Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's!

[Skylar]

I didn't abandon anything, I just don't beat my head against a wall over something that will likely never be walked back. I also try to stick to the topic which you have steered into the only topic on USMB you ever discuss. This thread is about firing homos, not homo nuptials.

Well...actually...Skylar is correct discussing "gay marriage" here. And the reason is that he knows Obergefell is challengeable on multiple levels.

Nope. You're just doing your typical 'imagination equals law' shtick where you insist your pseudo-legal gibberish is a genuine legal controversy.

It isn't. You have no idea what you're talking about. And your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure.

That it isn't based on any "rights" granted anywhere that apply "sexual orientation" to "sex" in the 14th Amendment, is but one blow to its credibility.

Says you. The Supreme Court cited the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th and 5th amendment.

You ignoring the Supreme Court has no relevance to the authority of their ruling.

This latest decision by the federal appeals courts says that sex IS NOT legally equivalent to sexual orientation (a behavior). That perhaps is the worst blow of all so far since this is the false premise the cult of LGBT has been leaning on so heavily in all their advances.

Nope. Its completely irrelevant to the Obergefell ruling. As Obegefell isn't based on the idea that sex and sexual orientation are equivalent. Nor does the ruling cite the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as its legal basis. Nor does a lower court ruling invalidate a Supreme Court ruling.

There is simply no angle where your reasoning works.

You're feeding yourself pseudo-legal fantasies to soothe your cognitive dissonance between what you wanted to happen...and what actually did. And that nonsense has never worked out for you.

As your legal predictions are always, always wrong.

 

[Silhouette]

Humpy Skylar sat on a wall
Humpy Skylar had a great fall
All the denial and ad hominem,
Couldn't put Humpy together again.

 

[Skylar]

Humpy Skylar sat on a wall
Humpy Skylar had a great fall
All the denial and ad hominem,
Couldn't put Humpy together again.

Laughing....says the poor soul that has never, not once, managed to make an accurate legal prediction. Your record of predicting the law is one of perfect failure.

But this time its different, huh?

Sorry, Sil.....but you're just feeding yourself the same pseudo-legal gruel you always do, trying to sooth yourself when reality doesn't match your desires. You've never read Obergefell. You've never read the ruling that opened the thread. You have no idea the legal principles either was founded on.

You haven't even managed to get the relationships in question right yet. As Obergefell was the relationship between the state and individual. The federal court ruling that opened the thread was about the relationship between private individuals: employers and employees. The State isn't a party.

Try again.

 

[Silhouette]

Laughing....says the poor soul that has never, not once, managed to make an accurate legal prediction. Your record of predicting the law is one of perfect failure.

That's funny Skylar. I predicted that the words "sex" and "sexual orientation" were not even in the same legal ballpark. And what do you know? The 7th Circuit just made it formal that they agree with me 100%. So there's one prediction I made that came true. A pretty sticky one too, considering your cult leaned on that false premise for a number of legal "victories" the majority disagrees with...

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....says the poor soul that has never, not once, managed to make an accurate legal prediction. Your record of predicting the law is one of perfect failure.

That's funny Skylar. I predicted that the words "sex" and "sexual orientation" were not even in the same legal ballpark.

The Obegefell ruling isn't based on the idea that sex and sexual orientation are the same thing. It never makes the argument.

Which you'd know if you ever read Obegefell. But you starkly refuse.....and then use your ignorance of the ruling as some sort of canvas to paint your imagination upon. With your conceptions of Obergefell changing with virtually every post.

Spoiler Alert: Obergefell never argued that sex is the same thing as sexual orientation. They never argued that the basis of their ruling is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Making Obergefell gloriously irrelevant to the 7th Circuit court decision....which addresses both.

Killing your silly pseudo-legal nonsense yet again.

And what do you know? The 7th Circuit just made it formal that they agree with me 100%. So there's one prediction I made that came true. A pretty sticky one too, considering your cult leaned on that false premise for a number of legal "victories" the majority disagrees with...

Show me you predicting the 7th court ruling. You can't. As you made no such prediction.

You're literally retconning your own history and your own memory to include predictions you've never made.

Every time you've told us how a case was going to go.....you've been wrong. Wrong on the outcome, wrong on the logic, wrong on the requirements, wrong on everything. As you consistently project your desires onto the law. And that's not how the law works.

 

[Silhouette]

The Obegefell ruling isn't based on the idea that sex and sexual orientation are the same thing. It never makes the argument.

Which you'd know if you ever read Obegefell. But you starkly refuse.....and then use your ignorance of the ruling as some sort of canvas to paint your imagination upon. With your conceptions of Obergefell changing with virtually every post.

Spoiler Alert: Obergefell never argued that sex is the same thing as sexual orientation. They never argued that the basis of their ruling is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Making Obergefell gloriously irrelevant to the 7th Circuit court decision....which addresses both.
.

But didn't the court argue equality, citing the 14th Amendment so that sexual orientation could also be enjoying the 14th's coverage? So, what about polygamy? Or do just "special" (your and the Court's favorite) sexual orientations get to tell the majority to piss off? "Special" protection, excluding others...you know...in the spirit of the 14th...which the Court cited...

Obergefell is short lived. Enjoy it while you can...

 

[Skylar]

The Obegefell ruling isn't based on the idea that sex and sexual orientation are the same thing. It never makes the argument.

Which you'd know if you ever read Obegefell. But you starkly refuse.....and then use your ignorance of the ruling as some sort of canvas to paint your imagination upon. With your conceptions of Obergefell changing with virtually every post.

Spoiler Alert: Obergefell never argued that sex is the same thing as sexual orientation. They never argued that the basis of their ruling is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Making Obergefell gloriously irrelevant to the 7th Circuit court decision....which addresses both.
.

But didn't the court argue equality, citing the 14th Amendment so that sexual orientation could also be enjoying the 14th's coverage?

Laughing.....and 'poof', all your arguments about how a case regarding sex v. sexual orientation are abandoned. All your Title VII nonsense regarding Obergefell is abandoned.

All the 'grave' holes in Oberegefell that you insist mandate it be 'reheard' ......abandoned. Your entire rambling pseudo-legal theory on how Obergefell was about to collapse. ....

....couldn't last from one post to the next.

A more elegant demonstration that you simply don't know what you're talking about could not be offered.

So, what about polygamy? Or do just "special" (your and the Court's favorite) sexual orientations get to tell the majority to piss off? "Special" protection, excluding others...you know...in the spirit of the 14th...which the Court cited...

No one has the right to bigamy.

Now, show us your predction of the 7th court ruling that opened this thread. Or admit you just made up it up.

Obergefell is short lived. Enjoy it while you can...

And again, you express your wishes rather than what the evidence actually suggests. Which is why your record of making legal predictions is one of perfect failure.

Its why I could tell you how Obegefell was going to go. I told you what the ruling would be based on. I told you the legal principles that would be cited. I told you the cases that would be cited. You......could tell us nothing. As you ignored the obvious legal evidence before you and clung to what you wanted to believe.

As you're doing right now.

 

[Silhouette]

No one has the right to bigamy.

Wait...I'm confused. You argue for years that gays should not be disallowed marriage because of their sexual orientation. And bigamy is the marrying of more than one person. That sexual orientation is polyamory: wanting to have sex with multiple partners. So just gay sexual orientation may marry in your "legal opinion" while other sexual orientations may not. Did I get that right? And how is marriage a "right" and not merely a privilege?

If you next bring up "how this or that sexual orientation marrying might affect children" we MOST DEFINITELY can "go there"...lol... Because I'd love to talk about children being divorced from either a mother or father for life..not to mention how you've asserted numerous times that the discussion of children relative to the marriage contract is moot, because you assert that children aren't even implied partners to the marriage contract.

