(01-13-2017 03:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:01 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  still trying to figure out what rights are being taken away...

For me to answer that, you must first define what kind of discrimination you think is a violation of a LGBT person's rights.

There's little point of even answering if you think that a taxpayer funded entity denying medical care to someone because they are Trans or if a taxpayer funded entity can refuse to hire someone for a job because they are married to a member of the same sex doesn't violate our rights or if you think we should be denied equal service by public officials acting in a public capacity.

So, for me to answer the question, I'd like to know what line you think should be too far....

constitutional rights....

I'm not a lawyer, but

You guys lose court cases all the time.

Lawrence v Texas, establishing that someone has a right to be Gay
Romer v Evans, that establishing that simple disapproval or animus against LGBT persons as the rational is unconstitutional
Windor - Gays have a right to be married

I'm sure I could find any number of cases showing that differential treatment with taxpayer funds or by the government is unconstiutional.

The list goes on and on.

Romer is where much of the laws fall apart for you guys IMHO

Basically government must treat everyone equally and fairly and must have a rational reason, not based upon bias or animus for legislation. The restrictions on Trans persons in SB 6 are based upon animus towards LGBT persons. RFRA/FADA is solely a bill to enable discrimination, based solely upon religious disapproval of LGBT persons, in the public square and even in government interaction.

---

HB 2 will be struck down
HB 1523 WAS struck down
DADT was struck down
SB 6, in enacted, will be struck down.

And so on, and so on.

So anyway who all read the Marshall swimmer thread?

(01-13-2017 03:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ok...I'm just going to focus on ONE area of your discussion.

I love that you say this, and then proceed to bring up 4 other topics.

Quote:Thowing ANY people off of a roof for any reason being wrong. Okay, so WHY are those people being thrown off of a roof?

Because they are Gay. The issue IS related to Gay rights, because the discrimination is based on that fact.

The right to not be thrown off a roof is not something inherent in being gay and thus a gay right. It is a human right, and contrary to your repeated contentions, gay people are humans.

Discrimination (as a crime) only exists where it is a crime. In those countries, being gay is often the crime and thus being killed for being gay isn't a crime in those countries. Nothing we do here changes what they do there. If you want them to make it legal to be gay, go petition them.

Whether they are throwing people off because they are gay or were raped or are of 'the wrong' persuasion of ANY kind, we should be against it. WE don't even do that to criminals. Those are what WE (but not they) consider to be HUMAN rights.

ibid to your Russia comments. Obama didn't care until they hacked the DNC. Now he's sanctioning a world power.... but NOT over anything you're concerned about. Get your head out of the sand, Tom.

Quote:The GOP has no problem separating LGBT persons when it comes to legislation....don't pretend otherwise.

Now we're talking domestic. Don't pretend that NOT separating them (in other words, the status quo on bathrooms) is better. Which bathroom is a transwoman OR man currently protected by law to enter? Real simple question, Tom. Stop beating around the bush and answer these simple questions.

Can you show me a law where Muslim males are specifically allowed to use the men's restroom?

(01-13-2017 03:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  constitutional rights....

I'm not a lawyer, but

You guys lose court cases all the time.

Lawrence v Texas, establishing that someone has a right to be Gay
Romer v Evans, that establishing that simple disapproval or animus against LGBT persons as the rational is unconstitutional
Windor - Gays have a right to be married

I'm sure I could find any number of cases showing that differential treatment with taxpayer funds or by the government is unconstiutional.

The list goes on and on.

Romer is where much of the laws fall apart for you guys IMHO

Basically government must treat everyone equally and fairly and must have a rational reason, not based upon bias or animus for legislation. The restrictions on Trans persons in SB 6 are based upon animus towards LGBT persons. RFRA/FADA is solely a bill to enable discrimination, based solely upon religious disapproval of LGBT persons, in the public square and even in government interaction.

---

HB 2 will be struck down
HB 1523 WAS struck down
DADT was struck down
SB 6, in enacted, will be struck down.

And so on, and so on.

So you agree with him, Tom? Since that is how Constitutional rights are defined?

