Log Cabin Republicans endorse Trump..... Oh my.. Our LGTBQXYZ+_$? Should have their heads explode!

[basquebromance]

what are we supposed to do? shun Trump like a dumbell at Rosie O'Donell's house?

he's the best candidate out there on LGBT issues!

Horseshit !! Did you follow my link? Here is more

Donald Trump’s War On LGBTQ Americans Is Ramping Up | HuffPost

My only question is do you actually believe that, or are you as much a=of a liar as Trump is?

you think by giving a link to huffpost you're gonna convince me?

i can produce 10 trillion links that prove you're wrong!

just google "trump manlove"

I don't give a rats hind parts about convincing you. Any reasonable person who sees this will know what's going on. You can deride the Huff Post all you want, but you can't refute anything that is being reported.

terrorists hate guys and Trump eats terrorists for breakfast

then he eats guys -

Trump is gay. Always has been and always will be.

i now like "Trump"

 

[Siete]

1. Saying it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender.
Last October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a federal policy that said transgender workers were protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This new position runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a federal agency — and numerous federal courts, which have found Title VII does protect transgender workers. For example, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII protects transgender workers even if the employer raises a religious objection.

Saying that transgender workers are not protected under the Civil Rights Act is NOT the same as saying THAT IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE THEM FOR BEING TRANSGENDER!!!

Please tell me you see the difference.

And, I am not defending that shit either.

Yes I see the difference. But I would also like to see the actual EEOC's actual policies and more importantly, how it is put into practice. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not the EEOC considers transpeople protected by Tittle VII, the current administrations position kind of takes the teeth out of the EEOC. If they file a complain against an employer and it winds up in court , the DOJ is going to be all in on the side of the administration.

hot damn - a biased RW dictatorship ..

 

[bendog]

And another one bites the dust.

Another resignation shakes LGBT Republican group after Trump endorsement

lol

Trump's brilliance...attacking Dem's on their home turf forcing them to defend it. Good job Mr. President whoop the Dem's ass again in 2020

Taking out the log cabin republicans is not attacking the dems on their home turf, although it may be expanding the turf …. depending on whether the dems resist the temptation to go full bat shit crazy on socialism.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

1. Saying it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender.
Last October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a federal policy that said transgender workers were protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This new position runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a federal agency — and numerous federal courts, which have found Title VII does protect transgender workers. For example, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII protects transgender workers even if the employer raises a religious objection.

Saying that transgender workers are not protected under the Civil Rights Act is NOT the same as saying THAT IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE THEM FOR BEING TRANSGENDER!!!

Please tell me you see the difference.

And, I am not defending that shit either.

Yes I see the difference. But I would also like to see the actual EEOC's actual policies and more importantly, how it is put into practice. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not the EEOC considers transpeople protected by Tittle VII, the current administrations position kind of takes the teeth out of the EEOC. If they file a complain against an employer and it winds up in court , the DOJ is going to be all in on the side of the administration.

I agree.

.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed President Trump's 2020 reelection bid on Friday, nearly four years after the conservative LGBT organization declined to endorse then-candidate Trump in 2016.

The group said its national board of directors voted to endorse Trump after consulting with its chapters across the country.

Log Cabin Republicans Chairman Robert Kabel and Vice Chairwoman Jill Homan argued in a Washington Post op-ed on Friday that Trump has helped remove LGBTQ rights as a wedge issue in the GOP, citing his administration's policies on ending the spread of HIV/AIDS as well as his push to get other countries to conform to modern human rights standards.

The leaders also cited Trump's appointment of Richard Grenell, who is openly gay, as U.S. ambassador to Germany.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Just heard this on the news. I’m not surprised. Even homosexuals like a good economy!!!

The leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans are the Uncle Toms and the LGBT community! They cherry pick a few token things that he paid lip service to, level some gentile criticism on one or two matter, and overlook a whole lot of damaging actions he has taken against LGBT people.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-lgbt-anti-actions-administration-pride-month

You know I am no LBGTQ hater, but that buzzfeed article was so disingenuous, it made me want to puke.

The commie Dems cannot afford to allow the LBGTQ community to escape their clutches, so they spin shit like that to round up the queers and keep them captive.

But, I WOULD like to see is the Jesus Nazis of the GOP shut the **** up. If any group deserves no tent, it's those fuckers.

.

Really? How was it disingenuous? What did they spin and how? Be specific

Look at the first two.

1. Saying it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender.
Last October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a federal policy that said transgender workers were protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This new position runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a federal agency — and numerous federal courts, which have found Title VII does protect transgender workers. For example, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII protects transgender workers even if the employer raises a religious objection.

Saying that transgender workers are not protected under the Civil Rights Act is NOT the same as saying THAT IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE THEM FOR BEING TRANSGENDER!!!

Please tell me you see the difference.

And, I am not defending that shit either.

Here's #2:

2. Arguing that it’s legal to fire workers for being gay.
The Justice Department made an unexpected move last July when it stepped into in a major federal lawsuit to argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination. The Trump administration’s filing was unusual in part because the Justice Department wasn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits. Further, the Justice Department was fighting against a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported a gay man's case. The court ruled in favor of LGBT rights, but the Trump administration hasn’t reversed its stance that it’s legal under federal law to fire employees for being gay.

Again, saying the Civil Rights Act does not protect gay workers is NOT the same thing as that title--IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE WORKERS FOR BEING GAY.

Can you see my point?

That is bullshit spinning and a mischaracterization that the author intended, knowing that the "summary" title would be the only think that most people read.

You know it's true. The intent was to stir outrage.

Again, I am NOT defending the Trump administration on any of that. I am calling out bullshit where I see it.

.

Yes, once again I see the difference, but I also know for a fact that people have been fired for being gay, in states where they are not protected by a law against discrimination. I would like to know more about the case you referenced . What court was this? What is the jurisdiction and does it have national implications or just one federal district or circuit?

 

[fncceo]

I remember when Republicans used to send money back that they got from the log cabin. I guess taking their money for nothing in return is considered progress.

I could never trust a politician who sends money back.

It's unnatural.

In the words of the great Tom Bradley (Democrat mayor of Los Angeles), "If you can't take someone's money and then F them over, you have no business being in politics".

 

[Dan Stubbs]

I heard today that 51% of Mexicans support Trump. If true, liberals are gonna start departing them. After the way they acted after the election has really hurt them. I'm sooo glad!

I am going to buy stock in the drug companies, Democrats are going to need to drug up to keep from being locked up in the Funny Farm. Biden will need double dose.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed President Trump's 2020 reelection bid on Friday, nearly four years after the conservative LGBT organization declined to endorse then-candidate Trump in 2016.

The group said its national board of directors voted to endorse Trump after consulting with its chapters across the country.

Log Cabin Republicans Chairman Robert Kabel and Vice Chairwoman Jill Homan argued in a Washington Post op-ed on Friday that Trump has helped remove LGBTQ rights as a wedge issue in the GOP, citing his administration's policies on ending the spread of HIV/AIDS as well as his push to get other countries to conform to modern human rights standards.

The leaders also cited Trump's appointment of Richard Grenell, who is openly gay, as U.S. ambassador to Germany.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Just heard this on the news. I’m not surprised. Even homosexuals like a good economy!!!

The leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans are the Uncle Toms and the LGBT community! They cherry pick a few token things that he paid lip service to, level some gentile criticism on one or two matter, and overlook a whole lot of damaging actions he has taken against LGBT people.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-lgbt-anti-actions-administration-pride-month

You know I am no LBGTQ hater, but that buzzfeed article was so disingenuous, it made me want to puke.

The commie Dems cannot afford to allow the LBGTQ community to escape their clutches, so they spin shit like that to round up the queers and keep them captive.

But, I WOULD like to see is the Jesus Nazis of the GOP shut the **** up. If any group deserves no tent, it's those fuckers.

.

Really? How was it disingenuous? What did they spin and how? Be specific

Look at the first two.

1. Saying it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender.
Last October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a federal policy that said transgender workers were protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This new position runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a federal agency — and numerous federal courts, which have found Title VII does protect transgender workers. For example, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII protects transgender workers even if the employer raises a religious objection.

Saying that transgender workers are not protected under the Civil Rights Act is NOT the same as saying THAT IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE THEM FOR BEING TRANSGENDER!!!

Please tell me you see the difference.

And, I am not defending that shit either.

Here's #2:

2. Arguing that it’s legal to fire workers for being gay.
The Justice Department made an unexpected move last July when it stepped into in a major federal lawsuit to argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination. The Trump administration’s filing was unusual in part because the Justice Department wasn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits. Further, the Justice Department was fighting against a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported a gay man's case. The court ruled in favor of LGBT rights, but the Trump administration hasn’t reversed its stance that it’s legal under federal law to fire employees for being gay.

Again, saying the Civil Rights Act does not protect gay workers is NOT the same thing as that title--IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE WORKERS FOR BEING GAY.

Can you see my point?

That is bullshit spinning and a mischaracterization that the author intended, knowing that the "summary" title would be the only think that most people read.

You know it's true. The intent was to stir outrage.

Again, I am NOT defending the Trump administration on any of that. I am calling out bullshit where I see it.

.

Yes, once again I see the difference, but I also know for a fact that people have been fired for being gay, in states where they are not protected by a law against discrimination. I would like to know more about the case you referenced . What court was this? What is the jurisdiction and does it have national implications or just one federal district or circuit?

Don't you hate it when they force there life styles on other non gay folks.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed President Trump's 2020 reelection bid on Friday, nearly four years after the conservative LGBT organization declined to endorse then-candidate Trump in 2016.

The group said its national board of directors voted to endorse Trump after consulting with its chapters across the country.

Log Cabin Republicans Chairman Robert Kabel and Vice Chairwoman Jill Homan argued in a Washington Post op-ed on Friday that Trump has helped remove LGBTQ rights as a wedge issue in the GOP, citing his administration's policies on ending the spread of HIV/AIDS as well as his push to get other countries to conform to modern human rights standards.

The leaders also cited Trump's appointment of Richard Grenell, who is openly gay, as U.S. ambassador to Germany.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Just heard this on the news. I’m not surprised. Even homosexuals like a good economy!!!

Log cabin Republicans? Lincon wasn't a queer.

The writer seems to think he should have been Gay.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed President Trump's 2020 reelection bid on Friday, nearly four years after the conservative LGBT organization declined to endorse then-candidate Trump in 2016.

The group said its national board of directors voted to endorse Trump after consulting with its chapters across the country.

Log Cabin Republicans Chairman Robert Kabel and Vice Chairwoman Jill Homan argued in a Washington Post op-ed on Friday that Trump has helped remove LGBTQ rights as a wedge issue in the GOP, citing his administration's policies on ending the spread of HIV/AIDS as well as his push to get other countries to conform to modern human rights standards.

The leaders also cited Trump's appointment of Richard Grenell, who is openly gay, as U.S. ambassador to Germany.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Just heard this on the news. I’m not surprised. Even homosexuals like a good economy!!!

The leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans are the Uncle Toms and the LGBT community! They cherry pick a few token things that he paid lip service to, level some gentile criticism on one or two matter, and overlook a whole lot of damaging actions he has taken against LGBT people.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-lgbt-anti-actions-administration-pride-month

You know I am no LBGTQ hater, but that buzzfeed article was so disingenuous, it made me want to puke.

The commie Dems cannot afford to allow the LBGTQ community to escape their clutches, so they spin shit like that to round up the queers and keep them captive.

But, I WOULD like to see is the Jesus Nazis of the GOP shut the **** up. If any group deserves no tent, it's those fuckers.

.

Really? How was it disingenuous? What did they spin and how? Be specific

Look at the first two.

1. Saying it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender.
Last October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a federal policy that said transgender workers were protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This new position runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a federal agency — and numerous federal courts, which have found Title VII does protect transgender workers. For example, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII protects transgender workers even if the employer raises a religious objection.

Saying that transgender workers are not protected under the Civil Rights Act is NOT the same as saying THAT IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE THEM FOR BEING TRANSGENDER!!!

Please tell me you see the difference.

And, I am not defending that shit either.

Here's #2:

2. Arguing that it’s legal to fire workers for being gay.
The Justice Department made an unexpected move last July when it stepped into in a major federal lawsuit to argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination. The Trump administration’s filing was unusual in part because the Justice Department wasn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits. Further, the Justice Department was fighting against a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported a gay man's case. The court ruled in favor of LGBT rights, but the Trump administration hasn’t reversed its stance that it’s legal under federal law to fire employees for being gay.

Again, saying the Civil Rights Act does not protect gay workers is NOT the same thing as that title--IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE WORKERS FOR BEING GAY.

Can you see my point?

That is bullshit spinning and a mischaracterization that the author intended, knowing that the "summary" title would be the only think that most people read.

You know it's true. The intent was to stir outrage.

Again, I am NOT defending the Trump administration on any of that. I am calling out bullshit where I see it.

.

Yes, once again I see the difference, but I also know for a fact that people have been fired for being gay, in states where they are not protected by a law against discrimination. I would like to know more about the case you referenced . What court was this? What is the jurisdiction and does it have national implications or just one federal district or circuit?

Wait, what?

I was just quoting the article. I didn't cite cases. I don't know the case or cases to which the author was referring.

.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans are the Uncle Toms and the LGBT community! They cherry pick a few token things that he paid lip service to, level some gentile criticism on one or two matter, and overlook a whole lot of damaging actions he has taken against LGBT people.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-lgbt-anti-actions-administration-pride-month

You know I am no LBGTQ hater, but that buzzfeed article was so disingenuous, it made me want to puke.

The commie Dems cannot afford to allow the LBGTQ community to escape their clutches, so they spin shit like that to round up the queers and keep them captive.

But, I WOULD like to see is the Jesus Nazis of the GOP shut the **** up. If any group deserves no tent, it's those fuckers.

.

Really? How was it disingenuous? What did they spin and how? Be specific

Look at the first two.

1. Saying it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender.
Last October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a federal policy that said transgender workers were protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This new position runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a federal agency — and numerous federal courts, which have found Title VII does protect transgender workers. For example, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII protects transgender workers even if the employer raises a religious objection.

Saying that transgender workers are not protected under the Civil Rights Act is NOT the same as saying THAT IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE THEM FOR BEING TRANSGENDER!!!

Please tell me you see the difference.

And, I am not defending that shit either.

Here's #2:

2. Arguing that it’s legal to fire workers for being gay.
The Justice Department made an unexpected move last July when it stepped into in a major federal lawsuit to argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination. The Trump administration’s filing was unusual in part because the Justice Department wasn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits. Further, the Justice Department was fighting against a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported a gay man's case. The court ruled in favor of LGBT rights, but the Trump administration hasn’t reversed its stance that it’s legal under federal law to fire employees for being gay.

Again, saying the Civil Rights Act does not protect gay workers is NOT the same thing as that title--IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE WORKERS FOR BEING GAY.

Can you see my point?

That is bullshit spinning and a mischaracterization that the author intended, knowing that the "summary" title would be the only think that most people read.

You know it's true. The intent was to stir outrage.

Again, I am NOT defending the Trump administration on any of that. I am calling out bullshit where I see it.

.

Yes, once again I see the difference, but I also know for a fact that people have been fired for being gay, in states where they are not protected by a law against discrimination. I would like to know more about the case you referenced . What court was this? What is the jurisdiction and does it have national implications or just one federal district or circuit?

Wait, what?

I was just quoting the article. I didn't cite cases. I don't know the case or cases to which the author was referring.

.

Ok Fair enough. But the fact is that gay people can be fired for being gay and saying that it is bullshit to make that claim is, well..... bullshit

 

[basquebromance]

what did they say to the suffragettes? too hard quit now!

what did they say to the folks in the civil right movement? too hard quit now!

what did they say to LGBT activists? too hard quit now!

BUT WE WONT QUIT!

DREAM BIG FIGHT HARD!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The leadership of the Log Cabin Republicans are the Uncle Toms and the LGBT community! They cherry pick a few token things that he paid lip service to, level some gentile criticism on one or two matter, and overlook a whole lot of damaging actions he has taken against LGBT people.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...-lgbt-anti-actions-administration-pride-month

You know I am no LBGTQ hater, but that buzzfeed article was so disingenuous, it made me want to puke.

The commie Dems cannot afford to allow the LBGTQ community to escape their clutches, so they spin shit like that to round up the queers and keep them captive.

But, I WOULD like to see is the Jesus Nazis of the GOP shut the **** up. If any group deserves no tent, it's those fuckers.

.

Really? How was it disingenuous? What did they spin and how? Be specific

Look at the first two.

1. Saying it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender.
Last October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a federal policy that said transgender workers were protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This new position runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a federal agency — and numerous federal courts, which have found Title VII does protect transgender workers. For example, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII protects transgender workers even if the employer raises a religious objection.

Saying that transgender workers are not protected under the Civil Rights Act is NOT the same as saying THAT IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE THEM FOR BEING TRANSGENDER!!!

Please tell me you see the difference.

And, I am not defending that shit either.

Here's #2:

2. Arguing that it’s legal to fire workers for being gay.
The Justice Department made an unexpected move last July when it stepped into in a major federal lawsuit to argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination. The Trump administration’s filing was unusual in part because the Justice Department wasn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits. Further, the Justice Department was fighting against a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported a gay man's case. The court ruled in favor of LGBT rights, but the Trump administration hasn’t reversed its stance that it’s legal under federal law to fire employees for being gay.

Again, saying the Civil Rights Act does not protect gay workers is NOT the same thing as that title--IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE WORKERS FOR BEING GAY.

Can you see my point?

That is bullshit spinning and a mischaracterization that the author intended, knowing that the "summary" title would be the only think that most people read.

You know it's true. The intent was to stir outrage.

Again, I am NOT defending the Trump administration on any of that. I am calling out bullshit where I see it.

.

Yes, once again I see the difference, but I also know for a fact that people have been fired for being gay, in states where they are not protected by a law against discrimination. I would like to know more about the case you referenced . What court was this? What is the jurisdiction and does it have national implications or just one federal district or circuit?

Don't you hate it when they force there life styles on other non gay folks.

How are they forcing you to be gay?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[daveman]

Trump's brilliance...attacking Dem's on their home turf forcing them to defend it. Good job Mr. President whoop the Dem's ass again in 2020

Too bad he doesn’t use that energy to help the country. I feel sorry for the farmers.

No, you don't. Leftists have nothing but contempt for farmers.

 

[BluesLegend]

Trump's brilliance...attacking Dem's on their home turf forcing them to defend it. Good job Mr. President whoop the Dem's ass again in 2020

Too bad he doesn’t use that energy to help the country. I feel sorry for the farmers.

No, you don't. Leftists have nothing but contempt for farmers.

Its more than contempt, one leftist loon at the Washington Post stated yesterday that anyone who voted for Trump must be "purged". That it wasn't enough to defeat Trump in 2020 but that Trump voters had to be destroyed and never again allowed to vote for a non liberal POTUS.

 

[Borillar]

Republicans support Trump. This is news?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You know I am no LBGTQ hater, but that buzzfeed article was so disingenuous, it made me want to puke.

The commie Dems cannot afford to allow the LBGTQ community to escape their clutches, so they spin shit like that to round up the queers and keep them captive.

But, I WOULD like to see is the Jesus Nazis of the GOP shut the **** up. If any group deserves no tent, it's those fuckers.

.

Really? How was it disingenuous? What did they spin and how? Be specific

Look at the first two.

1. Saying it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender.
Last October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a federal policy that said transgender workers were protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This new position runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a federal agency — and numerous federal courts, which have found Title VII does protect transgender workers. For example, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII protects transgender workers even if the employer raises a religious objection.

Saying that transgender workers are not protected under the Civil Rights Act is NOT the same as saying THAT IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE THEM FOR BEING TRANSGENDER!!!

Please tell me you see the difference.

And, I am not defending that shit either.

Here's #2:

2. Arguing that it’s legal to fire workers for being gay.
The Justice Department made an unexpected move last July when it stepped into in a major federal lawsuit to argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination. The Trump administration’s filing was unusual in part because the Justice Department wasn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits. Further, the Justice Department was fighting against a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported a gay man's case. The court ruled in favor of LGBT rights, but the Trump administration hasn’t reversed its stance that it’s legal under federal law to fire employees for being gay.

Again, saying the Civil Rights Act does not protect gay workers is NOT the same thing as that title--IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE WORKERS FOR BEING GAY.

Can you see my point?

That is bullshit spinning and a mischaracterization that the author intended, knowing that the "summary" title would be the only think that most people read.

You know it's true. The intent was to stir outrage.

Again, I am NOT defending the Trump administration on any of that. I am calling out bullshit where I see it.

.

Yes, once again I see the difference, but I also know for a fact that people have been fired for being gay, in states where they are not protected by a law against discrimination. I would like to know more about the case you referenced . What court was this? What is the jurisdiction and does it have national implications or just one federal district or circuit?

Wait, what?

I was just quoting the article. I didn't cite cases. I don't know the case or cases to which the author was referring.

.

Ok Fair enough. But the fact is that gay people can be fired for being gay and saying that it is bullshit to make that claim is, well..... bullshit

It's not currently a civil rights case, apparently.

What does it mean?

There needs to be some court intervention to extend it to gays. I suspect the biggest hurdle is gay folks trying to force churches to employ them against the church's bigoted religious beliefs, which the church should have the right to decide.

.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Really? How was it disingenuous? What did they spin and how? Be specific

Look at the first two.

1. Saying it’s legal to fire workers for being transgender.
Last October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed a federal policy that said transgender workers were protected from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This new position runs contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — a federal agency — and numerous federal courts, which have found Title VII does protect transgender workers. For example, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in March that Title VII protects transgender workers even if the employer raises a religious objection.

Saying that transgender workers are not protected under the Civil Rights Act is NOT the same as saying THAT IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE THEM FOR BEING TRANSGENDER!!!

Please tell me you see the difference.

And, I am not defending that shit either.

Here's #2:

2. Arguing that it’s legal to fire workers for being gay.
The Justice Department made an unexpected move last July when it stepped into in a major federal lawsuit to argue the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination. The Trump administration’s filing was unusual in part because the Justice Department wasn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits. Further, the Justice Department was fighting against a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported a gay man's case. The court ruled in favor of LGBT rights, but the Trump administration hasn’t reversed its stance that it’s legal under federal law to fire employees for being gay.

Again, saying the Civil Rights Act does not protect gay workers is NOT the same thing as that title--IT'S LEGAL TO FIRE WORKERS FOR BEING GAY.

Can you see my point?

That is bullshit spinning and a mischaracterization that the author intended, knowing that the "summary" title would be the only think that most people read.

You know it's true. The intent was to stir outrage.

Again, I am NOT defending the Trump administration on any of that. I am calling out bullshit where I see it.

.

Yes, once again I see the difference, but I also know for a fact that people have been fired for being gay, in states where they are not protected by a law against discrimination. I would like to know more about the case you referenced . What court was this? What is the jurisdiction and does it have national implications or just one federal district or circuit?

Wait, what?

I was just quoting the article. I didn't cite cases. I don't know the case or cases to which the author was referring.

.

Ok Fair enough. But the fact is that gay people can be fired for being gay and saying that it is bullshit to make that claim is, well..... bullshit

It's not currently a civil rights case, apparently.

What does it mean?

There needs to be some court intervention to extend it to gays. I suspect the biggest hurdle is gay folks trying to force churches to employ them against the church's bigoted religious beliefs, which the church should have the right to decide.

.

Religious institutions are generally exempt from laws against discrimination. However, refusing to employ a gay person, when that persons sexual orientation, and their life away from that institution has nothing to do with their job may be a different story.

 

[anynameyouwish]

The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed President Trump's 2020 reelection bid on Friday, nearly four years after the conservative LGBT organization declined to endorse then-candidate Trump in 2016.

The group said its national board of directors voted to endorse Trump after consulting with its chapters across the country.

Log Cabin Republicans Chairman Robert Kabel and Vice Chairwoman Jill Homan argued in a Washington Post op-ed on Friday that Trump has helped remove LGBTQ rights as a wedge issue in the GOP, citing his administration's policies on ending the spread of HIV/AIDS as well as his push to get other countries to conform to modern human rights standards.

The leaders also cited Trump's appointment of Richard Grenell, who is openly gay, as U.S. ambassador to Germany.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Just heard this on the news. I’m not surprised. Even homosexuals like a good economy!!!

it is not surprising for some gays to support trump.

There were gays and jews who supported hitler, too.

 

[The Purge]

The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed President Trump's 2020 reelection bid on Friday, nearly four years after the conservative LGBT organization declined to endorse then-candidate Trump in 2016.

The group said its national board of directors voted to endorse Trump after consulting with its chapters across the country.

Log Cabin Republicans Chairman Robert Kabel and Vice Chairwoman Jill Homan argued in a Washington Post op-ed on Friday that Trump has helped remove LGBTQ rights as a wedge issue in the GOP, citing his administration's policies on ending the spread of HIV/AIDS as well as his push to get other countries to conform to modern human rights standards.

The leaders also cited Trump's appointment of Richard Grenell, who is openly gay, as U.S. ambassador to Germany.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

Just heard this on the news. I’m not surprised. Even homosexuals like a good economy!!!

it is not surprising for some gays to support trump.

There were gays and jews who supported hitler, too.

But Trump allows same sex bathrooms!!!!...LOL