:S:0

Page 35, paragraphs 2 & "D" 3.

"In addition to the inconsistent application of Title VII to gender non-conformity, these sexual orientation cases highlight another inconsistency in courts' applications of Title VII to sex as opposed to race. As the EEOC noted in Baldwin, when applying Title VII's prohibition of race discrimination, courts and the Commission have consistently concluded that the statute prohibits discrimination based on an employee's association with a person of another race, such as interracial marriage or friendship....But although it has been clear that Title VII protects white workers who are discriminated against because they have close associations with African-American partners and vice versa, it has not protected women employees who are discriminated against because of their intimate associations with other women, and men with men..."

Continued pages 39-42

A court would not necessarily need to expand the definition of "sex discrimination" beyond the narrow understanding of "sex" we adopted in Ulane, to conclude that lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees who are terminated for their sexual conduct or their perceived sexual conduct have been discriminated against on the basis of sex...the Supreme Court has opted not to weigh in on the question of whether Title VII's prohibition on sex-based discrimination would extend to protect against sexual orientation discrimination.

Even in the watershed case of Obergefell, when the Court declared that "laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter," it made no mention of the stigma and injury that comes from excluding lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons from the workforce or subjecting them to un-remediable harassment and discrimination...the Supreme Court might someday say the same thing about locking gay men and lesbians out of the workforce..But, as we noted earlier, in the same-sex marriage case, the Court was presented with the opportunity to consider the question as one of sex discrimination but declined to do so and thus far has declined to take any opportunity to weigh in on the question of sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII.

This circuit has not remained silent on the matter, but rather, as we have described above, our own precedent holds that Title VII provides no protection from nor redress for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. We require a compelling reason to overturn circuit precedent...Ordinarily this requires a decision of the Supreme Court or a change in legislation. (7th Circuit, 2016)

The ruling states that gays are not protected under the wording of 'sex' found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it comes to workplace discrimination. Why? Because sexual orientation is not specifically mentioned. You pretend this ruling means gay can't ever be classified as a protected class and/or that it is going to be used to end gay marriage. That is where your personal projections kicks in and has no bearing on the actual ruling.

The opinion of the court even sympathizes with the position of Hively:

"Perhaps the writing is on the wall. It seems unlikely that our society can continue to condone a legal structure in which employees can be fired, harassed, demeaned, singled out for undesirable tasks, paid lower wages, demoted, passed over for promotions, and otherwise discriminated against solely based on who they date, love, or marry. The agency tasked with enforcing Title VII does not condone it, (see Baldwin, 2015 WL 4397641 at **5,10); many of the federal courts to consider the matter have stated that they do not condone it (see, e.g., Vickers, 453 F.3d at 764‐65; Bibby, 260 F.3d at 265; Simonton, 232 F.3d at 35; Higgins, 194 F.3d at 259; Rene, 243 F.3d at 1209, (Hug, J., dissenting); Kay, 142 F. Appʹx at 51; Silva, 2000 WL 525573, at *1); and this court undoubtedly does not condone it (see Ulane, 742 F.2d at 1084). But writing on the wall is not enough. Until the writing comes in the form of a Supreme Court opinion or new legislation, we must adhere to the writing of our prior precedent, and there‐ fore, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED."

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...8/C:15-1720:J:Ripple:con:T:fnOp:N:1801805:S:0


You have this hysterical ability to find a case and pretend it means something totally different. You've done it with Ferber, you've done it with Massey, and, now you're doing it again with Hively. It's just what you do.

It's funny how you think you can have a rational discussion with Sil about gay marriage and gay rights.

or anything....

So....quoting directly from the case Hively v Ivy tech (2016) isn't rational eh? Are you disputing that they did not find that gays aren't covered under Title VII? Because in the end that's what they found. And in court, that's all that matters. And if their case is up for re-review, then so is Obergefell..

 

[JoeB131]

You can't claim intent and not care about it at the same time. Well you can, but you earn zero credibility for it.

Anything in the pursuit of hurting people who disagree with you, right Joe?

Naw, anything to hurt people who've done so much to fuck up this country.

 

[Silhouette]

You can't claim intent and not care about it at the same time. Well you can, but you earn zero credibility for it.

Anything in the pursuit of hurting people who disagree with you, right Joe?

Naw, anything to hurt people who've done so much to fuck up this country.

Would you consider creating a brand new contract without the consent of the People that deprives via its terms children of a mother or father for life "helpful" or "fucking up the country"? Because if it's the former, you are in a tiny minority..

Now let me guess. Next you will (mis)inform the readers that "a majority of people support gay marriage...etc." And insist that election 2016 was a referendum on a dozen (anything-but) sophisticated issues...coming from visceral, rural, kneejerk flyover country.

 

[JoeB131]

Would you consider creating a brand new contract without the consent of the People that deprives via its terms children of a mother or father for life "helpful" or "fucking up the country"? Because if it's the former, you are in a tiny minority..

Dude, I know gay people who are much better parents than Straight people. Give it a fucking rest.

Do you know what really messes up kids? It's telling them there's a magic fairy in the sky who is going to burn them for all eternity if they have sex he doesn't like.

Now let me guess. Next you will (mis)inform the readers that "a majority of people support gay marriage...etc." And insist that election 2016 was a referendum on a dozen (anything-but) sophisticated issues...coming from visceral, rural, kneejerk flyover country.

Trump never talked about gay marriage and had Peter Theil address the RNC to tell the Christians to get bent.