(01-13-2017 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  constitutional rights....

I'm not a lawyer, but

You guys lose court cases all the time.

Lawrence v Texas, establishing that someone has a right to be Gay
Romer v Evans, that establishing that simple disapproval or animus against LGBT persons as the rational is unconstitutional
Windor - Gays have a right to be married

I'm sure I could find any number of cases showing that differential treatment with taxpayer funds or by the government is unconstiutional.

The list goes on and on.

Romer is where much of the laws fall apart for you guys IMHO

Basically government must treat everyone equally and fairly and must have a rational reason, not based upon bias or animus for legislation. The restrictions on Trans persons in SB 6 are based upon animus towards LGBT persons. RFRA/FADA is solely a bill to enable discrimination, based solely upon religious disapproval of LGBT persons, in the public square and even in government interaction.

---

HB 2 will be struck down
HB 1523 WAS struck down
DADT was struck down
SB 6, in enacted, will be struck down.

And so on, and so on.

So you agree with him, Tom? Since that is how Constitutional rights are defined?

I doubt it, as I doubt he feels that ANY injustice, so long as it is couched in Christian disapproval of LGBT persons (either explicitly - like FADA will be, or implicitly - like HB 1523), can be construed as a violation of LGBT persons rights.

But he's free to describe what violations of rights actually apply to LGBT persons...

I'd start with Romer.

(01-13-2017 04:07 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I doubt it, as I doubt he feels that ANY injustice, so long as it is couched in Christian disapproval of LGBT persons (either explicitly - like FADA will be, or implicitly - like HB 1523), can be construed as a violation of LGBT persons rights.

But he's free to describe what violations of rights actually apply to LGBT persons...

I'd start with Romer.

Really? It seems obvious that he supports the Constitution. If he loses the court case as you imply happens all the time, then 'that decision' is what the Constitution says. He may disagree that this is what the founders meant, but the Constitution and decisions about it ARE the law of the land... and i doubt he supports breaking the law. Changing it maybe, which means a different decision... but not breaking it.

By the way, you're doing exactly what we all knew you'd do.

We answer your questions the best we can (because the questions are vague and obtuse) and you engage in hypothetical after hypothetical to try and continue to make some silly point about your beliefs.

Tom, why do you keep referencing Russia and the middle east in an attempt to make your point? Guess what, there are some awful countries out there for the LGBTQ community, as well as the Christian community, etc. This thread would be more productive if you would keep it to the US.

(01-13-2017 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  By the way, you're doing exactly what we all knew you'd do.

We answer your questions the best we can (because the questions are vague and obtuse) and you engage in hypothetical after hypothetical to try and continue to make some silly point about your beliefs.

I'm coming up with real world examples of the application of these laws in practice. Want to call them silly hypotheticals, fine.

But at no point are ANY of our concerns addressed by GOP legislation....

Why?

Because, as I implied in the OP, that this is really a "War on LGBT" persons.

Look at the homosexual and his life today. Compare and contrast to the 1950's.
The same can be said for black Americans.
Your liberal drivel to create constant angst is so boring.

(01-13-2017 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  By the way, you're doing exactly what we all knew you'd do.

We answer your questions the best we can (because the questions are vague and obtuse) and you engage in hypothetical after hypothetical to try and continue to make some silly point about your beliefs.

I'm coming up with real world examples of the application of these laws in practice. Want to call them silly hypotheticals, fine.

But at no point are ANY of our concerns addressed by GOP legislation....

Why?

Because, as I implied in the OP, that this is really a "War on LGBT" persons.

Do you think you should be guaranteed a job, housing, free stuff from the government? I am struggling with what you are actually after. It sounds like you want preferred status, not normal.....

(01-13-2017 04:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  By the way, you're doing exactly what we all knew you'd do.

We answer your questions the best we can (because the questions are vague and obtuse) and you engage in hypothetical after hypothetical to try and continue to make some silly point about your beliefs.

I'm coming up with real world examples of the application of these laws in practice. Want to call them silly hypotheticals, fine.

But at no point are ANY of our concerns addressed by GOP legislation....

Why?

