Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's!

[LoneLaugher]

I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.

Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...

You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.

You may be the sweetest, most gentle, despicable bigot posting on these pages. I find you to be insufferably lame and you always find a way to use twenty words to communicate thoughts which require only half a dozen.

Just thought you'd like to know.

 

[Silhouette]

I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.

Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...

You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.

You may be the sweetest, most gentle, despicable bigot posting on these pages. I find you to be insufferably lame and you always find a way to use twenty words to communicate thoughts which require only half a dozen.

Just thought you'd like to know.

I know words are overwhelming to you. But I won't limit them to spare the illustration for those who are too slow to grasp that if one behavior is repugnant to the majority, yet gets special "class protections", other behaviors also repugnant to the majority, (cleptomania, bulimia, polygamy) can't be left out in the cold. Equality demands equal treatment for behaviors. One gets protection, they all do. Let me know when you understand what equality means...

 

[mdk]

I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.

Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...

You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.

You may be the sweetest, most gentle, despicable bigot posting on these pages. I find you to be insufferably lame and you always find a way to use twenty words to communicate thoughts which require only half a dozen.

Just thought you'd like to know.

I know words are overwhelming to you. But I won't limit them to spare the illustration for those who are too slow to grasp that if one behavior is repugnant to the majority, yet gets special "class protections", other behaviors also repugnant to the majority, (cleptomania, bulimia, polygamy) can't be left out in the cold. Equality demands equal treatment for behaviors. One gets protection, they all do. Let me know when you understand what equality means...

There is no such thing as Christian Americans or Gay Americans because you say so. Here is the inside scoop: nobody really gives a shit if you deny reality or not.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ However, the courts are mandated to note that once one behavior repugnant to the majority gets protection from the majority, all others must as well. What would be the determiner? That the majority objects to the new type of behavior? Seriously?

 

[Conservative65]

I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.

Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...

You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.

People like LL claim to support equality and equal protection until you expect them to support such things in situations they disagree with. I've asked so many of the same sex marriage supporters whether or not they applied the concept of equal protection to brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter marriages I've lost count. What I haven't lost count of is how many that claim to support equal protection oppose it when it comes to marriages they don't think should take place. It's not hard to keep count of zero. They clamor about two people that love each other being able to get married and no one should stop them until those two people are in categories they think shouldn't get married. That's when they find all sorts of excuses to exempt equal protection.

 

[Moonglow]

oh well, i had a good run. twenty years in the women's bathroom.

Does tonguing toilets make you ghey?

 

[mdk]

^^ However, the courts are mandated to note that once one behavior repugnant to the majority gets protection from the majority, all others must as well. What would be the determiner? That the majority objects to the new type of behavior? Seriously?

Stop projecting your anti-gay animus on the rest of society. Just because you are an obsessed lunatic doesn't mean the rest of America is.

 

[The Great Goose]

oh well, i had a good run. twenty years in the women's bathroom.

Does tonguing toilets make you ghey?

what is it with you leftwing progressives and trans hatred.

 

[mdk]

I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.

Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...

You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.

People like LL claim to support equality and equal protection until you expect them to support such things in situations they disagree with. I've asked so many of the same sex marriage supporters whether or not they applied the concept of equal protection to brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter marriages I've lost count. What I haven't lost count of is how many that claim to support equal protection oppose it when it comes to marriages they don't think should take place. It's not hard to keep count of zero. They clamor about two people that love each other being able to get married and no one should stop them until those two people are in categories they think shouldn't get married. That's when they find all sorts of excuses to exempt equal protection.

Perhaps if you whine like a little ***** some more it might make a difference, but I doubt it.

 

[Moonglow]

oh well, i had a good run. twenty years in the women's bathroom.

Does tonguing toilets make you ghey?

what is it with you leftwing progressives and trans hatred.

I don't know which are which.. Just thought I'd ask...

 

[Silhouette]

I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.

Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...

You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.

People like LL claim to support equality and equal protection until you expect them to support such things in situations they disagree with. I've asked so many of the same sex marriage supporters whether or not they applied the concept of equal protection to brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter marriages I've lost count. What I haven't lost count of is how many that claim to support equal protection oppose it when it comes to marriages they don't think should take place. It's not hard to keep count of zero. They clamor about two people that love each other being able to get married and no one should stop them until those two people are in categories they think shouldn't get married. That's when they find all sorts of excuses to exempt equal protection.

I see the usual tag team group has arrived. mdk/Skylar taking turns slinging ad hominems in lieu of rebuttal they cannot make to the points I raised. A feminine "gee can't we all just get along...Silhouette is so MEAN!" character....and to tie it up...Moonglow inserting parody and non sequiturs to derail the conversation into "this is just a farce...move on..."

So, my conclusion is that this usual team is quite rattled by the federal court's decision and wording, pointing out as I've been saying all along that behaviors aren't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act...nor any interpretative spin offs (Obergefell). "Civil Rights" don't apply to behaviors.

Yet when the cult of LGBT screams that they do apply!...and people point out to them, like you did Conservative65, then all of a sudden "that's icky!" or "polygamists always just want to have sex with minors". That's absurd! While their hero and icon Harvey Milk was documented as having a sexual relationship with a minor, and transporting him across state lines as such (federal crime and felonies), they get our sitting President to name a navy ship after him.

They are so all over the board that it was only a matter of time before a federal judge or panel of them put a stop to the hypocrisy freight train and correctly identified their false premise: "race is the same as behaviors!!".. No...it's not. They aren't even legally in the same ballpark. One behavior can't be special while all the others are shut out. Even ones that are born from sexual deviancy...like polygamy or incest. "They're just wrong!" Well, so is ass sex spreading aids and permanently divorcing kids in that "marriage" from either a mother or father for life..

If "they're just wrong" is the LGBT justification for banning polygamists and incest from marriage, then gay marriage is the first one to go. At least polygamists give both a mother and father to kids...

 

[mdk]

I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.

Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...

You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.

People like LL claim to support equality and equal protection until you expect them to support such things in situations they disagree with. I've asked so many of the same sex marriage supporters whether or not they applied the concept of equal protection to brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter marriages I've lost count. What I haven't lost count of is how many that claim to support equal protection oppose it when it comes to marriages they don't think should take place. It's not hard to keep count of zero. They clamor about two people that love each other being able to get married and no one should stop them until those two people are in categories they think shouldn't get married. That's when they find all sorts of excuses to exempt equal protection.

I see the usual tag team group has arrived. mdk/Skylar taking turns slinging ad hominems in lieu of rebuttal they cannot make to the points I raised. A feminine "gee can't we all just get along...Silhouette is so MEAN!" character....and to tie it up...Moonglow inserting parody and non sequiturs to derail the conversation into "this is just a farce...move on..."

So, my conclusion is that this usual team is quite rattled by the federal court's decision and wording, pointing out as I've been saying all along that behaviors aren't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act...nor any interpretative spin offs (Obergefell). "Civil Rights" don't apply to behaviors.

Yet when the cult of LGBT screams that they do apply!...and people point out to them, like you did Conservative65, then all of a sudden "that's icky!" or "polygamists always just want to have sex with minors". That's absurd! While their hero and icon Harvey Milk was documented as having a sexual relationship with a minor, and transporting him across state lines as such (federal crime and felonies), they get our sitting President to name a navy ship after him.

They are so all over the board that it was only a matter of time before a federal judge or panel of them put a stop to the hypocrisy freight train and correctly identified their false premise: "race is the same as behaviors!!".. No...it's not. They aren't even legally in the same ballpark. One behavior can't be special while all the others are shut out. Even ones that are born from sexual deviancy...like polygamy or incest. "They're just wrong!" Well, so is ass sex spreading aids and permanently divorcing kids in that "marriage" from either a mother or father for life..

Civil rights don't apply to behaviors...unless you ignore speech, gun ownership, having a religion, and, a whole other host of behaviors that are considered rights. You can ignore those until the cows come home, but the rest of us... not so much.

By the way, repeating the same lame horseshit doesn't make it so. It certainly demonstrates why you've been laughable wrong in your in all your legal and political predictions.

Why would anyone be rattled by the stupid delusions you use to coddle yourself?

 

[Silhouette]

The 1964 Civil Rights Act said nothing about gun ownership or religion. Those are specifically addressed elsewhere in the Constitution. If you want to amend the 1964 Civil Rights act, go ahead and petition Congress to do so. Until then, you'll have to live with behaviors not being covered as to sex, race and country of origin.

Here's a link for the actual Decision from the 7th Circuit. usat-2016-07-29-sexual-orientation-ruling.pdf

 

[jillian]

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

sexual identification isn't included in the federal law.

at some point when the supremes get it, they will have to find thet not including them violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in light of recent caselaw.

 

[mdk]

The 1964 Civil Rights Act said nothing about gun ownership or religion. Those are specifically addressed elsewhere in the Constitution. If you want to amend the 1964 Civil Rights act, go ahead and petition Congress to do so. Until then, you'll have to live with behaviors not being covered as to sex, race and country of origin.

