Trump Kills Proposed Rule Protecting LGBT Seniors

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I'm saying if they say they are only attracted to men after proving they can be sexually aroused by the opposite sex..that makes them liars.

What are they "lying " about??

Only being attracted to the same sex.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

First of all - not withstanding the fact that some have mistakenly interpreted Windson and/or Obergefell as having established gays as a protected class, it does not mean that they are.

IN both case , the court decided the case on the basis of the government violating the civil rights of gays, but doing so does not require the establishment of a protected class. The courts afforded them the highest level of scrutiny because a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment,

Windsor was decided on the basis of the 5th Amendment. Obergefell on the 14th Amendment. Look them up.

Furthermore, the Federal Civil Rights Act does not establish them as a protected class and only 11 states do so.

What more do they want? . For starters, protection from housing and employment discrimination. Try to learn something .PLEASE!

Obergefel ruling was unconstitutional.

That does not make a ******* iota of sense. You my not agree with it but it is indeed constitution until such time that it's overturned. Perhaps you would like to share your legal theory with us, professor.

The decision was based on a nonsensical goobledygook with no grounding in the constitution. The court wrongly stated that the government has interest in marriage to ensure the happiness of those who want to get married...that's a load of horse shit. The government has interest in marriage because of children, anyone with any knowledge of why our government got involved in marriage knows this.

The ruling was pure activism from the bench and should be ignored.

The dissenting views are there for you to read, I agree with every objection they had to the ruling.

You need to read the majority opinion. If you did, you would know that there is a lot about children in it.

Children should be a concern but not to gay people until they figure out how to propagate. That is not going to happen, is it?

Yes because we all know that being able to conceive a child means that a person can be a parent to a child and the inability to conceive means that they can't be a parent.

 

[Pop23]

Correction. $39 at Legal Zoom.. Everyone should have one ANYWAY --- if they are in nursing home or assisted care.

Pardon the pun.. But that piece of paper TRUMPS a marriage certificate or "class right"..


Knowing how stuff works is more practical and useful than bitching about Federal law and inaction...

Frankly, one can for free download a durable POA from the Internet, print it, sign it, have it notarized and one's "good to go."

See pst 32 Sparky


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you also scared of monsters under the bed Tulip?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm saying if they say they are only attracted to men after proving they can be sexually aroused by the opposite sex..that makes them liars.

What are they "lying " about??

Only being attracted to the same sex.

Repressing those feelings out of guild and shame, or hiding them out of fear does not make them liars. It makes the victims. But, not surprisingly, you have to take the low road and use a pejorative because we are talking about gays.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I'm saying if they say they are only attracted to men after proving they can be sexually aroused by the opposite sex..that makes them liars.

What are they "lying " about??

Only being attracted to the same sex.

Repressing those feelings out of guild and shame, or hiding them out of fear does not make them liars. It makes the victims. But, not surprisingly, you have to take the low road and use a pejorative because we are talking about gays.

I don't think highly of sodomites. You know this by now.

 

[Lastamender]

Obergefel ruling was unconstitutional.

That does not make a ******* iota of sense. You my not agree with it but it is indeed constitution until such time that it's overturned. Perhaps you would like to share your legal theory with us, professor.

The decision was based on a nonsensical goobledygook with no grounding in the constitution. The court wrongly stated that the government has interest in marriage to ensure the happiness of those who want to get married...that's a load of horse shit. The government has interest in marriage because of children, anyone with any knowledge of why our government got involved in marriage knows this.

The ruling was pure activism from the bench and should be ignored.

The dissenting views are there for you to read, I agree with every objection they had to the ruling.

You need to read the majority opinion. If you did, you would know that there is a lot about children in it.

Children should be a concern but not to gay people until they figure out how to propagate. That is not going to happen, is it?

Yes because we all know that being able to conceive a child means that a person can be a parent to a child and the inability to conceive means that they can't be a parent.

What we all know is that those that choose to be a homosexual should accept the downside of that lifestyle. And children do not have that capacity to do that. That they are told it is an acceptable lifestyle will never change the fact some people consider it a sin and an excuse to whine because some people do not like it.

Grow up queers.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

That does not make a ******* iota of sense. You my not agree with it but it is indeed constitution until such time that it's overturned. Perhaps you would like to share your legal theory with us, professor.

The decision was based on a nonsensical goobledygook with no grounding in the constitution. The court wrongly stated that the government has interest in marriage to ensure the happiness of those who want to get married...that's a load of horse shit. The government has interest in marriage because of children, anyone with any knowledge of why our government got involved in marriage knows this.

The ruling was pure activism from the bench and should be ignored.

The dissenting views are there for you to read, I agree with every objection they had to the ruling.

You need to read the majority opinion. If you did, you would know that there is a lot about children in it.

Children should be a concern but not to gay people until they figure out how to propagate. That is not going to happen, is it?

Yes because we all know that being able to conceive a child means that a person can be a parent to a child and the inability to conceive means that they can't be a parent.

What we all know is that those that choose to be a homosexual should accept the downside of that lifestyle. And children do not have that capacity to do that. That they are told it is an acceptable lifestyle will never change the fact some people consider it a sin and an excuse to whine because some people do not like it.

Grow up queers.

Well said.

 

[Lastamender]

I'm saying if they say they are only attracted to men after proving they can be sexually aroused by the opposite sex..that makes them liars.

What are they "lying " about??

Only being attracted to the same sex.

Repressing those feelings out of guild and shame, or hiding them out of fear does not make them liars. It makes the victims. But, not surprisingly, you have to take the low road and use a pejorative because we are talking about gays.

Everyone is a victim, right Tulip?

 

[Meathead]

Trump Kills Proposed Rule That Would Have Protected LGBT Seniors

More sickening shit from Trump today. More proof that he is either openly hostile to gay and Lesbian people, callouse and indifferent towards them, or just to ******* stupid to undrsand the impact of what he does and blindly panders to those who want to "dismantle the administrative state"

The administration withdraws a proposed rule on equal treatment of same-sex spouses in long-term care, saying it's not needed.

By Trudy Ring
October 09 2017 7:14 PM EDT

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, last week withdrew a proposed rule put forth in December 2014 to assure that same-sex spouses are treated equally to opposite-sex ones in long-term care facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid funds, which most do.

The rule was proposed after the Supreme Court’s 2013 Windsor v. U.S. decision, which struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, therefore allowing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. HHS wanted to assure that long-term care providers did not defer to state law on same-sex marriage, as not all states recognized it at the time. Barack Obama was president when the rule was proposed.

And he offered a bushit reason, as though- if Obergefell did not happen, he woulf not have found some other reason to do this:

According to the current administration, the high court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, is sufficient to assure equal treatment of all spouses. “We believe that the Obergefell decision has addressed many of the concerns raised in the December 2014 proposed rule,” CMS administrator Seema Verma wrote in withdrawing the measure.

But some LGBT-focused health care groups say it’s still necessary to include detailed antidiscrimination language. “The Supreme Court has previously found that the practice of specifically naming the groups who are protected from discrimination is essential for a nondiscrimination law to have its intended effect,” noted a press release from Boston’s Fenway Health. The release quoted Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the 1996 Romer v. Evans decision, overturning Colorado’s antigay Amendment 2:

“Enumeration is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply.”

Fenway Health also mentioned the threat to same-sex couples and LGBT people generally from “religious objections” laws, such as the one in Mississippi.

(The release was issued before Friday’s unveiling of the federal government’s “religious freedom” guidance, which allows broad application of such objections nationwide.)

Nothing sadder than an aging queen, but then you would already know that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm saying if they say they are only attracted to men after proving they can be sexually aroused by the opposite sex..that makes them liars.

What are they "lying " about??

Only being attracted to the same sex.

Repressing those feelings out of guild and shame, or hiding them out of fear does not make them liars. It makes the victims. But, not surprisingly, you have to take the low road and use a pejorative because we are talking about gays.

I don't think highly of sodomites. You know this by now.

Of course I know it!! Bigot!!

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

I'm saying if they say they are only attracted to men after proving they can be sexually aroused by the opposite sex..that makes them liars.

What are they "lying " about??

Only being attracted to the same sex.

Repressing those feelings out of guild and shame, or hiding them out of fear does not make them liars. It makes the victims. But, not surprisingly, you have to take the low road and use a pejorative because we are talking about gays.

I don't think highly of sodomites. You know this by now.

Of course I know it!! Bigot!!

I'm not a bigot. I just know what you're movement is all about and oppose it.

 

[Windparadox]

Obergefel ruling was unconstitutional.

`
Whomever told you that you are a constitutional expert, was lying to you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm saying if they say they are only attracted to men after proving they can be sexually aroused by the opposite sex..that makes them liars.

What are they "lying " about??

Only being attracted to the same sex.

Repressing those feelings out of guild and shame, or hiding them out of fear does not make them liars. It makes the victims. But, not surprisingly, you have to take the low road and use a pejorative because we are talking about gays.

Everyone is a victim, right Tulip?

Wrong cup cake. Not everyone. I'm not a victim . But I think that you and Offensively Closed Minded are. Victims of something terrible that somebody did to you to make you this hateful.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Obergefel ruling was unconstitutional.

`
Whomever told you that you are a constitutional expert, was lying to you.

You don't need to be a constitutional expert to know it is unconstitutional, just read the dissent and have the constitutional experts prove it for you.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

What are they "lying " about??

Only being attracted to the same sex.

Repressing those feelings out of guild and shame, or hiding them out of fear does not make them liars. It makes the victims. But, not surprisingly, you have to take the low road and use a pejorative because we are talking about gays.

I don't think highly of sodomites. You know this by now.

Of course I know it!! Bigot!!

I'm not a bigot. I just know what you're movement is all about and oppose it.

My " movement" The only kind of movements that I have are bowel movements.

 

[Windparadox]

You don't need to be a constitutional expert to know it is unconstitutional, just read the dissent and have the constitutional experts prove it for you.

`
Yeah, anyone who can read is automatically a constitutional savant. I was an expert at 6 years old.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

You don't need to be a constitutional expert to know it is unconstitutional, just read the dissent and have the constitutional experts prove it for you.

`
Yeah, anyone who can read is automatically a constitutional savant. I was an expert at 6 years old.

Run along if you've got nothing but babble for me, *** hag.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Trump Kills Proposed Rule That Would Have Protected LGBT Seniors

More sickening shit from Trump today. More proof that he is either openly hostile to gay and Lesbian people, callouse and indifferent towards them, or just to ******* stupid to undrsand the impact of what he does and blindly panders to those who want to "dismantle the administrative state"

The administration withdraws a proposed rule on equal treatment of same-sex spouses in long-term care, saying it's not needed.

By Trudy Ring
October 09 2017 7:14 PM EDT

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, last week withdrew a proposed rule put forth in December 2014 to assure that same-sex spouses are treated equally to opposite-sex ones in long-term care facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid funds, which most do.

The rule was proposed after the Supreme Court’s 2013 Windsor v. U.S. decision, which struck down section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, therefore allowing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages. HHS wanted to assure that long-term care providers did not defer to state law on same-sex marriage, as not all states recognized it at the time. Barack Obama was president when the rule was proposed.

And he offered a bushit reason, as though- if Obergefell did not happen, he woulf not have found some other reason to do this:

According to the current administration, the high court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, is sufficient to assure equal treatment of all spouses. “We believe that the Obergefell decision has addressed many of the concerns raised in the December 2014 proposed rule,” CMS administrator Seema Verma wrote in withdrawing the measure.

But some LGBT-focused health care groups say it’s still necessary to include detailed antidiscrimination language. “The Supreme Court has previously found that the practice of specifically naming the groups who are protected from discrimination is essential for a nondiscrimination law to have its intended effect,” noted a press release from Boston’s Fenway Health. The release quoted Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in the 1996 Romer v. Evans decision, overturning Colorado’s antigay Amendment 2:

“Enumeration is the essential device used to make the duty not to discriminate concrete and to provide guidance for those who must comply.”

Fenway Health also mentioned the threat to same-sex couples and LGBT people generally from “religious objections” laws, such as the one in Mississippi.

(The release was issued before Friday’s unveiling of the federal government’s “religious freedom” guidance, which allows broad application of such objections nationwide.)

Protect them from what? Being called names? Having to use toilets that match their biology?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Obergefel ruling was unconstitutional.

`
Whomever told you that you are a constitutional expert, was lying to you.

You don't need to be a constitutional expert to know it is unconstitutional, just read the dissent and have the constitutional experts prove it for you.

So Justice Kennedy is not a Constitutional expert, but Scalia was?

 

[Lastamender]

I'm saying if they say they are only attracted to men after proving they can be sexually aroused by the opposite sex..that makes them liars.

What are they "lying " about??

Only being attracted to the same sex.

Repressing those feelings out of guild and shame, or hiding them out of fear does not make them liars. It makes the victims. But, not surprisingly, you have to take the low road and use a pejorative because we are talking about gays.

Everyone is a victim, right Tulip?

Wrong cup cake. Not everyone. I'm not a victim . But I think that you and Offensively Closed Minded are. Victims of something terrible that somebody did to you to make you this hateful.

Get off the hate. All you do is use that word to label people that disagree with you. It means nothing, the word is overused just like your other favorite, racist.