Because, as I implied in the OP, that this is really a "War on LGBT" persons.

Do you think you should be guaranteed a job, housing, free stuff from the government? I am struggling with what you are actually after. It sounds like you want preferred status, not normal.....

No discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing, or service provision.

Rule of thumb...is it illegal to deny this product or service or job or promotion or apartment because the person is Baptist (or pick any other evangelical faith)? If not, then you shouldn't be able to do so because the person is LGBT.

(01-13-2017 03:36 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:21 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 03:18 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 01:01 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  still trying to figure out what rights are being taken away...

For me to answer that, you must first define what kind of discrimination you think is a violation of a LGBT person's rights.

There's little point of even answering if you think that a taxpayer funded entity denying medical care to someone because they are Trans or if a taxpayer funded entity can refuse to hire someone for a job because they are married to a member of the same sex doesn't violate our rights or if you think we should be denied equal service by public officials acting in a public capacity.

So, for me to answer the question, I'd like to know what line you think should be too far....

constitutional rights....

I'm not a lawyer, but

You guys lose court cases all the time.

Lawrence v Texas, establishing that someone has a right to be Gay
Romer v Evans, that establishing that simple disapproval or animus against LGBT persons as the rational is unconstitutional
Windor - Gays have a right to be married

I'm sure I could find any number of cases showing that differential treatment with taxpayer funds or by the government is unconstiutional.

The list goes on and on.

Romer is where much of the laws fall apart for you guys IMHO

Basically government must treat everyone equally and fairly and must have a rational reason, not based upon bias or animus for legislation. The restrictions on Trans persons in SB 6 are based upon animus towards LGBT persons. RFRA/FADA is solely a bill to enable discrimination, based solely upon religious disapproval of LGBT persons, in the public square and even in government interaction.

---

HB 2 will be struck down
HB 1523 WAS struck down
DADT was struck down
SB 6, in enacted, will be struck down.

And so on, and so on.

that does not answer my original question... what constitutional rights are being taken away?

My 8,888 post!

Wyoming's GOP Rep. gets on the 'abuse the Trans People' train....Bill hasn't been filed yet, but its coming...

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/...7f3aa.html

Deeply troubling that it mentions 'biological gender' as listed on the birth certificate. We will have to see what kind of bill he files.

I could care less about LGBTQs. Sick of 'em.

Let 'em all go eff each other.

Looks like the war is on Straight people,

Transgender Freak Goes on Axe Rampage in Sydney



Exclusive: Video of terrifying moment axe-carrying woman attacks two customers in suburban 7-Eleven

http://www.news.com.au/national/courts-l...5614c6b037

(01-13-2017 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:59 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:44 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-13-2017 04:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  By the way, you're doing exactly what we all knew you'd do.

We answer your questions the best we can (because the questions are vague and obtuse) and you engage in hypothetical after hypothetical to try and continue to make some silly point about your beliefs.

I'm coming up with real world examples of the application of these laws in practice. Want to call them silly hypotheticals, fine.

But at no point are ANY of our concerns addressed by GOP legislation....

Why?

Because, as I implied in the OP, that this is really a "War on LGBT" persons.

Do you think you should be guaranteed a job, housing, free stuff from the government? I am struggling with what you are actually after. It sounds like you want preferred status, not normal.....

No discrimination in employment, public accommodations, housing, or service provision.

Rule of thumb...is it illegal to deny this product or service or job or promotion or apartment because the person is Baptist (or pick any other evangelical faith)? If not, then you shouldn't be able to do so because the person is LGBT.

Thanks for the response, are you talking about public or private employers or housing?

Would that be a hate crime?

It takes a generation or two to see social changes. Like I previously stated: look at the 1950's compared to today.
Gay rights/normalization went very fast in the turbulent 1980's with the horror of the aids epidemic going on and the evil Ronnie pursuing the gay "war", the gay movement moved forward faster than most any other social movement.
In the 1970's the closet was as big as a warehouse. By the 1990's you were hard pressed to find a closet.
Tom is childish and petulant in his pursuits. He seems to try to create something out of nothing to keep his war going.