Here's a link for the actual Decision from the 7th Circuit. usat-2016-07-29-sexual-orientation-ruling.pdf

I am well aware that the Civil Rights Act doesn't address sexual orientation and I agree with the ruling as a result. Don't let that stop you from beating that strawman with a stick, though.

I find it amusing you think this ruling going to somehow roll back Obergefell. Hint: it isn't.

If you spent half as time much worrying about own family then perhaps you could find a husband. After all, children having a father is a right in your Imaginationland. lol

 

[Silhouette]

sexual identification isn't included in the federal law.

at some point when the supremes get it, they will have to find thet not including them violates the equal protection clause of the constitution in light of recent caselaw.

But how can they find than when no language exists protecting sexual behaviors in the US Constitution? The only branch of government who can remedy the situation is Congress. The Supremes are done writing new law (acting as the legislature). My guess is the next time they brazenly do so, heads will roll.

Here's the federal circuit's opening paragraph from the link I posted in post #73: (Bold, underline, mine)

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Once again this court is asked to consider whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from or offers redress for discrimination based on sexual orientation. This time, however, we do so in the shadow of criticism from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that this court and others have continued to reflexively declare that sexual orientation is not cognizable under Title VII without due analysis or consideration of intervening case law. The EEOC's criticism has created a groundswell of questions about the rationale for denying sexual orientation claims while allowing nearly indistinguishable gender non-conformity claims, which courts have long recognized as a form of sex-based discrimination under Title VII. After a careful analysis of our precedent, however, this court must conclude that Kimberly Hively has failed to state a claim under Title VII for sex discrimination; her claim is solely for sexual orientation discrimination which is beyond the scope of the statute. Consequently, we affirm the decision of the district court.

The 7th Circuit flatly declared that "sexual orientation" is 1. Different from the use of the word "sex" in civil rights statutes and 2. Not covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
**************

mdk vv really worked up. Sounds like a threat. Anything substantive to offer besides ad hominems and veiled threats mdk? No? I thought so...

 

[mdk]

ntil then, you'll have to live with behaviors not being covered as to sex, race and country of origin.

I suppose you'll have to life with that fact that gay people can marry and raise their families despite all your whining on the Internet. You are irrelevant. You would be wise to remember that fact.

 

[mdk]

mdk vv really worked up. Sounds like a threat. Anything substantive to offer besides ad hominems and veiled threats mdk? No? I thought so..

Worked up!? Hardly. Watching you make an ass out of yourself is one of my guilty pleasures. If you believe I am making threats you are free to report me to the moderators. I am sure they could use the laugh, dumb shit.

 

[StLucieBengal]

Without reading the 8 pages. So if this has been said I apologize for being lazy.

I don't think we need any regulation on hiring. I believe society is progressed enough plus the market place has progressed enough that enough businesses will overlook things to hire the best people. And those who hold other values high can feel free to let the applicant know why they didn't make the hire. This is crucial honesty to the applicant because they can adjust their resume if they can help it but if they can't they will at least know that their resume wasn't the issue.

 

[Conservative65]

I absolutely support the struggle that gay Americans have waged for equality in this nation. They are winning that struggle. Which makes you a loser.

Do you also support polygamist-Americans and their struggles for equality? How about cleptomaniac Americans? Bulimic Americans (why do we force them to practice their eating-orientation in a bathroom stall, they should have vomit urns on every table in every restaurant.)...

You understand the difference between habitual behaviors and a static class like race, right? There is no such thing as a "gay American". Just because your cult created the term, doesn't make it valid. There are only Americans doing this or that thing. You can't call someone a "behavior-American".. only a class-American. Behaviors aren't a class of people; otherwise all of the possible human behaviors must, via the edicts of "equality", have their own class and protections. Equality means that no group doing habitual behaviors and thereby giving themselves a special name-hyphen-"American", can be left out of the special-protections/class arena.

People like LL claim to support equality and equal protection until you expect them to support such things in situations they disagree with. I've asked so many of the same sex marriage supporters whether or not they applied the concept of equal protection to brother/sister, mother/son, or father/daughter marriages I've lost count. What I haven't lost count of is how many that claim to support equal protection oppose it when it comes to marriages they don't think should take place. It's not hard to keep count of zero. They clamor about two people that love each other being able to get married and no one should stop them until those two people are in categories they think shouldn't get married. That's when they find all sorts of excuses to exempt equal protection.

Perhaps if you whine like a little ***** some more it might make a difference, but I doubt it.

Perhaps if you'd quit being a little ***** . . . enough said. I doubt you will.