So, no, the 2016 election (where Hillary got more votes- STILL) was about economics and the fact a lot of people can't tell the difference between American Idol and choosing the leader of the Free World

 

[Claudette]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

Works just fine for me since I don't give a flying fuck about gays or abortion.

 

[martybegan]

You can't claim intent and not care about it at the same time. Well you can, but you earn zero credibility for it.

Anything in the pursuit of hurting people who disagree with you, right Joe?

Naw, anything to hurt people who've done so much to fuck up this country.

Again, you are just a mean old miserly bastard.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

He may be fine with it but his supreme court picks anx cabinet members won't be.

Another safety pin idiot who has no clue how the Supreme Court works.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, you are just a mean old miserly bastard.

NO, mean is a wife-beater who screams bible verses at a couple because his punching bag forgot her place and invited them to use their services.

I just uphold sensible laws meant to protect consumers from this sort of stupidity.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I've already warned many fellow Trump Voters that Trump is not a staunch Conservative or Constitutionalist. He's never claimed to be. He does lean Liberal on some issues. So Trump Voters shouldn't come along later whining about how Trump lied to them. He never promised em staunch 'Christian Conservatism.' For me, if he just stands by his pledges to secure our border, reform our Immigration System nightmare, and appoint a couple reasonable Supreme Court Justices, he'll always have my support.

I'm not concerned with much else. Nothing's gonna change in regards to our massive Debt and starting more Wars. That'll stay the status quo. We are gonna get more Debt and Wars. And i'm not interested in social issues like Abortion and Gay Marriage either. Those are just old tired issues both Parties use to divide the People further. Trump only needs to deliver on a couple things for me. The rest is just silly stuff to get the sheep all worked up about. Just remember what you voted for. You didn't vote for a staunch Christian Conservative or Constitutionalist. You voted for the only viable alternative to the corrupt Clintons. Nothing more, nothing less.

So you think Trump should have embarked on a feckless campaign based on reversing Obergefell which isn't ever going to happen?

 

[martybegan]

Again, you are just a mean old miserly bastard.

NO, mean is a wife-beater who screams bible verses at a couple because his punching bag forgot her place and invited them to use their services.

I just uphold sensible laws meant to protect consumers from this sort of stupidity.

Again with the same projected lie.

You uphold your own bigotry and somehow think it is better than others. Not only are you a liar, you are self-delusional.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Again, you are just a mean old miserly bastard.

NO, mean is a wife-beater who screams bible verses at a couple because his punching bag forgot her place and invited them to use their services.

I just uphold sensible laws meant to protect consumers from this sort of stupidity.

Your wife deserves better. No real man EVER hits his wife.

 

[JoeB131]

Again with the same projected lie.

You uphold your own bigotry and somehow think it is better than others. Not only are you a liar, you are self-delusional.

Well, my bias against religion is that we know religion is wrong on key points.

The world is not only 6000 years old. We weren't created, we evolved.

There are no witches.. so we shouldn't burn people for being witches.

slavery is not a good thing like the Bible says it is.

So if you are going to find a rationalization for hating on the gays, you should probably find a more credible source than the bible.

 

[JoeB131]

Your wife deserves better. No real man EVER hits his wife.

exactly my point. But you ever watch video of the Kleins, where she's just cowering why he bravely tells a bunch of Christian assholes how he bravely wrecked her business fighting against that gay couple?

I feel sorry for the poor woman.

 

[Theowl32]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

Give us all your thoughts on this.

Well, we are waiting mac.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's funny how you think you can have a rational discussion with Sil about gay marriage and gay rights.

I am well aware that it's a fool's errands, but I was bored and had a dash of free time. I know I would have better luck reaching a houseplant or a doily. lol

Obergefell will never be reversed. Ever. I think anyone trying to get it reversed has no clue how the Supreme Court works. It always moves forward, not backward. It's docket is ALWAYS full and it has zero time or inclination to revisit issues they already decided. It's a huge waste of effort and emotion to kick against the goads.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Your wife deserves better. No real man EVER hits his wife.

exactly my point. But you ever watch video of the Kleins, where she's just cowering why he bravely tells a bunch of Christian assholes how he bravely wrecked her business fighting against that gay couple?

I feel sorry for the poor woman.

I think you're delusional. You safety pin Leftists hate Christians who never beat our wives or condone spousal abuse but then you rim-job Muslims who beat their wives like pouring morning cereal and make instructional videos on how to properly beat them.

It's just further proof you all don't have the moral high ground on ANY issue.

 

[martybegan]

Again with the same projected lie.

You uphold your own bigotry and somehow think it is better than others. Not only are you a liar, you are self-delusional.

Well, my bias against religion is that we know religion is wrong on key points.

The world is not only 6000 years old. We weren't created, we evolved.

There are no witches.. so we shouldn't burn people for being witches.

slavery is not a good thing like the Bible says it is.

So if you are going to find a rationalization for hating on the gays, you should probably find a more credible source than the bible.

The bible never said slavery was a "good thing". It gave rules for how to handle it. and most of that is OT stuff, so I guess you have issues with Jews as well.

Figures.

 

[mdk]

Obergefell will never be reversed. Ever. I think anyone trying to get it reversed has no clue how the Supreme Court works. It always moves forward, not backward. It's docket is ALWAYS full and it has zero time or inclination to revisit issues they already decided. It's a huge waste of effort and emotion to kick against the goads.

I don't believe it is going to be overturned either. It's why I've been putting my focus on making sure my elected officials concern themselves with our debt and making our government much smaller/less intrusive.