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

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No fines or jail. Just forbid THEM from marrying the one who they are romantically and sexually attracted to.

But people are being fined and businesses destroyed because they will not submit.

People are being penalized for breaking the law. Not for what their ideas.

The law is unjust. When the law becomes tyranny, it's time to take a stand. When the law penalizes people for believing that marriage is only between a male and female, which civilization has believed since man crawled out of the cave, then we have a problem.

Ah yes ! Tyranny!! Whenever you people are prevented from discrimination it's tyranny by the big-bad gobber-mint . Anacrchy would be so much better. Everyone would be free to treat anyone else however that damned please based on some made up bullshit about deeply held beliefs that are nothing more than bigotry in disguise.

Yep, a business owner SHOULD have the RIGHT to associate with anyone they want or hire anyone they want without being FORCED to hire freaks and perverts.

Should they also be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion or national origin?

 

[Lysistrata]

When a leftist protests, it's called "speaking truth to power". When a conservative Christian protests or speaks out, it's called "hate speech". That's how it works. It's authentic bigotry and bias from the left. It's designed to silence dissent and opposition.

These "Christians" may protest any way they want against whomever they want, as long as they do not break the law and do not shirk their professional/employment duties or defy the laws associated with them. The same is true of every other group, women, LGBTs, Muslims, you name it, with the same proviso. These groups have the same right to protest and criticize these "Christians" in the same manner. The anti-discrimination laws protect all, and to the same extent. You must understand that by repudiating our anti-discrimination laws, you are opening yourself up to discrimination against your own group with no legal recourse. What if some business person decides that a person's membership in some fundamentalist Christian sect means that he is a freak and refuses to deal with him? Would you be okay with that and back his decision?

BTW: how ironic it is that you refer in a manner that implies disparagement to the duty to "speak[] truth to power." This is a term that expresses the beliefs of the Christians known for hundreds of years as the Society of Friends (Quakers).

Brief Biography of William Penn

On the life of William Penn, founder of what came to be known as the state of Pennsylvania.

 

[dblack]

But people are being fined and businesses destroyed because they will not submit.

People are being penalized for breaking the law. Not for what their ideas.

The law is unjust. When the law becomes tyranny, it's time to take a stand. When the law penalizes people for believing that marriage is only between a male and female, which civilization has believed since man crawled out of the cave, then we have a problem.

Ah yes ! Tyranny!! Whenever you people are prevented from discrimination it's tyranny by the big-bad gobber-mint . Anacrchy would be so much better. Everyone would be free to treat anyone else however that damned please based on some made up bullshit about deeply held beliefs that are nothing more than bigotry in disguise.

Yep, a business owner SHOULD have the RIGHT to associate with anyone they want or hire anyone they want without being FORCED to hire freaks and perverts.

Should they also be allowed to discriminate based on race, religion or national origin?

Yes.

 

[dblack]

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

It really doesn't. It's not the behavior that's being targeted. It's the ideas behind it. Think it through:

It's not illegal to refuse to serve someone (or hire them, or whatever). It's illegal to refuse to serve them for prohibited reasons. The Christian baker, for example, could have easily avoided prosecution, and still refused to accommodate the gay wedding, by simply not offering a reason, or by offering another reason that isn't banned. It's the reason that is illegal (in particular, the expression of that reason), not the refusal to accommodate.

 

[dblack]

What do you think should be done with people that won't submit to the idea of same-sex marriage and deliberately choose to believe and act on marriage being between a male and female? Should we fine them or jail them?

No fines or jail. Just forbid THEM from marrying the one who they are romantically and sexually attracted to.

But people are being fined and businesses destroyed because they will not submit.

People are being penalized for breaking the law. Not for what their ideas.

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

And they're free to refuse service to people they don't like - as long as they keep mum as to their reasons.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

It really doesn't. It's not the behavior that's being targeted. It's the ideas behind it. Think it through:

It's not illegal to refuse to serve someone (or hire them, or whatever). It's illegal to refuse to serve them for prohibited reasons. The Christian baker, for example, could have easily avoided prosecution, and still refused to accommodate the gay wedding, by simply not offering a reason, or by offering another reason that isn't banned. It's the reason that is illegal (in particular, the expression of that reason), not the refusal to accommodate.