According to you yourself, any combination of adults may marry and involve children because kids don't have a say in, and don't matter in who does and doesn't marry.

 

[Skylar]

No one has the right to bigamy.

Wait...I'm confused. You argue for years that gays should not be disallowed marriage because of their sexual orientation.

I've argued that same sex couples should be allowed to marry like opposite sex couples. How is that confusing?

And bigamy is the marrying of more than one person. That sexual orientation is polyamory: wanting to have sex with multiple partners.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. And bigamy is illegal for everyone. There's no group that has the right to bigamy, nor is bigamy a recognized and protected right. There's simply no part of this you got right.

Next piece of pseudo-legal nonsense please.

If you next bring up "how this or that sexual orientation marrying might affect children" we MOST DEFINITELY can "go there"...lol... Because I'd love to talk about children being divorced from either a mother or father for life..not to mention how you've asserted numerous times that the discussion of children relative to the marriage contract is moot, because you assert that children aren't even implied partners to the marriage contract.

The Supreme Court already found that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex parents marriage hurts children. Both the Windsor and Obergefell ruling find this repeatedly.

So predictably, you ignore the findings of the USSC and insist that you know better. Alas, that's not how the law works. As the findings of the USSC are binding precedent. And your subjective opinion is legally meaningless.

Do you see why your pseudo-legal fixations always result in.....nothing?

According to you yourself, any combination of adults may marry and involve children because kids don't have a say in, and don't matter in who does and doesn't marry.

According to me, citing the United States Supreme Court same sex couples and opposite sex couples have the right to marry.

You cite yourself. I cite the courts. Our sources are not equal.

 

[Conservative65]

No one has the right to bigamy.

Wait...I'm confused. You argue for years that gays should not be disallowed marriage because of their sexual orientation.

I've argued that same sex couples should be allowed to marry like opposite sex couples. How is that confusing?

And bigamy is the marrying of more than one person. That sexual orientation is polyamory: wanting to have sex with multiple partners.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. And bigamy is illegal for everyone. There's no group that has the right to bigamy, nor is bigamy a recognized and protected right. There's simply no part of this you got right.

Next piece of pseudo-legal nonsense please.

If you next bring up "how this or that sexual orientation marrying might affect children" we MOST DEFINITELY can "go there"...lol... Because I'd love to talk about children being divorced from either a mother or father for life..not to mention how you've asserted numerous times that the discussion of children relative to the marriage contract is moot, because you assert that children aren't even implied partners to the marriage contract.

The Supreme Court already found that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex parents marriage hurts children. Both the Windsor and Obergefell ruling find this repeatedly.

So predictably, you ignore the findings of the USSC and insist that you know better. Alas, that's not how the law works. As the findings of the USSC are binding precedent. And your subjective opinion is legally meaningless.

Do you see why your pseudo-legal fixations always result in.....nothing?

According to you yourself, any combination of adults may marry and involve children because kids don't have a say in, and don't matter in who does and doesn't marry.

According to me, citing the United States Supreme Court same sex couples and opposite sex couples have the right to marry.

You cite yourself. I cite the courts. Our sources are not equal.

The court's decision was based on equal protection not same sex marriage.

You're not about equality. You're just another worthless faggot that cares only about what worthless faggots want.

 

[Skylar]

No one has the right to bigamy.

Wait...I'm confused. You argue for years that gays should not be disallowed marriage because of their sexual orientation.

I've argued that same sex couples should be allowed to marry like opposite sex couples. How is that confusing?

And bigamy is the marrying of more than one person. That sexual orientation is polyamory: wanting to have sex with multiple partners.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. And bigamy is illegal for everyone. There's no group that has the right to bigamy, nor is bigamy a recognized and protected right. There's simply no part of this you got right.

Next piece of pseudo-legal nonsense please.

If you next bring up "how this or that sexual orientation marrying might affect children" we MOST DEFINITELY can "go there"...lol... Because I'd love to talk about children being divorced from either a mother or father for life..not to mention how you've asserted numerous times that the discussion of children relative to the marriage contract is moot, because you assert that children aren't even implied partners to the marriage contract.

The Supreme Court already found that same sex marriage benefits children and denying same sex parents marriage hurts children. Both the Windsor and Obergefell ruling find this repeatedly.

So predictably, you ignore the findings of the USSC and insist that you know better. Alas, that's not how the law works. As the findings of the USSC are binding precedent. And your subjective opinion is legally meaningless.

Do you see why your pseudo-legal fixations always result in.....nothing?

According to you yourself, any combination of adults may marry and involve children because kids don't have a say in, and don't matter in who does and doesn't marry.

According to me, citing the United States Supreme Court same sex couples and opposite sex couples have the right to marry.

You cite yourself. I cite the courts. Our sources are not equal.

The court's decision was based on equal protection not same sex marriage.

The courts decision was that because of equal protection and due process requirements of the 5th and 14th amendment, same sex marriage was a constitutional right.

See how that works? Cause and effect.

Ignore as you will. It really doesn't matter.

 

[Silhouette]

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. And bigamy is illegal for everyone. There's no group that has the right to bigamy, nor is bigamy a recognized and protected right....

The courts decision was that because of equal protection and due process requirements of the 5th and 14th amendment, same sex marriage was a constitutional right.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation? Really? Who says you get to dictate how polyamorists identify? They most certainly are a sexual orientation because they are not sexually satisfied or happy unless they are having sex with multiple people. Just like gays are not happy or sexually satisfied unless they are having "sex" with the same gender. There: I just identified "sexual orientation" for you. Of which polyamorists are one.

What you just said is exactly like saying "blacks are a race, but Hispanics are not".

And, BTW, everyone has the right to any sexual orientation they choose, if gays and lesbians have that right. The Court using the 14th to justify saying people doing something have "rights" was a complete error in interpretation. Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) has just corrected that mistake by telling the Court from underneath...soon to be at eye level...that the words "sex" and "sexual orientation" are not the same legal entity.

Let's examine the most recent polygamy ruling in 2013 with respect to what you just said:

On December 13, 2013, US Federal Judge Clark Waddoups ruled in Brown v. Buhman[36] that the portions of Utah's anti-polygamy laws which prohibit multiple cohabitation were unconstitutional, but also allowed Utah to maintain its ban on multiple marriage licenses.[37][38][39] Unlawful cohabitation, where prosecutors did not need to prove that a marriage ceremony had taken place (only that a couple had lived together), had been a major tool used to prosecute polygamy in Utah since the 1882

So, the sexual orientation "Polyamory" was decriminalized in 2013...like sodomy was back in Lawrence v Texas. And how is it that they can continue to not be allowed to marry, given Obergefell's interpretation of the 14th Amendment? Is the only sexual orientation allowed to marry, that has been decriminalized, JUST homosexuals? The 14th's interpretation MUST apply to ALL sexual orientations, or it can apply to NONE of them. That is the intent and nature of the core of the 14th Amendment itself!

 

[Skylar]

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation. And bigamy is illegal for everyone. There's no group that has the right to bigamy, nor is bigamy a recognized and protected right....

The courts decision was that because of equal protection and due process requirements of the 5th and 14th amendment, same sex marriage was a constitutional right.

Polyamory isn't a sexual orientation? Really? Who says you get to dictate how polyamorists identify?

You babbling about polyamory isn't 'polyamorists identifying'. Its you citing yourself about a topic you know nothing about.

Even by the standard of your own 'logic', your argument is a confused, self contradictory mess. And by the standard of the law, its just pseudo-legal gibberish.

The Court using the 14th to justify saying people doing something have "rights" was a complete error in interpretation.

The right that gays and lesbians claimed and the court recognized...was the right to same sex marriage. The 'right to sexual orientation' is just more of your inane, confused gibberish that has nothing to do with Obergefell, nor is ever mentioned in the ruling.

Remember, you haven't actually read Obergefell. Your claims on what Obergefell includes change with virtually every recitation. As you're not quoting Obegefell....you're quoting yourself.

Hively v Ivy Tech (2016) has just corrected that mistake by telling the Court from underneath...soon to be at eye level...that the words "sex" and "sexual orientation" are not the same legal entity.

Nope. Hively v. Ivy Tech was about an employer and an employee, falling under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Obergefell v. Hodges was an about an individual and the State. James Obegefell was bring a case against Richard Hodge, the director of the Ohio Department of Heath that was refusing to issue marriage licenses to James and his fiancee John Authur. Obergefell's case was brought under the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.

Making Hively gloriously irrelevant to Obergefell.

Oh, and the 7th Appeals Court doesn't 'correct' the Supreme Court, but is subordinate to the USSC. You don't understand any part of how our system of law works. Making your nonsense just more pseudo-legal noise.

On December 13, 2013, US Federal Judge Clark Waddoups ruled in Brown v. Buhman[36] that the portions of Utah's anti-polygamy laws which prohibit multiple cohabitation were unconstitutional, but also allowed Utah to maintain its ban on multiple marriage licenses.[37][38][39] Unlawful cohabitation, where prosecutors did not need to prove that a marriage ceremony had taken place (only that a couple had lived together), had been a major tool used to prosecute polygamy in Utah since the 1882

So, the sexual orientation "Polyamory" was decriminalized in 2013...like sodomy was back in Lawrence v Texas.

No, it wasn't. There's no mention of 'polygamory' in anything you cited. You hallucinated it. Worse, your own quote just contradicted you......so you ignored the very case you cited:

On December 13, 2013, US Federal Judge Clark Waddoups ruled in Brown v. Buhman[36] that the portions of Utah's anti-polygamy laws which prohibit multiple cohabitation were unconstitutional, but also allowed Utah to maintain its ban on multiple marriage licenses.

What the court did was overturn cohabitation laws. Not the polygamy bans. Being legally married to multiple people is still illegal in Utah and every other State. Its called Bigamy.

Again, Sil.....you're clueless. You don't understand the law. You can't even read the very citations you cite. And your latest pseudo-legal fixation will have the same result as all the others:

Nothing.

 

[Silhouette]

Making Hively gloriously irrelevant to Obergefell.

Oh, and the 7th Appeals Court doesn't 'correct' the Supreme Court, but is subordinate to the USSC. You don't understand any part of how our system of law works.

Since Obergefell interpreted the word "sex" in the 14th Amendment to mean "sexual orientation", the 7th Circuit finding in 2016 that the two words DO NOT mean the same thing when it comes to federal law and equality definition within class distinctions, could not have happened. Either Hively v Ivy Tech is immediately and easily challenged by Obergefell, or vice versa. The two cannot exist in the same legal universe. Especially within the same federal appeals system. And yet they do. And you know when that happens they will face off against each other in front of the US Supreme Court sooner or later. My guess is sooner. You're saying "NO! They NEVER will!"

I'm saying you're wrong..

 

[mdk]

Making Hively gloriously irrelevant to Obergefell.

Oh, and the 7th Appeals Court doesn't 'correct' the Supreme Court, but is subordinate to the USSC. You don't understand any part of how our system of law works.

Since Obergefell interpreted the word "sex" in the 14th Amendment to mean "sexual orientation", the 7th Circuit finding in 2016 that the two words DO NOT mean the same thing when it comes to federal law and equality definition within class distinctions, could not have happened. Either Hively v Ivy Tech is immediately and easily challenged by Obergefell, or vice versa. The two cannot exist in the same legal universe. Especially within the same federal appeals system. And yet they do. And you know when that happens they will face off against each other in front of the US Supreme Court sooner or later. My guess is sooner. You're saying "NO! They NEVER will!"

I'm saying you're wrong..

Below is the 14th Amendment:

14th Amendment

Here is the exact number of times the word sex appears in the 14th Amendment: Zero. You would know that if you ever actually read it.

You know what else doesn't exist in the same legal universe? You.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The United States appeals court has ruled that homo's have NO protection under the law and its LEGAL to fire a homo for being a homo.

“The cases as they stand do ... create a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College"

When Trump wins and we get another conservative SCOTUS these "Trans-homos will no longer be in bathrooms and the filth in our schools can be removed.
Appeals court: Sexual-orientation discrimination is legal

Fury

So what, the 7th does not impact cases which come before the other dist courts, and when it appears on appeal to the US Supreme Court it will be overturned, as it should.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Bigots have always been legally terminated, rightly so.

 

[Silhouette]

So what, the 7th does not impact cases which come before the other dist courts, and when it appears on appeal to the US Supreme Court it will be overturned, as it should.

So in order to overturn Hively v Ivy Tech 2016, the USSC would have to rewrite the terms of the Constitution in the 14th where the word "sex" would be expanded by them to include "what one does with one's genitals in bed".

But of course the Judicial Branch can't add on or expand the US Constitution. It is limited to interpreting it. "Sex" has been now clearly defined by a court TO NOT MEAN "what one does with one's genitals in bed". So the only folks who can change "sex" to "what one does with one's genitals in bed" is the Legislative Branch. The Justices are already on alert for overreach in Obergefell for this incorrect addition to the meaning of "sex" in the 14th...so I'd be surprised if they're willing to tempt fate twice on the same misinterpretation...especially if the GOP gets its shit together, gets Trump to step down and gets a true conservative that polls beating Hillary in the Fall, instead of losing to her.

 

[Skylar]

Making Hively gloriously irrelevant to Obergefell.

Oh, and the 7th Appeals Court doesn't 'correct' the Supreme Court, but is subordinate to the USSC. You don't understand any part of how our system of law works.

Since Obergefell interpreted the word "sex" in the 14th Amendment to mean "sexual orientation", the 7th Circuit finding in 2016 that the two words DO NOT mean the same thing when it comes to federal law and equality definition within class distinctions, could not have happened.

Quote Obergefell equating 'sex' with 'sexual orientation'.

You'll find you're just hallucinating again.

Either Hively v Ivy Tech is immediately and easily challenged by Obergefell, or vice versa. The two cannot exist in the same legal universe.

The two cases have nothing to do with each other. Hively was based on readings of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, address 'sex v sexual orientation' and deal with the the private interactions of employers and employees.

Obergefell is based on the 14th amendment, address same sex marriage, and deal with the interactions of the State and the individual.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. And your pseudo-legal drivel has no relevance to the outcome of any court case.

I'm saying you're wrong..

Given that your record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure, what would you saying anything about the law matter?

You've literally never been right on legal predictions. On any case. In any context. Ever.

 

[mdk]

So what, the 7th does not impact cases which come before the other dist courts, and when it appears on appeal to the US Supreme Court it will be overturned, as it should.

So in order to overturn Hively v Ivy Tech 2016, the USSC would have to rewrite the terms of the Constitution in the 14th where the word "sex" would be expanded by them to include "what one does with one's genitals in bed".

But of course the Judicial Branch can't add on or expand the US Constitution. It is limited to interpreting it. "Sex" has been now clearly defined by a court TO NOT MEAN "what one does with one's genitals in bed". So the only folks who can change "sex" to "what one does with one's genitals in bed" is the Legislative Branch. The Justices are already on alert for overreach in Obergefell for this incorrect addition to the meaning of "sex" in the 14th...so I'd be surprised if they're willing to tempt fate twice on the same misinterpretation...especially if the GOP gets its shit together, gets Trump to step down and gets a true conservative that polls beating Hillary in the Fall, instead of losing to her.

The word sex doesn't appear anywhere in the 14th Amendment, liar.

I know making shit up and running with it is your modus operandi, but this just getting embarrassing for you.