Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 55

Thread: Not sexually attracted to a trans-queeer? You may be charged with federal crimes.

  1. #1

    Exclamation Not sexually attracted to a trans-queeer? You may be charged with federal crimes.

    7 Radical Demands in the Equality Act

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...-equality-act/

    Dr. Susan Berry 25 Feb 2021

    House Democrats have passed the radical Equality Act once again, claiming it will merely amend federal civil rights law to ensure sexual orientation and gender identity are protected classes, even though the Constitution already provides protection for the rights of all American citizens, regardless of their “identity group.”

    If enacted, however, the Equality Act would have a major impact on children and their parents, potentially upending the culture as American families now know it. Lawsuits filed against Americans who adhere to the science of biological sex and the First Amendment rights of citizens would now have a federal law backing them up that states gender identity supersedes biological sex.

    The Equality Act is legislative malpractice that turns equality on its head. It isn’t drafted as a shield to protect vulnerable minorities from unjust discrimination, but as a sword to persecute those who do not embrace new sexual and gender ideologies. https://t.co/YSWJpB6R7m

    — Ryan T. Anderson (@RyanTAnd) February 19, 2021

    Below are seven radical demands in the Equality Act:

    The bill would end the federal legal recognition of complementary male and female sex in favor gender identity.

    The Act states discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity can take many forms:

    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. LGBTQ people, including gender nonbinary people, also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes. Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation. Even if these perceptions are incorrect, the identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.

    Mary Rice Hasson, fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) explains:

    The concept of “gender identity” is a steamroller obliterating the significance of “male” and “female” in our language, relationships, laws and spaces. Under the Equality Act, “gender identity” determines access to “public accommodations,” a category the act redefines to include just about everywhere.

    Hasson observes as well the Equality Act appears purposefully vague.

    It “makes no mention of what sex actually is,” she writes, “the unchangeable reality that a person is either ‘male’ or ‘female.'”

    The science of the biology of sex that people have been taught for centuries would no longer hold a place in federal law with the enactment of this legislation.

    Feminist groups, such as the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) also voiced their concerns about the bill:

    While the Equality Act is being sold on promising good things for women, and on ending unfair treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people—which almost everyone agrees are worthy and important goals—it’s poisoned with the destruction of the law’s ability to allow any accommodations for women on the basis of sex.

    WoLF noted as well many Americans may be unaware the Equality Act’s gender identity rules would pose a “danger” to women and children:

    The bill’s authors made clear that gender identity is to take precedence over and replace sex as a protected category. The bill doesn’t mention individuals with clinically diagnosed gender dysphoria, or undertaking surgical or hormonal transition, thus making clear that self-declared gender identity would be sufficient to claim protected legal status.

    The bill would eliminate the traditional right to privacy of women and girls in public facilities, in favor, instead, of gender identity.

    The text of the Equality Act reads:

    An individual shall not be denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual’s gender identity.

    That language indicates the privacy of women and girls in public facilities, such as school bathrooms and locker rooms, would no longer be honored.

    In the case of school-age children, boys who identify as, or claim to be, girls, could share their bathrooms and shower rooms at school. Parents who objected would be viewed as discriminating against children identifying as another gender.

    The Equality Act would eviscerate women’s and girls’ sports.

    Men and boys who identify as female could compete on women’s and girls’ athletic teams, easily snatching away choice championship awards and scholarships.

    For example, Selina Soule, a female runner from Connecticut, lost to males who claimed to identify as female in championship competitions. In addition to losing those races, she also lost out on scholarships for which she likely would have qualified had biological males not been permitted to compete against females.

    Studies have shown that male athletes who claim to be female still hold an “intolerable” advantage over females even though they have undergone cross-sex hormone treatments.

    The Equality Act would be used to mandate school curricula that affirm and promote sexual orientation and gender identity views.

    Inside the classroom, the bill could allow for the normalization of gender ideology and abortion in school curricula.