Wrong!! I have thought it through. The behavior is motivated by the beliefs, but they can choose to behave differently-in compliance with the law. Regardless of whether or not they provide the service or product, they still have their beliefs. No one can take that from them

The proof that they are not being penalized for their beliefs is the fact that they are free to express those beliefs in many different ways. They can preach them from a soap box in town square and they cant be touched.

As I and others have said many times, allowing people to discriminate based on their personal beliefs opens the door to the specter of everyone and anyone being able to discriminate against anyone else. You could be next.

 

[BS Filter]

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

It really doesn't. It's not the behavior that's being targeted. It's the ideas behind it. Think it through:

It's not illegal to refuse to serve someone (or hire them, or whatever). It's illegal to refuse to serve them for prohibited reasons. The Christian baker, for example, could have easily avoided prosecution, and still refused to accommodate the gay wedding, by simply not offering a reason, or by offering another reason that isn't banned. It's the reason that is illegal (in particular, the expression of that reason), not the refusal to accommodate.

Wrong!! I have thought it through. The behavior is motivated by the beliefs, but they can choose to behave differently-in compliance with the law. Regardless of whether or not they provide the service or product, they still have their beliefs. No one can take that from them

The proof that they are not being penalized for their beliefs is the fact that they are free to express those beliefs in many different ways. They can preach them from a soap box in town square and they cant be touched.

As I and others have said many times, allowing people to discriminate based on their personal beliefs opens the door to the specter of everyone and anyone being able to discriminate against anyone else. You could be next.

You have this totalitarian idea that just because a law forces someone to accommodate something against their religious beliefs that it has to be. The law is unjust and the laws are being changed to accommodate people with religious objections.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No fines or jail. Just forbid THEM from marrying the one who they are romantically and sexually attracted to.

But people are being fined and businesses destroyed because they will not submit.

People are being penalized for breaking the law. Not for what their ideas.

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

And they're free to refuse service to people they don't like - as long as they keep mum as to their reasons.

I would like to see them try that with a black person.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

It really doesn't. It's not the behavior that's being targeted. It's the ideas behind it. Think it through:

It's not illegal to refuse to serve someone (or hire them, or whatever). It's illegal to refuse to serve them for prohibited reasons. The Christian baker, for example, could have easily avoided prosecution, and still refused to accommodate the gay wedding, by simply not offering a reason, or by offering another reason that isn't banned. It's the reason that is illegal (in particular, the expression of that reason), not the refusal to accommodate.

Wrong!! I have thought it through. The behavior is motivated by the beliefs, but they can choose to behave differently-in compliance with the law. Regardless of whether or not they provide the service or product, they still have their beliefs. No one can take that from them

The proof that they are not being penalized for their beliefs is the fact that they are free to express those beliefs in many different ways. They can preach them from a soap box in town square and they cant be touched.

As I and others have said many times, allowing people to discriminate based on their personal beliefs opens the door to the specter of everyone and anyone being able to discriminate against anyone else. You could be next.

You have this totalitarian idea that just because a law forces someone to accommodate something against their religious beliefs that it has to be. The law is unjust and the laws are being changed to accommodate people with religious objections.

As soon as they tear up the constitution and declare the United States a theocracy - you will be right.

Some are trying to change the laws to allow bigotry in the name of a bastardized interpretation of religious liberty but, as you might have notices, they are catching a lot of blow back for it.

 

[Lysistrata]

No fines or jail. Just forbid THEM from marrying the one who they are romantically and sexually attracted to.

But people are being fined and businesses destroyed because they will not submit.

People are being penalized for breaking the law. Not for what their ideas.

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

And they're free to refuse service to people they don't like - as long as they keep mum as to their reasons.

You totally misstate the law. A refusal to abide by public-accommodation laws without offering an explanation would result in a finding by a state human-rights agency against the business owner. The complaining party must fill out forms with either the relevant state or federal agency that specifies the basis on which the complainant feels that s/he was discriminated against, in writing on a form. The business might try, in defense, to introduce a neutral rule that it has, but this would require evidence that this rule is universally applied to all patrons, i.e. "no shirt, no shoes, no service," when asked for an explanation. I know from years of experience with EEO cases that, in an employment-related case, the employer accused of discrimination is required, once the accuser makes out a prima facie case in court that precludes summary judgment for the employer, to assert a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions regarding hiring, discipline, denial of promotion, discharge, etc.. The accuser then may present evidence that the proffered explanation is "pretextual," in other words a lie, and then usually wins. Keeping mum is not a way out of it. It's a guarantee that the respondent will lose.

 

[BS Filter]

But people are being fined and businesses destroyed because they will not submit.

People are being penalized for breaking the law. Not for what their ideas.

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

And they're free to refuse service to people they don't like - as long as they keep mum as to their reasons.

I would like to see them try that with a black person.

Being black isn't a behavior that can offend religious beliefs.

 

[BS Filter]

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

It really doesn't. It's not the behavior that's being targeted. It's the ideas behind it. Think it through:

It's not illegal to refuse to serve someone (or hire them, or whatever). It's illegal to refuse to serve them for prohibited reasons. The Christian baker, for example, could have easily avoided prosecution, and still refused to accommodate the gay wedding, by simply not offering a reason, or by offering another reason that isn't banned. It's the reason that is illegal (in particular, the expression of that reason), not the refusal to accommodate.

Wrong!! I have thought it through. The behavior is motivated by the beliefs, but they can choose to behave differently-in compliance with the law. Regardless of whether or not they provide the service or product, they still have their beliefs. No one can take that from them

The proof that they are not being penalized for their beliefs is the fact that they are free to express those beliefs in many different ways. They can preach them from a soap box in town square and they cant be touched.

As I and others have said many times, allowing people to discriminate based on their personal beliefs opens the door to the specter of everyone and anyone being able to discriminate against anyone else. You could be next.

You have this totalitarian idea that just because a law forces someone to accommodate something against their religious beliefs that it has to be. The law is unjust and the laws are being changed to accommodate people with religious objections.

As soon as they tear up the constitution and declare the United States a theocracy - you will be right.

Some are trying to change the laws to allow bigotry in the name of a bastardized interpretation of religious liberty but, as you might have notices, they are catching a lot of blow back for it.

Nope, believing marriage is a male and female is quite clear in Christianity, not invented. The Scriptures are clear and precise that marriage is a male and female.

 

[dblack]

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

It really doesn't. It's not the behavior that's being targeted. It's the ideas behind it. Think it through:

It's not illegal to refuse to serve someone (or hire them, or whatever). It's illegal to refuse to serve them for prohibited reasons. The Christian baker, for example, could have easily avoided prosecution, and still refused to accommodate the gay wedding, by simply not offering a reason, or by offering another reason that isn't banned. It's the reason that is illegal (in particular, the expression of that reason), not the refusal to accommodate.

Wrong!! I have thought it through. The behavior is motivated by the beliefs, but they can choose to behave differently-in compliance with the law. Regardless of whether or not they provide the service or product, they still have their beliefs. No one can take that from them

Just as long as they keep it to themselves. Nah, that's not suppressing speech.

 

[Lysistrata]

People are being penalized for breaking the law. Not for what their ideas.

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

And they're free to refuse service to people they don't like - as long as they keep mum as to their reasons.

I would like to see them try that with a black person.

Being black isn't a behavior that can offend religious beliefs.

Why should anyone be concerned about committing behavior "that can offend religious beliefs"? Someone's religious beliefs are only the concern of the people who hold those particular beliefs. Am I obligated to avoid enjoying a ham sandwich because Jews and Muslims don't eat pork, avoid alcohol because most Muslims object to the intake of alcoholic drinks, avoid eating a steak or pork chop because Hindus object to eating meat? People of every faith have an obligation to obey our laws and to find a way to do so. It's an integral part of being an American, of assimilating.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

It really doesn't. It's not the behavior that's being targeted. It's the ideas behind it. Think it through:

It's not illegal to refuse to serve someone (or hire them, or whatever). It's illegal to refuse to serve them for prohibited reasons. The Christian baker, for example, could have easily avoided prosecution, and still refused to accommodate the gay wedding, by simply not offering a reason, or by offering another reason that isn't banned. It's the reason that is illegal (in particular, the expression of that reason), not the refusal to accommodate.

Wrong!! I have thought it through. The behavior is motivated by the beliefs, but they can choose to behave differently-in compliance with the law. Regardless of whether or not they provide the service or product, they still have their beliefs. No one can take that from them

The proof that they are not being penalized for their beliefs is the fact that they are free to express those beliefs in many different ways. They can preach them from a soap box in town square and they cant be touched.

