Equality Act Introduced in Congress

[TNHarley]

Unconstitutional bullshit.

What exactly is unconstitutional, and why professor?

Maybe you could point out in the constitution where it gives the federal govt the power to regulate businesses and the housing market.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No one gives a f••• about who accepts homosexuality, nor does anyone think that acceptance can be forced.

Then why are you and the rest of your degenerate ilk so determinedly trying to force society to accept your disgusting perversions, if you don't care who accepts them, and don't believe it can be forced anyway?

 

[Anathema]

ANY Republican who votes for this should be Expelled from the party, primaried (if they can’t be recalled), and sent to political Siberia IMMEDIATELY.

 

[Meathead]

I thought that "Law and Justice " would be an appropriate forum for this news article. There is still far to much discrimination against LGBTQ people . Despite the gains that have been made, many states do not prohibit discrimination in housing, employment and places of public accommodation. There is also a movement afoot to allow adoption agencies to discriminate. There is currently no federal protections, except for marriage. Here is a state by state breakdown of what rights LGBTQ people have or don't have. Advocating for LGBTQ Equality | Human Rights Campaign

These are not "special rights" that are being sought. It is about having the same rights as others. Straight, cisgender people can assume that they will be served by a business, have their application for an apartment - or to adopt a child evaluated on their merits without prejudice, and post a picture of their spouse on facebook or put one on their desk without being harassed or even fired. LGBTQ people often cannot make such assumptions.

Here is what's happening:

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Today, Lambda Legal praised Representatives David Cicilline (D-RI) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) as well as Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) for introducing H.R. 5, the Equality Act, in the 116th Congress.

This bipartisan legislation will update existing federal nondiscrimination laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, to confirm that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is unlawful discrimination based on sex.

The bill agrees with the many court decisions which have concluded that discrimination against LGBT people in employment, housing, education, and credit violates the federal sex discrimination bans.

Oh shut up! Seriously, no one cares about sodomy anymore!

Your right. Nobody besides you who seems to think about it quite a lot. What I think about is human rights a social justice-try it some time -but first you need to GROW THE FUCK UP

Look,no one cares if you're a fag. Why would they?

No body cares that you even exist

Why do you think you're special because you like butt sex?

 

[Lysistrata]

No one gives a f••• about who accepts homosexuality, nor does anyone think that acceptance can be forced.

Then why are you and the rest of your degenerate ilk so determinedly trying to force society to accept your disgusting perversions, if you don't care who accepts them, and don't believe it can be forced anyway?

What is this crap about? What is being "forced" on anyone? Can't you people in the wood sticks lay whomever you please? As long as she is an adult, over 18. Fully educated.

 

[Meathead]

No one gives a f••• about who accepts homosexuality, nor does anyone think that acceptance can be forced.

Then why are you and the rest of your degenerate ilk so determinedly trying to force society to accept your disgusting perversions, if you don't care who accepts them, and don't believe it can be forced anyway?

What is this crap about? What is being "forced" on anyone? Can't you people in the wood sticks lay whomever you please? As long as she is an adult, over 18. Fully educated.

Why are you insulting the fag "patriot" by suggesting he would lay a "she"?

That's homophobic!

 

[Natural Citizen]

Relevant reading...

How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation

 

[Lysistrata]

No one gives a f••• about who accepts homosexuality, nor does anyone think that acceptance can be forced.

Then why are you and the rest of your degenerate ilk so determinedly trying to force society to accept your disgusting perversions, if you don't care who accepts them, and don't believe it can be forced anyway?

What is this crap about? What is being "forced" on anyone? Can't you people in the wood sticks lay whomever you please? As long as she is an adult, over 18. Fully educated.

Why are you insulting the fag "patriot" by suggesting he would lay a "she"?

That's homophobic!

So explain this obsession with LGBTs. It's all "fag" this and "fag" that with you people, but why???

 

[Meathead]

No one gives a f••• about who accepts homosexuality, nor does anyone think that acceptance can be forced.

Then why are you and the rest of your degenerate ilk so determinedly trying to force society to accept your disgusting perversions, if you don't care who accepts them, and don't believe it can be forced anyway?

What is this crap about? What is being "forced" on anyone? Can't you people in the wood sticks lay whomever you please? As long as she is an adult, over 18. Fully educated.

Why are you insulting the fag "patriot" by suggesting he would lay a "she"?

That's homophobic!

So explain this obsession with LGBTs. It's all "fag" this and "fag" that with you people, but why???

I'm sorry. Homosexual. Patriot is a homosexual and he doesn't do women, only fags.

Damn! Did it again!

 

[Lysistrata]

No one gives a f••• about who accepts homosexuality, nor does anyone think that acceptance can be forced.

Then why are you and the rest of your degenerate ilk so determinedly trying to force society to accept your disgusting perversions, if you don't care who accepts them, and don't believe it can be forced anyway?

What is this crap about? What is being "forced" on anyone? Can't you people in the wood sticks lay whomever you please? As long as she is an adult, over 18. Fully educated.

Why are you insulting the fag "patriot" by suggesting he would lay a "she"?

That's homophobic!

So explain this obsession with LGBTs. It's all "fag" this and "fag" that with you people, but why???

I'm sorry. Homosexual. Patriot is a homosexual and he doesn't do women, only fags.

Damn! Did it again!

What is the source of your obsession with people who have a same-sex orientation??? I'm a female with an orientation toward the male sex (the sexy ones!), so you can tell me.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Unconstitutional bullshit.

What exactly is unconstitutional, and why professor?

Maybe you could point out in the constitution where it gives the federal govt the power to regulate businesses and the housing market.

It's not a regulatory issue. It is a civil rights issue. And, the states are required to abide by the equal protection and due process provisions of the Constitution. I don't expect that you can grasp that thought. Or want to.

 

[TNHarley]

Unconstitutional bullshit.

What exactly is unconstitutional, and why professor?

Maybe you could point out in the constitution where it gives the federal govt the power to regulate businesses and the housing market.

It's not a regulatory issue. It is a civil rights issue. And, the states are required to abide by the equal protection and due process provisions of the Constitution. I don't expect that you can grasp that thought. Or want to.

Of course they are. But equal protection doesnt include the private sector.
Therefore, said provisions are unconstitutional

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Unconstitutional bullshit.

What exactly is unconstitutional, and why professor?

Maybe you could point out in the constitution where it gives the federal govt the power to regulate businesses and the housing market.

It's not a regulatory issue. It is a civil rights issue. And, the states are required to abide by the equal protection and due process provisions of the Constitution. I don't expect that you can grasp that thought. Or want to.

Of course they are. But equal protection doesnt include the private sector.
Therefore, said provisions are unconstitutional

You try anything wont you . Having been shot down on the regulatory bullshit, you now pivot to a new angle . However, you are wrong again. The 1964 Civil rights act affords protections to various groups against discrimination BY ANYONE public or private and has been upheld as constitutional.

'Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act?'

In case anyone’s forgotten, let’s set the record straight: the Supreme Court heard a challenge the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago in a case called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Yoho may not be able to answer the question “100 percent,” but the justices had far less trouble: in 9-0 ruling, the high court upheld the law.

Therefor, if people are protected based on race, gender, religion etc. LGBT people and any other identifiable group must also be protected

 

[TNHarley]

Unconstitutional bullshit.

What exactly is unconstitutional, and why professor?

Maybe you could point out in the constitution where it gives the federal govt the power to regulate businesses and the housing market.

It's not a regulatory issue. It is a civil rights issue. And, the states are required to abide by the equal protection and due process provisions of the Constitution. I don't expect that you can grasp that thought. Or want to.

Of course they are. But equal protection doesnt include the private sector.
Therefore, said provisions are unconstitutional

You try anything wont you . Having been shot down on the regulatory bullshit, you now pivot to a new angle . However, you are wrong again. The 1964 Civil rights act affords protections to various groups against discrimination BY ANYONE public or private and has been upheld as constitutional.

'Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act?'

In case anyone’s forgotten, let’s set the record straight: the Supreme Court heard a challenge the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago in a case called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Yoho may not be able to answer the question “100 percent,” but the justices had far less trouble: in 9-0 ruling, the high court upheld the law.

Therefor, if people are protected based on race, gender, religion etc. LGBT people and any other identifiable group must also be protected

Its the same angle, you just arent very bright.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What exactly is unconstitutional, and why professor?

Maybe you could point out in the constitution where it gives the federal govt the power to regulate businesses and the housing market.

It's not a regulatory issue. It is a civil rights issue. And, the states are required to abide by the equal protection and due process provisions of the Constitution. I don't expect that you can grasp that thought. Or want to.

Of course they are. But equal protection doesnt include the private sector.
Therefore, said provisions are unconstitutional

You try anything wont you . Having been shot down on the regulatory bullshit, you now pivot to a new angle . However, you are wrong again. The 1964 Civil rights act affords protections to various groups against discrimination BY ANYONE public or private and has been upheld as constitutional.

'Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act?'

In case anyone’s forgotten, let’s set the record straight: the Supreme Court heard a challenge the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago in a case called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Yoho may not be able to answer the question “100 percent,” but the justices had far less trouble: in 9-0 ruling, the high court upheld the law.

Therefor, if people are protected based on race, gender, religion etc. LGBT people and any other identifiable group must also be protected

Its the same angle, you just arent very bright.

That's the best that you can do? You aren't very impressive.

 

[TNHarley]

Maybe you could point out in the constitution where it gives the federal govt the power to regulate businesses and the housing market.

It's not a regulatory issue. It is a civil rights issue. And, the states are required to abide by the equal protection and due process provisions of the Constitution. I don't expect that you can grasp that thought. Or want to.

Of course they are. But equal protection doesnt include the private sector.
Therefore, said provisions are unconstitutional

You try anything wont you . Having been shot down on the regulatory bullshit, you now pivot to a new angle . However, you are wrong again. The 1964 Civil rights act affords protections to various groups against discrimination BY ANYONE public or private and has been upheld as constitutional.

'Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act?'

In case anyone’s forgotten, let’s set the record straight: the Supreme Court heard a challenge the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago in a case called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Yoho may not be able to answer the question “100 percent,” but the justices had far less trouble: in 9-0 ruling, the high court upheld the law.

Therefor, if people are protected based on race, gender, religion etc. LGBT people and any other identifiable group must also be protected

Its the same angle, you just arent very bright.

That's the best that you can do? You aren't very impressive.

I have told you many of times, i dont care what the SC says. They have been wrong many of times.
Maybe the difference between you and i is that i can read basic english. And i dont let other people guide my way.
Try being an individual some day. Its great.

 

[toobfreak]

Thank you for that moronic, unhinged rant.

Sorry, your opinion counts for nothing. No more than asking a recipient of welfare whether they should go to work or collect checks, no more than asking a schizo about mental health. As one of the effected, your perception is too skewed of reality. LGBTQs are real people---- with a bolt loose. You are either born a man or woman and if you think you're somewhere else, well, you need clinical, psychiatric help. The topic needs study, not acceptance. Next step, deciding pedos are real, normal people too. That's not hate you idiot, but pure, clear, honest clinical diagnostics.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It's not a regulatory issue. It is a civil rights issue. And, the states are required to abide by the equal protection and due process provisions of the Constitution. I don't expect that you can grasp that thought. Or want to.

To treat madness as a “civil right” is, itself, madness.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's not a regulatory issue. It is a civil rights issue. And, the states are required to abide by the equal protection and due process provisions of the Constitution. I don't expect that you can grasp that thought. Or want to.

Of course they are. But equal protection doesnt include the private sector.
Therefore, said provisions are unconstitutional

You try anything wont you . Having been shot down on the regulatory bullshit, you now pivot to a new angle . However, you are wrong again. The 1964 Civil rights act affords protections to various groups against discrimination BY ANYONE public or private and has been upheld as constitutional.

'Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act?'

In case anyone’s forgotten, let’s set the record straight: the Supreme Court heard a challenge the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago in a case called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Yoho may not be able to answer the question “100 percent,” but the justices had far less trouble: in 9-0 ruling, the high court upheld the law.

Therefor, if people are protected based on race, gender, religion etc. LGBT people and any other identifiable group must also be protected

Its the same angle, you just arent very bright.

That's the best that you can do? You aren't very impressive.

I have told you many of times, i dont care what the SC says. They have been wrong many of times.
Maybe the difference between you and i is that i can read basic english. And i dont let other people guide my way.
Try being an individual some day. Its great.

Thank you for admitting to everyone that you are so delusional that you think by not paying attention to the Supreme Court....you render their decisions something other than established law.

 

[TNHarley]

Of course they are. But equal protection doesnt include the private sector.
Therefore, said provisions are unconstitutional

You try anything wont you . Having been shot down on the regulatory bullshit, you now pivot to a new angle . However, you are wrong again. The 1964 Civil rights act affords protections to various groups against discrimination BY ANYONE public or private and has been upheld as constitutional.

'Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act?'

In case anyone’s forgotten, let’s set the record straight: the Supreme Court heard a challenge the Civil Rights Act 50 years ago in a case called Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Yoho may not be able to answer the question “100 percent,” but the justices had far less trouble: in 9-0 ruling, the high court upheld the law.

Therefor, if people are protected based on race, gender, religion etc. LGBT people and any other identifiable group must also be protected

Its the same angle, you just arent very bright.

That's the best that you can do? You aren't very impressive.

I have told you many of times, i dont care what the SC says. They have been wrong many of times.
Maybe the difference between you and i is that i can read basic english. And i dont let other people guide my way.
Try being an individual some day. Its great.

Thank you for admitting to everyone that you are so delusional that you think by not paying attention to the Supreme Court....you render their decisions something other than established law.

Lol. What im saying is, those activists opinions are merely opinions to me. It is technically law but that doesnt mea it is unconstitutional