    Melanie Israel of the Heritage Foundation explained at the Daily Signal that, under the Act, parental rights could take a far back seat to mandated school programs:

    The Equality Act could lead to changes in school curricula, such as texts that affirm and promote controversial sexual orientation and gender identity viewpoints.

    The Equality Act could also be used to override states that have prohibited sexual orientation and gender identity curricula. Where states have conversely mandated sexual orientation and gender identity curricula, parents and schools do not have access to “opt-out” options.

    Israel observed as well that Planned Parenthood, a giant of both the lucrative abortion and transgender medical industries, would likely have greater access to young people in sex education programs under a federal Equality Act.

    She elaborated on the possibilities:

    If the Equality Act were to become federal law and public school curricula become further entwined with sexual orientation and gender identity ideology, Planned Parenthood is well-positioned to further its presence in public schools and take advantage of an additional avenue to promote both sexual orientation and gender identity ideology as well as the organization’s hormone treatment services.

    In other words, additional sexual orientation and gender identity curricula could become yet another marketing tool for America’s abortion giant.

    The Equality Act would be used to remove custody rights from parents who refuse to have their minor children undergo transgender medical interventions and procedures.

    The medical and psychological professions have become further politicized as transgender activists have infiltrated professional societies and associations.

    Monica Burke explained at the Heritage Foundation such politicization is creating increased conflict in relationships among parents, medical professionals, and government.

    “A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would jeopardize parental rights nationwide,” Burke warned.

    Rep. Vicki Hartzler (R-MO) recalled during a presentation at the Heritage Foundation the story of parents in Ohio who lost custody of their daughter several years ago because they opposed her desire to transition to male. A judge allowed the girl’s grandparents to take custody of her because they supported her medical transition.

    “It is just heart rending to think that parents were not able to determine the health care, what they thought was best for their daughter, and the judge actually stepped in and took away their custody,” Hartzler said.

    “A federal sexual orientation and gender identity law would make these cases more common,” Burke said.

    Since the Equality Act exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, religious schools, hospitals, and adoption agencies could face federal sanctions for upholding their teachings with regard to life, sexuality, and marriage under the legislation.

    The legislation states:

    The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.

    The Equality Act also states actions based on the belief in traditional marriage between a man and woman is “discrimination against a married same-sex couple” and relegates such faith beliefs to the status of a “sex stereotype that marriage should only be between heterosexual couples.”

    This language suggests faith-based adoption agencies that restrict adoptions to homes with a father and mother could be considered as “discriminating” against same-sex couples. A lawsuit alleging such discrimination would then have the weight of federal law behind it.

    Catholic League President Bill Donohue warned the Equality Act would “promote the most comprehensive assault on Christianity ever written into law.”

    Similarly, the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference asserted the legislation would “discriminate against people of faith” and “punish faith-based organizations, such as charities and schools who serve everyone in their communities, simply because of their beliefs.”

    The Equality Act’s text that names a form of “discrimination on the basis of pregnancy” would be used to punish healthcare providers who refuse to perform an abortion or to outlaw policies that ban funding for the procedure.

    The bill states:

    Discrimination can occur on the basis of the sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition of an individual, as well as because of sex-based stereotypes. Each of these factors alone can serve as the basis for discrimination, and each is a form of sex discrimination.

    Israel explained the legislation would force the term “sex” in the Civil Rights Act to mean pregnancy, childbirth, or related conditions, and the last of these — “related medical conditions” — has already been interpreted to include abortion by both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

    Thus, discrimination on the basis of sex could include refusing to perform an abortion or provide funding for the procedure.

    Ryan Anderson, president of EPPC, called the Equality Act “legislative malpractice that turns equality on its head.”

    “It isn’t drafted as a shield to protect vulnerable minorities from unjust discrimination, but as a sword to persecute those who do not embrace new sexual and gender ideologies,” he asserted.

    Read more about the radical Equality Act here, here, here, and here.
    According to government's own numbers, over half a MILLION people are dead, just in the US alone, because of a man made virus designed to be even more deadly than what would be found in nature, released, possibly on purpose, from a Chinese lab, a virus that that was created from funding and prior research given to the Chinese scientists by our own government because we, in fit of sanity, pulled the plug on funding here.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    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. LGBTQ people, including gender nonbinary people, also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes. Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation. Even if these perceptions are incorrect, the identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.
    The only way I can read that is, if you are not sexually or romantically attracted to a trans-queeer because of that fact, you have prima facie committed an act of discrimination, punishable by law, under the act.


    @jmdrake - you have legal training, am I reading that right?
    According to government's own numbers, over half a MILLION people are dead, just in the US alone, because of a man made virus designed to be even more deadly than what would be found in nature, released, possibly on purpose, from a Chinese lab, a virus that that was created from funding and prior research given to the Chinese scientists by our own government because we, in fit of sanity, pulled the plug on funding here.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The only way I can read that is, if you are not sexually or romantically attracted to a trans-queeer because of that fact, you have prima facie committed an act of discrimination, punishable by law, under the act.


    @jmdrake - you have legal training, am I reading that right?
    I bet people thought I was joking when I said this for years now:

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The end game is forced participation in perversion for everyone.
    And I repeat and stand by this as well:

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    There can be no truce, culture must drive them back in the closet or they will destroy us.
    Whenever they are let out of the closet they recreate Sodom.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The only way I can read that is, if you are not sexually or romantically attracted to a trans-queeer because of that fact, you have prima facie committed an act of discrimination, punishable by law, under the act.


    @jmdrake - you have legal training, am I reading that right?
    You all see where this could go?

    I want Christy Myers from my high school punished under law because she turned me down for a date because she was way hotter than me
    The wisdom of Swordy:

    On bringing the troops home
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    They are coming home, all the naysayers said they would never leave Syria and then they said they were going to stay in Iraq forever..... just like Trump said.

    On fighting corruption:
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Trump had to donate the "right way" and hang out with the "right people" in order to do business in NYC and Hollyweird and in order to investigate and expose them.
    Fascism Defined

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    The only way I can read that is, if you are not sexually or romantically attracted to a trans-queeer because of that fact, you have prima facie committed an act of discrimination, punishable by law, under the act.


    @jmdrake - you have legal training, am I reading that right?
    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-...se-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 identifying oneself. The problem? That made it easy for people to filter people they didn't want as roomates based on race. The website was deemed a "publisher" of the information because they put the race category in there. It was treated as the same as if a real estate agent would tell potential buyers the race of the homeowner, which is explicitly prohibited under the Fair Housing Act. I've been on a lot of dating sites since my divorce and some of them let you select on race. All of them allow you to select on gender. Occasionally I'll see transwomen, or in some cases straight up (well...not straight) dudes come through on Tinder when I know I didn't say both. I don't upset and throw my phone across the room. I just swipe left. Anyhow under current law you can not only personally discriminate on who you date but you can also facilitate such discrimination. I don't know what would happen to a "whites only" dating app, but I suspect it would be barred by Apple and Google the way Parler is barred. I can tell you from experience that there are whites who use "black" dating apps because...well they're interested in dating black people. (I'm sure there are straight guys who pretend to be women to get on lesbian dating apps).

    Anyhow....long answer to a short question. Enjoy the rabbit hole I just dropped you in!

    Edit: Oh I forgot to mention this. Bob Jones University solved its problem with the IRS by banning dating on campus altogether.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    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-...se-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.
    Yup, we came to the same conclusion in our Klan meeting last week. It's perfectly legal to exclude blacks from our club.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  8. #7
    Worse yet, would you believe there are actually dating apps that force you to select a gender of the person you want to date?! Could anything be more sexist? It's literally the way the apps are designed!! They also allow you to select a race, if you can believe it! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post7025179

    I don't know what the world is coming to when institutionalized sexism and racism are being coded into our phones!
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  9. #8
    @jmdrake

    Thanks for the info, we'll address it all, but the language I am having a huge issue with is not in the bill you posted.

    At first I thought I fell victim to click bait-itis, but then realized the version you are referencing was the version passed in 2019.

    I am assuming this language was added in 2021 bill.

    I am now looking for a copy of THAT, the most recent bill.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 02-26-2021 at 07:38 AM.
    According to government's own numbers, over half a MILLION people are dead, just in the US alone, because of a man made virus designed to be even more deadly than what would be found in nature, released, possibly on purpose, from a Chinese lab, a virus that that was created from funding and prior research given to the Chinese scientists by our own government because we, in fit of sanity, pulled the plug on funding here.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Yup, there it is, bigger than $#@!, item 12 in the declaratory section:

    (12) 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. LGBTQ people, including gender nonbinary people, also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes. Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation. Even if these perceptions are incorrect, the identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...se-bill/5/text

    Now, I ask again if this is true, am I reading this properly from a legal standoint:

    If you are not sexually or romantically attracted to a trans-queeer because of that fact, you have just now, prima facie, committed an act of discrimination, punishable by law, under the act.
    According to government's own numbers, over half a MILLION people are dead, just in the US alone, because of a man made virus designed to be even more deadly than what would be found in nature, released, possibly on purpose, from a Chinese lab, a virus that that was created from funding and prior research given to the Chinese scientists by our own government because we, in fit of sanity, pulled the plug on funding here.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    There can be no truce, culture must drive them back in the closet or they will destroy us.
    I have come to agreement on this.

    This no longer has anything to do with vague libertarian notions about "Not caring with who sleeps with whom".

    This is a front on the war of Marxist revolution.

    The weirdosexuals are being used, wittingly or unknowingly, to spearhead the normalizing of the very worst vices and crimes people can commit, and they are by no means finished.

    Their end objective (aside from the collapse of western civilization from rot, vice and lack of children) is the normalization of pre-pubescent pedophilia and "snuff", both recorded and in "real time".
    According to government's own numbers, over half a MILLION people are dead, just in the US alone, because of a man made virus designed to be even more deadly than what would be found in nature, released, possibly on purpose, from a Chinese lab, a virus that that was created from funding and prior research given to the Chinese scientists by our own government because we, in fit of sanity, pulled the plug on funding here.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Yup, there it is, bigger than $#@!, item 12 in the declaratory section:

    (12) 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. LGBTQ people, including gender nonbinary people, also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes. Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation. Even if these perceptions are incorrect, the identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...se-bill/5/text

    Now, I ask again if this is true, am I reading this properly from a legal standoint:

    If you are not sexually or romantically attracted to a trans-queeer because of that fact, you have just now, prima facie, committed an act of discrimination, punishable by law, under the act.
    Hey AF - long time no post . The question made me have to copy/paste into OneNote and start "breaking it down". (Applying the loosest/broadest interpretation, to the most extreme example). This is what I got:

    Discrimination based on sexual orientation:
    - includes discrimination based on an individual’s perceived emotional attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.
    ○ Gender nonbinary people also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes.
    § Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation.
    □ Even if these perceptions are incorrect:
    The identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.

    That said:
    -I don't see where this language compels/coerces attraction to another person.

    What I do see:
    It criminalizes (calls discrimination): "microaggressions". For example:
    *your* *inability* to *correctly (!) perceive* someone's 'emotional attraction' (or: lack thereof) to "anything" (? - gender nonbinary) is *IMPUGNING* identity upon them (!!). You are a criminal, and shall be punished.

    Not a lawyer, don't have training in law (...would be more interested, if it meant anything half the time), but the "correctly perceiving" someone's beliefs seems like an absurd violation of "Mens Rea". Of course, who cares ... the only natural progression is to call it "gross & criminal negligence" (you are willfully a bigot, thus willfully negligent, on purpose).

    FYI, Mens Rea from duckduckgo:
    "For many but not all crimes, the prosecution must prove not only that the defendant carried out certain acts but also that they had a certain mental state. This is often known as the “mens rea” (“guilty mind”) element, and it prevents people from being punished when their intentions were innocent."

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    @jmdrake

    Thanks for the info, we'll address it all, but the language I am having a huge issue with is not in the bill you posted.

    At first I thought I fell victim to click bait-itis, but then realized the version you are referencing was the version passed in 2019.

    I am assuming this language was added in 2021 bill.

    I am now looking for a copy of THAT, the most recent bill.
    Egads! Thanks for the correction. Yeah I did a legal analysis on the wrong bill. Similar though.

    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Yup, there it is, bigger than $#@!, item 12 in the declaratory section:

    (12) 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. LGBTQ people, including gender nonbinary people, also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes. Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation. Even if these perceptions are incorrect, the identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...se-bill/5/text

    Now, I ask again if this is true, am I reading this properly from a legal standoint:

    If you are not sexually or romantically attracted to a trans-queeer because of that fact, you have just now, prima facie, committed an act of discrimination, punishable by law, under the act.
    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.

    To sue you for NOT being attacked to men would be "discrimination based on......sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof on the basis of gender." Here is the irony. Some school districts have set up LGBTQ schools. Let's just say if you wanted to send your straight kids there because they had a really great art program. (I know you wouldn't do something that stupid, but play along with me.) You could sue the school district and say "You can't keep my heterosexual child out." And no, I'm not being far fetched here. Tennessee State University, an HBCU, was forced under court order to provide minority scholarships to white students. Now, white students have always been allowed to attend (that's the case for every HBCU), but there just never have been many of them. So...basically it was "affirmative action for white people."

    Anyhow...got off topic (I think). You know what's funny? Years ago when I was talking with one of my older black neighbors from where I grew up, he was telling me about rental property that he had and that there were two women that wanted to rent it but he politely declined because he suspected they were lesbians. I didn't say anything, but I thought "But wouldn't you be bothered if you couldn't rent a house because you were black?" Years later....a white lesbian couple moved in across the street. Oh and I'm fairly sure he voted for Obama both times. I know other blacks far more uptight than me about who sleeps with who that can't imagine voting for anybody but a democrat because those Republicans are just so full of hate.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  15. #13
    Am I too old-fashioned if I don't even understand what a "trans-queeer" is?!?

    It really took me a while to figure out that a.
    - Trans woman has both an X and Y chromosome but had a sex-operation to make them the gender that they were "really" born.
    - Trans man has no Y chromosome but had a sex-operation to make them the gender that they were "really" born.
    * There are some exceptions to this - not every human has 1 X and 1 Y.

    I don't know if you have to call 2 trans women in a relationship gay or Lesbian.

    There are situations where a trans man (father?) has had a baby.

    I have really tried to make this post "politically correct" but I don't know if I have succeeded...
    Do NOT ever read my posts. Google and Yahoo wouldn’t block them without a very good reason: Google-censors-the-world/page3

    The Order of the Garter rules the world: Order of the Garter and the Carolingian dynasty

  16. #14
    Let's be real now, is there any straight dude here that wouldn't bang this gorgeous beauty?

    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Yup, there it is, bigger than $#@!, item 12 in the declaratory section:

    (12) 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. LGBTQ people, including gender nonbinary people, also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes. Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation. Even if these perceptions are incorrect, the identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...se-bill/5/text

    Now, I ask again if this is true, am I reading this properly from a legal standoint:

    If you are not sexually or romantically attracted to a trans-queeer because of that fact, you have just now, prima facie, committed an act of discrimination, punishable by law, under the act.
    Is it safe to assume that your concerrn revolves around the “sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof” phrase?

    IMHO, the intent of the phrase is a scenario where, for example, a man might say he’s not attracted to women, while simultaneously not claiming to be gay (or denying that), and other people then assume they are gay anyway.

    But that would be a simple, originalist reading of that paragraph. No doubt there are political agendas that have already plotted how to twist this into something else, and lawsuits ready to be filed as soon as it passes.

    This is nothing more than political virtue signaling and divisive culture warring, combined with the worst type of legal grifting for malicious, frivolous lawsuits. It’s a dream for vindictive lawsuits and the lawyers that profit from them.

    Quote Originally Posted by 106459 View Post
    Hey AF - long time no post . The question made me have to copy/paste into OneNote and start "breaking it down". (Applying the loosest/broadest interpretation, to the most extreme example). This is what I got:

    Discrimination based on sexual orientation:
    - includes discrimination based on an individual’s perceived emotional attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.
    ○ Gender nonbinary people also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes.
    § Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation.
    □ Even if these perceptions are incorrect:
    The identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.

    That said:
    -I don't see where this language compels/coerces attraction to another person.

    What I do see:
    It criminalizes (calls discrimination): "microaggressions". For example:
    *your* *inability* to *correctly (!) perceive* someone's 'emotional attraction' (or: lack thereof) to "anything" (? - gender nonbinary) is *IMPUGNING* identity upon them (!!). You are a criminal, and shall be punished.

    Not a lawyer, don't have training in law (...would be more interested, if it meant anything half the time), but the "correctly perceiving" someone's beliefs seems like an absurd violation of "Mens Rea". Of course, who cares ... the only natural progression is to call it "gross & criminal negligence" (you are willfully a bigot, thus willfully negligent, on purpose).

    FYI, Mens Rea from duckduckgo:
    "For many but not all crimes, the prosecution must prove not only that the defendant carried out certain acts but also that they had a certain mental state. This is often known as the “mens rea” (“guilty mind”) element, and it prevents people from being punished when their intentions were innocent."
    Agree. This is very much about thought crime.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    To sue you for NOT being attacked to men would be "discrimination based on......sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof on the basis of gender."
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    Is it safe to assume that your concerrn revolves around the “sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof” phrase?
    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.

    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.

    To sue you for NOT being attacked to men would be "discrimination based on......sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof on the basis of gender."
    I have been, and that's what's got me wound up.

    It says discrimination includes "lack thereof (of sexual desire) on the basis of gender".

    I'm honestly not trying to argue for argument's sake, or being snarky or stubborn and I'm truly trying to understand what, if anything I'm missing.

    Because if I'm right, passage of this act will have monumental, disastrous impacts across all levels of society.

    Since it's almost a sure thing this will pass, please prove me wrong.
    According to government's own numbers, over half a MILLION people are dead, just in the US alone, because of a man made virus designed to be even more deadly than what would be found in nature, released, possibly on purpose, from a Chinese lab, a virus that that was created from funding and prior research given to the Chinese scientists by our own government because we, in fit of sanity, pulled the plug on funding here.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    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.

    It says discrimination includes "lack thereof (of sexual desire) on the basis of gender".

    I'm honestly not trying to argue for argument's sake, or being snarky or stubborn and I'm truly trying to understand what, if anything I'm missing.

    Because if I'm right, passage of this act will have monumental, disastrous impacts across all levels of society.

    Since it's almost a sure thing this will pass, please prove me wrong.
    I am reading it as below:

    Business cannot discriminate against Danke on the basis that he has no sexual attraction to age-appropriate women
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  21. #18
    Why is the LGBTQ agenda only promoted in western countries?

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Sammy View Post
    Why is the LGBTQ agenda only promoted in western countries?
    Western societies basically got bored and started looking for problems to solve.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    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.

    It says discrimination includes "lack thereof (of sexual desire) on the basis of gender".

    I'm honestly not trying to argue for argument's sake, or being snarky or stubborn and I'm truly trying to understand what, if anything I'm missing.

    Because if I'm right, passage of this act will have monumental, disastrous impacts across all levels of society.

    Since it's almost a sure thing this will pass, please prove me wrong.
    I’d still say the intent is this:

    IMHO, the intent of the phrase is a scenario where, for example, a man might say he’s not attracted to women, while simultaneously not claiming to be gay (or denying that), and other people then assume they are gay anyway.
    That being said, I wouldn't put it past our Marxian courts to twist that in unimaginable ways. The odds are that you are correct in that it would immediately be twisted and abused. To twist this into applying to a person not being attracted to another person would be a long stretch though, not as likely as other abuses.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  24. #21
    Guess I'll just have to start describing myself as asexual.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Guess I'll just have to start describing myself as asexual.
    Why?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Now, I ask again if this is true, am I reading this properly from a legal standoint:

    If you are not sexually or romantically attracted to a trans-queeer because of that fact, you have just now, prima facie, committed an act of discrimination, punishable by law, under the act.
    No, it's stating that you can't discriminate against them because of their romantic or other relationships, or the lack thereof.

    Basically it's saying, from my understanding, that you have to accept their sexual identity to be the thing that they say it is whether or not they actually do that thing. So if they say that they're gay but they aren't in a relationship with another man, you couldn't discount their gayness.


    I can't imagine how this would come up in reality. It seems like the only thing this does is prevent people from evaluating the accuracy or correctness of a person's claimed sexuality or asexuality.
    "The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
    -George Orwell, "Notes on nationalism"

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Todd View Post
    You all see where this could go?

    I want Christy Myers from my high school punished under law because she turned me down for a date because she was way hotter than me
    Shes probably really hot now
    Do something Danke



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Sammy View Post
    Why is the LGBTQ agenda only promoted in western countries?
    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 .
    Do something Danke

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    I have come to agreement on this.

    This no longer has anything to do with vague libertarian notions about "Not caring with who sleeps with whom".

    This is a front on the war of Marxist revolution.

    The weirdosexuals are being used, wittingly or unknowingly, to spearhead the normalizing of the very worst vices and crimes people can commit, and they are by no means finished.

    Their end objective (aside from the collapse of western civilization from rot, vice and lack of children) is the normalization of pre-pubescent pedophilia and "snuff", both recorded and in "real time".
    Pretty much this.

    Racism and transphobia have been turned into weapons of political suppression.

    They use these labels of "racist", "homophobe", to censor, coerce, and destroy.

    To advance their Leftist agenda.

    By any means necessary.

    The simple truth of "male and female" is a proxy war in the larger battle against the Left.

    To give ground on such a simple truth, is to give them free exercise of the weapons they have chosen to wield.

    The Left chose this -- Not us.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    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.


    It says discrimination includes "lack thereof (of sexual desire) on the basis of gender".

    I'm honestly not trying to argue for argument's sake, or being snarky or stubborn and I'm truly trying to understand what, if anything I'm missing.

    Because if I'm right, passage of this act will have monumental, disastrous impacts across all levels of society.

    Since it's almost a sure thing this will pass, please prove me wrong.
    No snarkiness taken . Brian's subsequent post gave me some added POV clarity. So - I do see what you're saying, in the interest of de-mucking this crap (IE: if any of ABC, then could be LMN, and any of XYZ), here's the language:
    Discrimination based on sexual orientation includes discrimination based on an individual’s perceived emotional attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.
    I don't want to (and probably can't) go a full legalese route, but here's the (2) issues/interpretation missing:

    -The LGBTQXYZ+ has been adding letters by the day. The way I read that legislation is: "You can't discriminate based on a person's sexuality, or asexuality, on the basis of gender".
    -Why didn't they just say asexuality? Well because there's over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY types of asexuality, don't you know! Wow. Unbelievable.
    -Additionally: Yes, asexual is a "mainstream" orientation you'll see on dating apps.


    -The other hurdle that I don't see being overcome is Equal Protections. To quote JMDrake:
    To sue you for NOT being attracted to men would be "discrimination based on......sexual attraction to other persons, or lack thereof on the basis of gender."
    ...So, they're fighting discrimination by...being discriminatory to you? That's going to be a tough sell.

