• jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 06:03 PM
    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.
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 05:45 PM
    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.
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • Anti Globalist's Avatar
    28 replies | 337 view(s)
  • Anti Globalist's Avatar
    Today, 04:56 PM
    TheTexan is ok with her being ashes too.
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • Anti Globalist's Avatar
    Today, 04:54 PM
    If these two clowns were to actually get removed from office, it will be a better year.
    197 replies | 18428 view(s)
  • Anti Globalist's Avatar
    Today, 04:50 PM
    Wonder who's going to be next on the chopping block.
    16 replies | 322 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Today, 04:10 PM
    Trump turned Epstein over the FBI in 2004 for child trafficking, after they got in a huge fight over a property that Trump took him on. Doesn't sound like a good friend to me. I have a friend who just had almost $5k worth of stuff stolen from him by a "friend" who he had just invited up to go snowboarding, he let him stay at the vacation rental, bought him lift tickets, etc.. They were great friends the night before. Incidentally my friend used to be a lefty, I got him into the freedom stuff and now he complains cuz he's had multiple thefts by friends of his who espouse lefty views, this guy being one of them.
    53 replies | 1254 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 03:37 PM
    I'm going to thank you for your time, and sincerely express my appreciation for spelling it out, as someone with a legal background. My final comment on this, other than, wait and see, since it's pretty much assured of passage, is this: If I had dollar for every time somebody told me there is "NO WAY" some obscure law could not be twisted to mean something utterly different, I'd be kicking it with Popeye Bezos on the yacht.
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 03:14 PM
    I wouldn't waste a drop of ball sweat worrying about what the Marxist media organs say about something like this. We all know what they are and what they are going to say, regardless of facts. They are to be mocked and ignored.
    26 replies | 407 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 03:11 PM
    Yup, he did a great job here...I was hoping somebody would post it.
    26 replies | 407 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Today, 02:52 PM
    No wonder Danke is on the run . He has a long history of not tipping the trans Siam waitresses as much .
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 02:48 PM
    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.
    36 replies | 552 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 02:34 PM
    Anti Federalist, this is how you push back. Rand is the boss. Rand Paul 2024. Everyone else is a waste of time.
    26 replies | 407 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 02:32 PM
    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.
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 02:22 PM
    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.
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • Sammy's Avatar
    Today, 02:08 PM
    Rand Paul I'm proud of you:)
    26 replies | 407 view(s)
  • dannno's Avatar
    Today, 01:59 PM
    Uh, no, I only do that when people make really retarded statements that any serious poster here already knows is BS.
    53 replies | 1254 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Today, 01:36 PM
    Put the flat I got fixed on my truck back on today and fixed some potholes in the drive.
    2880 replies | 337348 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Today, 01:17 PM
    Perversions of this nature for the most part happen in societies with wealth and free time . If your busy working every day to eat and keep a roof over your head you dont have time, energy or inclination to cut your dick off and make a trans flag .
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • Sammy's Avatar
    Today, 01:13 PM
    . https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1365321870384463874@joebiden jumped right back into @BarackObama 's Syrian Civil War yesterday The GOP should oppose the DC Swamp / Deep State's blood thirsty desire for endless wars Biden has supported sending Americans to die in wars for 50 years (Iraq) We need leaders who put #AmericaFirst! Based!:up:
    11 replies | 608 view(s)
  • Sammy's Avatar
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • Anti Globalist's Avatar
    Today, 01:02 PM
    In Marxist America, everything will be considered racist.
    14 replies | 223 view(s)
  • Anti Globalist's Avatar
    Today, 01:01 PM
    Guess I'll just have to start describing myself as asexual.
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Today, 12:52 PM
    Ya , pretty sure Yang can beat out harris after she replaces biden. Once everyones UBI is in place there will be less resistance and less voting .LOL
    18 replies | 193 view(s)
  • Sammy's Avatar
    Today, 12:51 PM
    Why is the LGBTQ agenda only promoted in western countries?:confused:
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • Anti Federalist's Avatar
    Today, 12:43 PM
    Yes, that is the phrase that made me sit up and take notice. I still maintain that, with very little legal parsing or tortured logic, as the law is written, it could be taken to mean what I have said all along: a sexual advance from a hommosexual or trans-queeer that was declined, again, this is the key point, based simply on the fact that the advancee was, in fact, a weirdosexual and the subject of the advance was not, could be on the face of it, proof of criminal discrimination. I'm still trying to unpack that idea, and see if it has merit or is even possible. I have been, and that's what's got me wound up.
    48 replies | 485 view(s)
  • Sammy's Avatar
    Today, 11:48 AM
    Biden's Foreign Policy is israel first.
    28 replies | 337 view(s)
  • oyarde's Avatar
    Today, 11:34 AM
    Racist taxes include Property tax , cigarette tax , liquor tax , wine tax , beer tax .....
    14 replies | 223 view(s)
More Activity
About DiverseSegregation

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
390
Posts Per Day
2.37
General Information
Last Activity
10-19-2020 06:52 PM
Join Date
09-15-2020
Referrals
0

13 Friends

  1. AngryCanadian AngryCanadian is offline

    Member

    AngryCanadian
  2. Anti Federalist Anti Federalist is offline

    Member

    Anti Federalist
  3. Anti Globalist Anti Globalist is offline

    Member

    Anti Globalist
  4. dannno dannno is online now

    Member

    dannno
  5. jkr jkr is offline

    Member

    jkr
  6. jmdrake jmdrake is online now

    Member

    jmdrake
  7. mt4rp mt4rp is offline

    Member

    mt4rp
  8. NorthCarolinaLiberty
  9. oyarde oyarde is offline

    Member

    oyarde
  10. Sammy Sammy is offline

    Member

    Sammy
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 13
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

01-12-2021


11-01-2020


10-30-2020


10-26-2020


10-21-2020


10-19-2020


10-18-2020


10-17-2020


10-16-2020



Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast