They're coming after your rights, American LGBTs.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/the-justice-department-just-argued-against-gay-rights-in-a
Posted Jul 27, 2017, 7:17 PM UTC
Yeah I can't wait for a DEMOCRAT in office. Damn.
I honestly wish Obama were allowed to run again :'(. Or why doesn't Michelle run? Then we can have our first woman president and we don't have to have Shillary.
Michelle never liked that life. Hillary would be fine at this point.
Shillary
This antagonism is why we got Trump.
Nah, pretty sure we got Trump because Hilary disregarded DNC data showing that she needed to campaign harder in states where Trump inevitably won, added in with poor turnout from the African-American community (because choosing between somebody that's supported racist policies and somebody that's promising to enact racist policies is totally fun).
But keep on pushing the blame away from Her Flawlessness. It's totally the fault of leftists that are critical of her.
[deleted]
Hillary is a shill. We got trump because people are angry with the establishment and also stupid.
we don't have to have Shillary.
Stop.
Sec. Clinton was not always an ally to LGBT people, but she wouldn't roll back any gains at least. You need a candidate that can challenge the idea that the Democrats are the party of Wall Street if you want to win back the people who switched over to Trump.
Edit: Downvoted for not being a Clinton supporter? Well might as well go all out.. Fuck your Clinton. She was a terrible candidate who lost to Trump. She was not an ally to the LGBT as Secretary of State in her actions, just in words.
Obama wasn't publicly for gay marriage when he ran either. Remember he had to "evolve" on it? Politics is a slow moving game. It's pretty clear the Democratic Party and any candidate they put forth now can be considered an ally. Hillary as president would have been an ally.
One thing we know for certain is we would have gotten a Garland-like justice with Clinton which will shape laws for decades.
[deleted]
Seriously. The democrats need another Bernie like candidate. If we get another Hilary...there's just no hope for the Democratic Party.
Ignore the Clinton hack. It's astonishing how naive they are to think that the primaries were fair and impartial, despite the mountain of evidence from the leaks.. But no, we're supposed to disregard the leaks and focus on Russia, Russia, Russia..
Right, because everyone loved Bernie so much, he couldn't even win the primaries - by a long shot. By how much did Bernie lose Florida, Texas, New York - even California! I don't deny Bernie excited a lot of people, but his problem was, he didn't excite enough, not even by half.
why do you think that Michelle Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton?
I hope trump gets ass cancer
I don't fault him or his worthless family. They're just taking advantage of their situation to make themselves richer. They don't stand for anything and they don't believe in anything. The vitriol ought to be aimed at their enablers, both the desperate ignorami that voted for him and the Republican scumbags that hitched a ride on his populist momentum or built the machine behind it. Those are the ones who deserve violence.
Though it would please me if Trump were to develop some kind of terminal disease. If only to watch the paranoid retards from the_donald scream about how George Soros poisoned him with some extradimensional alien Illuminati toxin or some such nonsense.
I don't fault him or his worthless family.
You should. He's the one who has been fostering all the hate, going far beyond what many of his supporters and enablers would deem appropriate.
They didn't "argue against gay rights". They argued that sexual orientation does not apply to an anti-gender discrimination law.
Title is clickbait. Stop.
Freedom against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be a right just as it is in every other developed nation.
I agree that it should be. My point is that the article is intentionally misleading for the sake of triggering people, because there was no "argument against gay rights".
If you're arguing that something which should be a right should be declared not a right,how is that not an argument against gay rights? I feel like you're trying to create a distinction where none actually exists.
I'm all for calling out clickbait titles when we find them, but this doesn't even appear to be an exaggeration from my view.
I read the article. No one argued that gay people should not have rights. Therefore the title is clickbait intended to stir fears up.
They argued that Title VII gender discrimination laws don't cover sexual orientation. Which is not a bad legal argument. But the 7th Circuit just decided that it does protect against sexual orientation. So yes. The Trump Administration is arguing against protecting sexual orientation under existing anti-discrimination laws.
But in an amicus brief filed at the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, lawyers under Attorney General Jeff Sessions contend that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans sex discrimination, does not cover sexual orientation.
They're arguing that it needs a separate anti-discrimination law for it because it's unrelated to gender discrimination.
Really? That's what they're arguing?
I assume we can expect Trump to propose ENDA any day now?
Maybe not trump or any republican. But that's not really the topic at hand. They have a point though. It's irrelevant to sex discrimination. I'd like to see a bill pass specifically for gay rights. And I could see the trump administration opposing said bill, but the article referred to in this post does have a misleading title.
The weird logic pretzels you guys are willing to twist yourselves into just so that you can convince yourself that you didn't make the biggest voting mistake of your life.
If it is talking about sex discrimination (ie man/woman) and not sexual orientation (ie gay/straight), I don't see the issue. Of course discrimination based off orientation is a problem but it sounds like barking up the wrong tree.
Everyone in this thread that has pointed this out is getting down voted to hell and back. It's really sad that this is what the LGBT community has become. Just as close minded as the bigots who condemn us.
Especially when trump is involved in anyway. I don't support him but that doesn't mean I'll immediately think something is the product of satan and close myself off to thinking logically about the subject when I see his name attached to the issue.
The courts have been reviewing this case, and the broader question, for years. They won't suddenly shut it all down because Peckerwood Sessions asks them to.
Trump also said his Muslim ban wasn't a Muslim ban. The courts disagreed pretty easily.
I knew shit like this would happen.
We're all doomed!
Okay, so I'm obviously all for gay rights, but I hate fake (or misleading) news from the left as much as I do from the right.
The DOJ isn't arguing against gay rights, per se -- it's pointing out that Title VII doesn't cover "sexual orientation," which is true. You can't sue under a law that doesn't apply to you.
The alternative argument is that "sex" is synonymous with or includes "sexual orientation," but that's an issue for the Supreme Court to decide.
This is actually a reversal from an Obama era policy at the justice department that did state that title VII would be extended to include sexual identity including transgender individuals.
It wasn't a binding law, but there was some indication that those rights would be extended.
Although litigation regarding title VII has been iffy, with some courts ruling in favor and some against when it comes to sexual identity.
Regardless though, we should be working towards amending title VII to include it.
Sexual identity == sexual orientation, tho.
The interesting thing is that the word "sex" was only added to the statutory language as a last minute effort to kill the bill (whose primary focus was on race).
It can and should be argued that an anti-gay action relative to this law is also a sexist interpretation, and thus a violation of the law. I say this because discrimination against gay people is discrimination based on sex. They are being discriminated against because they are a male who dates or marries men, or a female who dates or marries women. The implication is that if it were a woman who dates or marries men, they would be treated differently and better than a man who dates or marries men. It's sexist discrimination.
Well that's certainly the argument the plaintiffs are making. It's just not convincing to me. Sorry, but there's no way the people who drafted this law in the 60's were seeking to protect gays from workplace discrimination.
I 100% believe that gays should have workplace protections, but I hope we can accomplish that in a more direct way (such as by amendment, or through state/local law). We don't need to be undermining the fundamental concepts of statutory interpretation in order to obtain equal treatment.
If you actually read the DOJ's brief you'll find that it's pretty neutral (if not positive) on the topic of LGBT rights. They're just making the argument that you can't sue unless a cause of action actually exists. It's a pretty important aspect of our legal system.
it's pointing out that Title VII doesn't cover "sexual orientation," which is true
They are pointing it out without anybody asking them though. While it is their right to do so of course, they're weighing in on the case before hearing arguments, and without either side asking for it.
The court asked for it, according to the article:
The 2d Circuit invited outside parties to weigh in...
This. Article title and thread title is clickbait.
You're getting downvoted, but you're absolutely right. We got people who want a result they desire through a means which the law has not allowed to them. Title VII doesn't cover orientation. A leap can be made to say it covers gender identity, and you may have some success with that. The Obama administration tried, and were somewhat successful. But orientation is different, and no reasonable lawyer reading the statute would interpret it so it covered orientation unless they were really stretching.
If you want sexual orientation covered under title VII, elect congressmen to do so.
[deleted]
Not exactly. The title is simplifying a very nuanced situation. I'd suggest reading the article and a few others to get a better view on the situation.
I don't understand why everyone just blatantly ignores this.
It can and should be argued that an anti-gay action relative to this law is also a sexist interpretation, and thus a violation of the law. I say this because discrimination against gay people is discrimination based on sex. They are being discriminated against because they are a male who dates or marries men, or a female who dates or marries women. The implication is that if it were a woman who dates or marries men, they would be treated differently and better than a man who dates or marries men. It's sexist discrimination.
The argument is that transphobic, and maybe homophobic, discrimination is discrimination based on sex, and therefore covered by Title VII. They're sexual minorities after all.
Hmm...That argument seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but I can see where it's coming from.
Moreover, I'm not a lawyer but I took some pre-law classes, it's not unreasonable to argue a case based on the 'spirit' of the law rather than just the 'letter'. The intent and purpose of Civil Rights legislation was not to delineate minorities whom it was acceptable to discriminate against in the workplace. It was to end work place discrimination, etc.
Wow. You get your news from buzzfeed? Yikes.
You'd be surprised how reliable they can be. I'd trust buzzfeed more than the 24/7 news networks.
You probably trust CNN too.
Did you not catch the part where I said I'd trust buzzfeed more than 24/7 news networks?
If you're a typical SJW liberal who only cares about LGBT-related news, sure.
Apparently their news arm has become quite decent actually. They were the first ones to break this news last night before the NY times/washingtonpost and other major outlets.
I would imagine a heavily leftist company would prioritize LGBT issues before real issues like war, social outbreaks, or anything else really.
Only ONE THING can be reported on at a time!!!!
Oh right I forgot they also report on racism, trannies, and feminists. Yeah, real "issues" ya got there. Don't make me laugh.
They also broke the LGBT story in Chechnya earlier this year drawing attention to human rights abuses there. And were a Pulitzer finalist for their investigative reporting on corporate practices. They actually write on quite a lot and have picked up some very talented people.
That's my point, leftists prioritize LGBT issues first before anything else.
Do they talk about how gays are treated in the Middle East? In countries under Islamic law? Where it is punishable by death to be homosexual? Let me guess, no?
social outbreaks
what?
Guessing you don't know what a social outbreak is. Hint: try looking outside of your false bubble of comfort.
I'm not even going to bother reading an article from buzzfeed. Are you kidding me?
Here you go then :) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html
At least their title is more accurate than Buzzfeed's.
[deleted]
Bit late to the party, the article was posted everywhere last night.
In any case, this shouldn't remotely surprise anyone. This is exactly what Trump's agenda is. Any LGBT person who voted for him should be kicking themselves for being so naive to think that he would actually stand up for LGBT rights.
All reasonable Trump supporters fooled themselves with the same lie. I know my father did, I know my friends did, and few if any will care now that they got what they wanted.