    Footnote sampling of asexualities, apparently:
    Abroromantic, Acoromantic, Aidoromantic, Proquuromantic, Quoiromantic

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by 106459 View Post
    No snarkiness taken . Brian's subsequent post gave me some added POV clarity. So - I do see what you're saying, in the interest of de-mucking this crap (IE: if any of ABC, then could be LMN, and any of XYZ), here's the language:


    I don't want to (and probably can't) go a full legalese route, but here's the (2) issues/interpretation missing:

    -The LGBTQXYZ+ has been adding letters by the day. The way I read that legislation is: "You can't discriminate based on a person's sexuality, or asexuality, on the basis of gender".
    -Why didn't they just say asexuality? Well because there's over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY types of asexuality, don't you know! Wow. Unbelievable.
    -Additionally: Yes, asexual is a "mainstream" orientation you'll see on dating apps.


    -The other hurdle that I don't see being overcome is Equal Protections. To quote JMDrake:

    ...So, they're fighting discrimination by...being discriminatory to you? That's going to be a tough sell.

    Footnote sampling of asexualities, apparently:
    Abroromantic, Acoromantic, Aidoromantic, Proquuromantic, Quoiromantic
    I consider myself a creepersexual. I have only romantic interest in people who have no interest in me.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Trump Jr 2024!!!!

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    I can't imagine how this would come up in reality. It seems like the only thing this does is prevent people from evaluating the accuracy or correctness of a person's claimed sexuality or asexuality.
    This will come up all the time in reality. To re-post the, full, most broad interpretation of this statute:
    Discrimination based on sexual orientation:
    - includes discrimination based on an individual’s perceived emotional attraction to other persons, or lack thereof, on the basis of gender.
    ○ Gender nonbinary people also commonly experience discrimination because of sex-based stereotypes.
    § Many people are subjected to discrimination because of others’ perceptions or beliefs regarding their sexual orientation.
    □ Even if these perceptions are incorrect:
    The identity imputed by others forms the basis of discrimination.
    Even if your perceptions are incorrect. The identity you have now imputed on that third-party forms the basis of discrimination.
    -You incorrectly labelled their asexuality? Of which there are 150? You have IMPUTED their identity! Sexual discrimination.

    Like Brian mentioned -- this is about thought-crime. It has extreme consequences.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    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.

    It says discrimination includes "lack thereof (of sexual desire) on the basis of gender".

    I'm honestly not trying to argue for argument's sake, or being snarky or stubborn and I'm truly trying to understand what, if anything I'm missing.

    Because if I'm right, passage of this act will have monumental, disastrous impacts across all levels of society.

    Since it's almost a sure thing this will pass, please prove me wrong.
    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.

    So that means:

    A) Someone can't discriminate against you because you like the same sex.
    B) Someone can't discriminate against you because you like the opposite sex.
    C) Someone can't discriminate against you because you DON'T like the same sex.
    D) Someone can't discriminate against you because you DON'T like the opposite sex.

    There is NO WAY someone can twist this to mean that if some gay person makes a sexual advance towards you and you turn him down that he can sue you. If so, then heterosexual males could walk into a lesbian bar, proposition all the women they found attractive, and have a reason to file a lawsuit afterwards.

    II) But also, the 1984 Civil Rights Act doesn't even bar all discrimination on the basis of race. That's why I went through that longer analysis. If the 1964 Civil Rights Act doesn't bar all discrimination on the basis of race, then amending it to include sexual orientation also doesn't bar all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Even in employment, sometimes discrimination is allowed on the basis of race, sex or age if those are substantially related to the job. That's why Hooters doesn't have to hire male servers. Another example? I sometimes worked as an extra for the TV show "Nashville". Occasionally a casting call might require people of a specific race or gender or age range.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Trans queeer set to win Miss Universe contest
    By Anti Federalist in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-12-2019, 05:57 PM
  2. IA-State Supreme Court rules Medicaid must pay for trans-queeer surgeries
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-09-2019, 11:10 AM
  3. WA-Trans Queeer Weirdosexual now identifies as an "alien"
    By Anti Federalist in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-02-2019, 01:39 PM
  4. TSA worker in Boston charged with underage sex crimes
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-16-2010, 11:17 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •