cjm
Member

That's when you know that the publicly stated reason is not the real reason, aside from the fact that covid is a hoax and the WH knows it. Sounds like the suggestion that it's to limit media participation to only a few select organizations is the goal. They're already slowly putting up physical and mental borders around the federal buildings. Everything is slowly but surely limiting access to "The People's Houses".

There's no telling how much was skimmed out of stock markets from shell entities created by the Trumps as "investment vehicles", while his various tweets literally moved the markets up and down, day in and day out, also. I'd bet that amount dwarfs even the $1.6b revenue figure. 4 years of "trade deal" tweets, front run by large options positions was like having their own family personal money printer. The Trump clan was the greatest daytraders in history.

This is what happens: She used to lock James in his room and tell him monsters only eat boys Dad In Custody Battle With Ex-Wife Who Says 6-Year-Old Is A Transgender Girl: I Have To Watch The 'Sexual Abuse' Of My Son Every Day http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?531012-TX-Trans-Child-Case-She-used-to-lock-James-in-his-room-and-tell-him-monsters-only-eat-boys

It was inevitable, because everything is racist. There is nothing that is not "problematic." (As Ibram Kendi puts it, the question is not "Did racism manifest in this situation," but rather, "How did racism manifest in this situation?") Repealing the helmet law is not properly "woke" because it does not engender "equity." The properly "woke" way to achieve "equity" here is not to repeal the law but to amend it so that it is applicable only to white people who do not have a sufficiently high IQ (Intersectionality Quotient)

me to NSA: "Hi, there!" :waving:

One of the things that happened is that I went from being a "moderate" libertarian to being an "extremist" libertarian. IOW: I was "radicalized" by the Feds.

Wasn't there already a Mrs. Potato head? And isn't the whole point that you can give it your own makeover? I'm glad I'm no longer able to have kids.

LOL. You're welcome and touche'! Here is my final response. I thought I laid out enough concerning stuff about the new law as it stands without going down the "A gay person can make you have sex with him" rabbit hole. It does concern me that religious affiliated institutions will have to deal with this. I've already seen it happen. When I first went to Vanderbilt there was a Christian Legal Society. I never joined but I had respect for them. They would offer to pray for you when exams were coming up, would have weekly worship services etc. My second year three women started the LGBT legal association. (Q hadn't yet arrived). I was cool with them too but didn't join them either for obvious reasons. ONE YEAR later I read in the paper that the Christian Legal Society lost its funding. Why? The fact that their bylaws required officers to have a personal faith in Jesus and lead worship services was considered "intolerant." (See: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/vanderbilts-religious-and-political-student-organizations-under-attack) Maybe that was just a coincidence. I dunno. But it seems the more "inclusive" our society becomes, the Christian views are being sidelined. I mean seriously there are so many flavors of Christianity, including Christian churches with gay pastors, that it's crazy that requirement that an officer be a believer is deemed "intolerant." Can I be over the chess club if I hate chess and never learned how to play it? And then there's the question of parents and children. We already have the James Younger case to deal with. How will this new law affect that? What about parents of "Q" children who take them to a conservative church where they hear fire and brimstone about the life they are considering? Yes the CRA doesn't directly affect that, but the Bob Jones University Case shows me how the law can be applied in ways it was never intended to be applied. So...just because I don't share one particular concern with you doesn't mean I don't have concerns.

My brain hurts reading this. As I was explaining to Anti Federalist, any interpretation of an amended Civil Rights Act is to look at how the current CRA is interpreted. It's not a thing of "Well I didn't discriminate against you for being black because I perceive you as being white even though you told me you were black." it's "I didn't discriminate against you for being black because I fired you for being repetitively tardy and that has nothing to do with you being black." Certainly if an employee is in the closet and there's no evidence that he informed his boss that he was gay, then that would be a pretty solid defense against a CRA claim. But the has EVERYTHING to do with the REASON the employee was fired and not some twisted interpretation of what the language you are referencing. If I have a legitimate reason for firing you and I never give any indication that I fired you for anything other than that reason and I fire other people that don't fit your protected class for the same reason then I have a rock solid CRA defense. If, on the other hand, I only fire gay people, or black people, or women, or some other protected class for that same reason, then I have a problem. Look at the other language in the definitions section of the act. 14) LGBTQ people often face discrimination when seeking to rent or purchase housing, as well as in every other aspect of obtaining and maintaining housing. LGBTQ people in same-sex relationships are often discriminated against when two names associated with one gender appear on a housing application, and transgender people often encounter discrimination when credit checks or inquiries reveal a former name. ^That is what the "perceived" language is talking about. Two people could be best friends, or it could be a man and a woman with the feminine or masculine names. Think "The Boy Named Sue" song by Johnny Cash. (In college I knew a young man named Wanda that was dating a young lady named Wanda). Someone seeing such an application might perceive this was a gay couple when it wasn't.

The point you and Madison320 keep missing is that individuals should not gain rights by virtue of being a part of a corporation that they do not have as individuals. But, by the definition of being a corporation, they do.

Anti Federalist, this is how you push back. Rand is the boss. Rand Paul 2024. Everyone else is a waste of time.

What? No. It's not saying you have to accept somebody's gayness. I mean...I have no idea why somebody would not accept somebody's gayness. Well...yeah I can. I have had to explain to more than one friend/family member that he or she was not gay. Why? Because he or she told me over and over again about this person or that person of the opposite sex that he or she was attracted to. I had to explain to that person that, by definition, if you like people of both sexes you aren't gay, you're bi. Everyone that I explained that too ultimately thanked me for helping them see that. Apparently, especially in the lesbian community, there is a stigma about being bi (I don't get that) so some bi people are in denial about that. Okay, back to what the language actually means. You can't discriminate against someone under this bill for liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for liking the opposite sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the opposite sex. So, under this law, a gay bar could not discriminate against a heterosexual bartender. And that shouldn't be a shocker. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents a black owned bar from discriminating against white bartenders on the basis of race.

Okay. I'm going to try to explain this one more time but I'll be brief with my brief. I) The "lack thereof" portion of the text protects the person with the lack thereof! It means the opposite of what you're thinking it means. Again, here is the whole sentence. Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender. So this means that in the context of the 1964 civil rights act, discrimination under that act is barred if it is: A) based on a person's actual or perceived romantic, emotion, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons based on gender or B) lack of sexual attraction on the basis of gender.

Egads! Thanks for the correction. Yeah I did a legal analysis on the wrong bill. Similar though. Okay. You know how they say "Don't pay attention to the guy behind the curtain?" Well...the definitions section of the bill is not the most important part. Sadly that's the part people look at. There are some people mad at Rand Paul for not supporting the "anti-lynching" bill, when all it did was to change the language of the hate crimes bill and say "We're going to call this lynching." Ironically there is language in the "anti lynching bill" that says if you assault a shop owner in a time of civil unrest you are guilty of a hate crime/lynching. So....technically some of the BLM/antifa protesters are guilty of lynching. But I digress. Back to your original question. Again this is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. As such, everything I wrote previously still stands. So think of that in this context. The striking down of anti-miscegenation laws is analogous to the striking down of bans on gay marriage. An apartment complex that didn't allow interracial couples to rent from them would have fallen under the Fair Housing Act. Now an apartment complex that doesn't allow gay couples falls under the Fair Housing Act. Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status for banning interracial dating. Oakwood University may very well lose its tax exempt status for not allowing same sex dating. But nobody can sue someone for turning down sexual advances from Halle Berry or Naomi Campbell or Vanessa Williams or Beyonce' just because he doesn't like black women. By analogy nobody can sue someone for not being interested in dating someone of the same sex just because he's not into gays. Look at the text of what you keep quoting. Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.

This belongs here:

And what exactly is that "real message?" Iraq WANTS cooperation with Iran. So does the legitimate Syrian government. Neither the government of Iraq, which WE installed, nor the government in Syria, which we helped create a terrorist organization to topple, want us there. So....why are we there? How could anything but a total pullout of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan be a "good move?" What's next? We start bombing Vietnam again?

The ghost of John McCain.

If you want to know what the bill really does you have to read the bill. Here it is: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5/text It's basically an amendment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It kind of seems redundant because the U.S. Supreme Court, even with its supposed 5-4 conservative majority, recently "amended" the 1964 Civil Rights Act in exactly the same way. So....this bill essentially changes nothing. It just puts the congressional rubber stamp on the SCOTUS action. Now the 1964 CRA has been around a long time. (Longer than I have been alive and according to my kids that's pretty old). Something I discovered in 1990, decades after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that there were still country clubs that barred black members. Shoal Creek country club was hosting the PGA in 1990 when this occurred. I then learned that the 1964 CRA does not cover all businesses. It just covers those considered "public accommodations." With that in mind, not only do you not have to be sexually or romantically attracted to LGBTQ, but if you REALLY want to you can, under the 1964 CRA, create your own all heterosexual, non-trans country club. So what happened to Shoal Creek? Well a few things. A national boycott of the sponsors of the PGA was organized. Also Shoal Creek is one county over from Birmingham Alabama which, who's police department had been contracted to provide security. Birmingham has a majority black population and at the time had its first black mayor. (And all subsequent mayors have been black). So there was pressure on the mayor to get out of the security contract. Ultimately the issue was resolved because Shoal Creek reversed its policy and got a token black person to join. (I bet he got a free membership). The PGA then changed its rules to explicitly require venues not discriminate on the basis of race. So this hypothetical non-LGBTQIA country club could legally exist, but it could face a social backlash in today's climate....which it would anyway regardless of this new bill. So what does change? Well...many years later in law school I read the Bob Jones University vs IRS case. BJU admitted blacks, but they had this asinine policy against interracial dating. Apparently they never read in the Bible where Miriam was struck with leporasy for complaining about Moses having a black wife. Anyhow the IRS stripped BJU of their tax exempt status over this. The SCOTUS sided with the IRS reasoning that the charity status was for promoting public policy, and all three branches of government had show support for the policy of desegregation. The POTUS had desegregated the military. The SCOTUS had struct down "separate but equal" in Brown v Board of Education. And Congress had passed the 1964 CRA. Reading that case sent chills down my spine. Up to that point I had supported LGBTQ rights. I still kind of do. I don't care who sleeps with who. And while I am certain BJU had no biblical grounds for its position against interracial dating, the SCOTUS ruling was not based on biblical grounds. I don't what places like Oakwood University, where I went for a couple of years in undergrad, to have to throw away their religious beliefs just to be able to participate in the Pell Grant program or to lose access to donors who want tax breaks. (Oakwood is so conservative that it kicked Brian McKnight out for getting his then girlfriend pregnant. He did marry her though and went on be nominated for 17 Grammy awards.) The silver lining to all of this is that the SCOTUS recently ruled that the "ecclessiastical exception" allows religious schools to fire teachers for any reason and that they are exempt in that regard from the 1964 CRA. Back to the whole "dating discrimination" thing. Researching Section 230, which many people here oppose, I ran across an interesting case. A "find a roomate" website was sued under the Fair Housing Act because it had "race" as a criteria one could select in...

https://twitter.com/scotthortonshow/status/1365160617913569283 1365160617913569283 https://twitter.com/RudyHavenstein/status/1354140376827879424 1354140376827879424

Question answered: https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1365120612432302080 1365120612432302080 https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1365120646129348610 1365120646129348610

That's a GOOD question! I am thinking you are talking about people you have relationships with right? Here's my thoughts. Make sure you keep the relationship front and center. Don't try to cross every bridge at the same time. Find common ground in areas where you disagree. That last part is SUPER important! It's easy to find common ground where you agree. Much tougher on the other side. Be patient. Be willing to table conversations and come back to them. Understand that "winning" means any incremental change in position no matter how small. And don't take anything personally. You have to be the adult.

https://twitter.com/jrpsaki/status/850173258540474368 850173258540474368 https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/985219590987927552 985219590987927552

The man's on top. That's misogenist. And he's to the right. That shows that hetorosexualism is right wing.

Fixed. (See how that works?)

I guess some parts of the "new normal" aren't so "new" after all ...