As I and others have said many times, allowing people to discriminate based on their personal beliefs opens the door to the specter of everyone and anyone being able to discriminate against anyone else. You could be next.

You have this totalitarian idea that just because a law forces someone to accommodate something against their religious beliefs that it has to be. The law is unjust and the laws are being changed to accommodate people with religious objections.

As soon as they tear up the constitution and declare the United States a theocracy - you will be right.

Some are trying to change the laws to allow bigotry in the name of a bastardized interpretation of religious liberty but, as you might have notices, they are catching a lot of blow back for it.

Nope, believing marriage is a male and female is quite clear in Christianity, not invented. The Scriptures are clear and precise that marriage is a male and female.

Then DO NOT get gay married. I don't know squat about the scriptures and care even less, but I'm willing to bet that they do not say anything about punishing others who do not believe as you do. I also know that many Christians do not believe as you do, and many who do believe as you do also understand that discrimination is wrong. Your religion does not dictate bigotry. Rather, you and others like you use it as justification for your bigotry

 

[Leo123]

Then DO NOT get gay married. I don't know squat about the scriptures and care even less, but I'm willing to bet that they do not say anything about punishing others who do not believe as you do. I also know that many Christians do not believe as you do, and many who do believe as you do also understand that discrimination is wrong. Your religion does not dictate bigotry. Rather, you and others like you use it as justification for your bigotry

Don't underestimate the power of religion. Billions have been punished and indeed killed because of non-belief in certain religious beliefs that most people consider normal. Normalcy is what is best for humanity and not understanding what sex one is... is definitely not normal. Discrimination is not wrong, humans discriminate every day in many ways. Using such vague terms does not help your position.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

People are being penalized for breaking the law. Not for what their ideas.

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

And they're free to refuse service to people they don't like - as long as they keep mum as to their reasons.

I would like to see them try that with a black person.

Being black isn't a behavior that can offend religious beliefs.

That is not the issue. You previously said:

And they're free to refuse service to people they don't like - as long as they keep mum as to their reasons

"Refuse service to ANYONE who they don't like" ANYONE! I would really like to see the shit storm if someone refused to serve a black person whether they gave being black as a reason or not.

And someone else's behavior is none of you concern unless they are fornicating in your place of business.

Lastly, don't forget that there was a time when racist used the same religious argument to justify segregation.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But people are being fined and businesses destroyed because they will not submit.

People are being penalized for breaking the law. Not for what their ideas.

The law targets their ideas for suppression.

Bullshit! The law targets their behavior towards others. They are free to believe whatever they want.

And they're free to refuse service to people they don't like - as long as they keep mum as to their reasons.

You totally misstate the law. A refusal to abide by public-accommodation laws without offering an explanation would result in a finding by a state human-rights agency against the business owner. The complaining party must fill out forms with either the relevant state or federal agency that specifies the basis on which the complainant feels that s/he was discriminated against, in writing on a form. The business might try, in defense, to introduce a neutral rule that it has, but this would require evidence that this rule is universally applied to all patrons, i.e. "no shirt, no shoes, no service," when asked for an explanation. I know from years of experience with EEO cases that, in an employment-related case, the employer accused of discrimination is required, once the accuser makes out a prima facie case in court that precludes summary judgment for the employer, to assert a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions regarding hiring, discipline, denial of promotion, discharge, etc.. The accuser then may present evidence that the proffered explanation is "pretextual," in other words a lie, and then usually wins. Keeping mum is not a way out of it. It's a guarantee that the respondent will lose.

You go girl!! Word up!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Then DO NOT get gay married. I don't know squat about the scriptures and care even less, but I'm willing to bet that they do not say anything about punishing others who do not believe as you do. I also know that many Christians do not believe as you do, and many who do believe as you do also understand that discrimination is wrong. Your religion does not dictate bigotry. Rather, you and others like you use it as justification for your bigotry

Don't underestimate the power of religion. Billions have been punished and indeed killed because of non-belief in certain religious beliefs that most people consider normal. Normalcy is what is best for humanity and not understanding what sex one is... is definitely not normal. Discrimination is not wrong, humans discriminate every day in many ways. Using such vague terms does not help your position.

Perhaps you would care to explain the ways in which humans discriminate every day that is not wrong.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Normalcy is what is best for humanity and not understanding what sex one is... is definitely not normal

Because you say so? That is just an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy