• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bullshit Fox News Says

If you believe being gay is choice and shouldn't be protected, then neither should being Christian or Jewish or Muslim, because those are absolutely choices.

If you logically believe it isn't a choice, then it's no different than being protected for race.
 
RJKarl said:
Sounds like you'd have been the one vote against Brown.
Click to expand...

That’s what the difficult juncture is though - do the laws in place adequately provide the protection sought? I think it’s close but tend to lean that they do not and that it’s legislative prerogative to fix it. However since the legislative branch has done nothing lately I don’t know that practically speaking this is feasible. So should SCOTUS instead read such protection into the law from Title VII?
 
RJ the question here isn’t “should the law protect LGBTQ employees from being fired based on their sexual orientation” it’s “does the law” protect them. I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be protected I’m arguing that Title VII doesn’t seem to me to provide such protection so the answer is for the legislative branches to address it.
 
Well I took your “should” to include that the judiciary shouldn’t inquire as to what the intent behind the legislation was to help discern meaning. If you aren’t then we do agree that the judiciary should not be making law based on what they want the law to say
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
RJ the question here isn’t “should the law protect LGBTQ employees from being fired based on their sexual orientation” it’s “does the law” protect them. I’m not arguing that they shouldn’t be protected I’m arguing that Title VII doesn’t seem to me to provide such protection so the answer is for the legislative branches to address it.
Click to expand...

There were direct laws protecting segregation. Using that logic, they should have been upheld because they existed.
 
RJKarl said:
There were direct laws protecting segregation. Using that logic, they should have been upheld because they existed.
Click to expand...

State laws which were held to violate the constitution.

What part of the constitution do you believe applies here to private employers?
 
Look RJ, I’m as purposivist as they come and think intent matters more than Webster’s definition of words on a page when it comes to determining what the law is, but this is not about what is right or moral, it’s about what Title VII protections exist, if any, for LGBTQ employees in the workplace. And the irony does not escape me that the purposivist argument leans closer to “none” than the textualist argument in these particular cases. Sexual orientation just wasn’t considered when Title VII was written and enacted.

Does it suck? Yes. Is it legally correct? Possibly.
 
Wasn't sure if this should be on the Trump BS or this thread, but Fox has attacked opponents of Trump.

""I was thinking about my various visits to the White House," Kerr said. "I've lived a privileged life and met, I think, the past five previous presidents prior to President Trump. The first one was in 1984, and Ronald Reagan was president. He invited my mom and me, six months after my dad [Malcolm] was killed in a terrorist attack. President Reagan and Vice President [George H.W.] Bush invited us into the Oval Office, spent about half an hour with us thanking us for my dad's service -- he was in education. Thanking us for my dad's commitment to American values in the Middle East. Trying to promote peace in the Middle East. And all I could think of last night was the contrast of what has happened in 35 years. There was no regard for whose side you were on politically. Political party, anything like that. It was just, you were an American. The office held such dignity and respect. Both from the people who were visiting and especially the people who sat inside it. It's just sad it's come crashing down. That we are now living this.

"I realize the horse was out of the barn a long time on this. But for me personally, this was my experience with, wow, has the office sunken low. My hope is that we can find a mature unifier from either party to sit in that chair and try to restore some dignity to the Oval Office again, and I think it will happen."

Steve Kerr for POTUS!!!! Pop is too old...
 
ImTheCaptain said:
uh, you were saying twitter millennials are grumpy with Ellen because she's already made her money but life is so much harder for LBGQT people now
Click to expand...

That doesn't answer my question. Who said Ellen had it easy 20 years ago? I was talking about 2019.
 
I actually think the trans case fits better under Title VII than sexual orientation. I think it's hard to argue that this wasn't sex-based discrimination unless you're going to draw a sex v. gender distinction and go down that rabbit hole as it pertains to Title VII (which I don't see any conservatives doing).
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Look RJ, I’m as purposivist as they come and think intent matters more than Webster’s definition of words on a page when it comes to determining what the law is, but this is not about what is right or moral, it’s about what Title VII protections exist, if any, for LGBTQ employees in the workplace. And the irony does not escape me that the purposivist argument leans closer to “none” than the textualist argument in these particular cases. Sexual orientation just wasn’t considered when Title VII was written and enacted.

Does it suck? Yes. Is it legally correct? Possibly.
Click to expand...

Yeah this is my position as well.
 
PhDeac said:
That doesn't answer my question. Who said Ellen had it easy 20 years ago? I was talking about 2019.
Click to expand...

Ellen was on the air 20 years ago.

Your comments don't make any sense. If someone is mad because they perceive Ellen as being what, a "sellout?" because she made money and blazed a trail in entertainment? Are conservatives twitterers furious with W for chilling with Ellen?

concern trolling
 
ImTheCaptain said:
Ellen was on the air 20 years ago.

Your comments don't make any sense. If someone is mad because they perceive Ellen as being what, a "sellout?" because she made money and blazed a trail in entertainment? Are conservatives twitterers furious with W for chilling with Ellen?

concern trolling
Click to expand...

Your comments don't make any sense. You're claiming I said things I didn't say. I didn't say Ellen had it easy when her show was on the air. I didn't even mention her show.

Here's what I said:

PhDeac said:
Yeah. The LGBTQ crowd on my Facebook feed wasn’t too happy about it. There’s a huge generational difference between an older lesbian who made it acceptable and got paid and young people who are worried about losing their jobs and basic human rights because of people W put on the Court and who dealt with a lot of bullying in school during his administration.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top