So freaking fantastic to see even those who consider themselves strictly conservative are evolving on this issue. Standing ovation SCOTUS on this! Finally, some good news is happening with this and the BLM movement. It’s almost like we are getting our country back.
Right ON! When 6 people can decide for the entire country on issues that should be decided by the representatives of the people (Congress) instead, now THAT’S democracy. Hurray!
Can’t wait for Planet to celebrate the coming expansion of gun rights by the Supremes . . . probably won’t hear so much celebration then.
And when you guys defund the police, let me know what the country you got back is like . . . especially in high crime areas.
Right-wingers can’t even get behind their own Supreme Court majority! It’s like blaming the Democrats for not getting bills passed even though Republicans had majorities in all three branches of government. Always someone else’s fault, right?
Left Wingers have no principles! It’s like they can’t figure out that when the Supreme Court makes laws, conservatives don’t like it. No matter what the new law is.
Left Wingers think democracy is getting in the way of, you know, progress!
Craig, we’ve been over this, you’re arguing against LGBTQ rights by arguing against the way it was resolved. No one cares for your bigoted opinion or your ignorant worldview.
June 16, 2020 at 2:52 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
The end does not justify the means. The method is often more important than the rights, because the method then becomes the means later on for future aspects. The process is important.
Meaning: If you can alter an existing law (which is what happened here) you can alter any law, which is often how actual fascism occurs and targeting of groups occurs this way as well. Renewing and changing laws is the job of congress, interpreting them is the law of the supreme justice. The supreme court is not meant to change the intent of the original law, and they just did. That’s a bad thing, and it isn’t being against gay rights, or bigoted, saying such.
June 16, 2020 at 3:16 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“interpreting them is the law of the supreme justice. The supreme court is not meant to change the intent of the original law, ”
RIGHT. 100% AGREE. YOU ARE CORRECT.
The INTENT of that law was to protect people from workplace discrimination.
The SC ruled the intent of that law was to provide protection to ALL people, regardless of sex.
“Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
No rewriting of the law there.
Just an interpretation that protection against discrimination should be given to all people.
June 16, 2020 at 5:11 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
In 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed, not one single person in Congress interpreted the protection against discrimination based on sex as protection of people who wanted to be another sex. Not one person thought that.
This was without a doubt, a new law made by the Supreme Court. 11 Appellate Court decisions – including some in very liberal districts – agreed that “sex” is what you are born with, according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Just because Rosenblatt thinks there are now 72 genders doesn’t make it so. There are two.
June 17, 2020 at 10:01 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Law: “The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to….”
BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO….
This leaves the law open to interpretation about what “on the basis of sex” really means.
The lawmakers left this definition open to include other reasons not listed in the original statute because they knew other scenarios not specifically called out in the law in 1964 could be applicable in the future.
June 17, 2020 at 4:30 pm
Craig Winston Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
What a BSer you are Rosenblatt. I always knew you weren’t the sharpest guy on the internet, but now I am thinking you are dishonest too.
Laws are passed at the time they are passed for the people alive at the time. No laws are EVER passed for whatever comes up in the future that isn’t specifically and clearly stated in the law.
That is why there have been several DEMOCRAT attempts to amend the Civil Rights Act to include transgender people. Because they recognized they were NOT included originally.
Stop lying. It is worse than your usual nitpicking.
June 17, 2020 at 4:48 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
“No laws are EVER passed for whatever comes up in the future that isn’t specifically and clearly stated in the law.”
Which is why the 2nd amendment didn’t perceive the future of arms manufacturing, and we shouldn’t have to allow assault rifles in the hands of every american, right?
Or is the truth that you just want a double standard when you want? And you happen to want to oppress LGBTQ people at all costs, so you refuse to use the same logic on this problem because it would be inconvenient.
Your hypocrisy is showing.
June 16, 2020 at 2:54 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
This is not a matter of hypocrisy or some hip phrases and right wing vs left wing. The right has been consistent on this as is, reinterpreting laws is not good. You on the left are the whimsical ones who believe the supreme court should change laws, in other words, agent is being consistent. Or Craig, or whoever he is.
You are allowing bad things to potentially happen allowing a rewriting of a law rather than interpretation, and there is no interpretation that this law was meant for this purpose, so the supreme court did not do their jobs. This was the job of congress. The means matters, the end doe not justify the means, see my comment to Jon.
Ugh phrasing matters, reinterpreting laws in ways they were not written. A judge is to interpret, but it is to be interpreted as written and as intended.
The judges know very well the law was not meant for this purpose.
So they are not doing their job here.
June 16, 2020 at 1:23 pm
Mr. Integrity says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Human nature is so predictable . . . when President Trump’s conservative nominees were being considered for the SCOTUS, every anti-Trump and liberal person was screaming about how it was going to end civilization. Now that the SCOTUS has decided on a few cases, including this latest one on gay rights, all of a sudden the justices are humane, civil, and on the right side of history. You can’t fix hypocrisy or stupidity!
I’ve never hired or fired a person because they were gay, but rather because they were either qualified or completely incompetent for the position. Nothing more, nothing less.
I mean, we all knew Justice Drunky McRaperson wasn’t going to evolve on this but I think that has more to do with the fact he is against consensual sex of any kind, whether it be same sex or not. Or, perhaps he’s against strong cocktails like you’ll find being poured at a gay bar. He likes beer!
Pretty reprehensible liable. But coming from you, what did I expect.
DR. What’s Her Face couldn’t remember how she got there, how she got home, when it was, where it was, or what the house even looked like. She couldn’t find a single person to verify they ever remembered such a party. And she didn’t have a single “friend” testify that they ever saw her and Kavanaugh together. Ever.
Speaking of drunk. Her friends testitifed DR. “only one beer” was a pretty heavy drinker back in high school. (Which is why she couldn’t remember the alleged incident for decades, I guess.)
We all watched the same testimony, the republicans who wanted a conservative supreme court justice no matter what and the dishonest right-wing cronies like you that follow are the only one who believe your garbage.
Keep victim blaming because your political party endorsed a rapist. The world saw the same testimony you did and we all know you’re full of it. Victim blaming isn’t a good look on anyone, especially when you’re defending a frat-bro douchebag being propped up solely because the right knew they could trust him to vote with the party line. No surprise he voted against LGBTQ rights, nor that you argue against them, but maybe be less of a sore loser? No one cares what you think, just as no one cares what your political party thinks. Recent polls show support of BLM and progressive movements 20% higher than Trumpy’s approval, again, your days are numbered. See you in november LOL
You said it, Rosen. And then whites like bob have the nerve to insist that it’s “fair”. The game has been rigged, everyone has access to world history at the tip of their fingers. Bob tries to lie about things we can literally just look up in 3 seconds on google LOL
It’s actually a very easy fix. Hire private investigators, monitor social media, don’t hire them to begin with. Come back later and I’ll save you even more legal fees.
Seriously. God I know he claims to own an agency in what was it SC? And he’s a member of some pathetic civil war re-enactment group. If only someone could find out from this information who he is, I bet the EDD would love to see this thread.
Hey Jon,
Seems those who are the loudest speaking out on this are closet gays or impotent. Gay isn’t contagious but COVID is. And, these unfrozen cavemen aren’t afraid of that.
LOL and Jack advocates for hiring a private investigator to find out if someone’s gay or not before hiring them. Yeah, nothing despicable about you at all SARCASM.
Everybody is the hero of their own story. It takes a real hero to realize they aren’t the hero, they are the same as everyone else, and then build some bridges.
Maybe you’re mature enough to know what I am saying here. Probably not. But this is critical and you need to learn this.
I did not defend hate speech, for one, I didn’t direct Jack’s speech, I directed his beliefs, and religious beliefs regarding gay behavior is not hate.
Moving on, I directed someone putting an absurd sexual acts post here, which no one thinks about or cares about, including the guy he targeted to degrade, it is not appropriate.
Jon,
I don’t read bob ever. He’s trying to argue religion on this? I remember all the times Jesus directly addressed homosexuality. Not a single time. Huh! He did say, “What you do onto others, you do onto me.” So, I guess that includes discriminating against gays, spitting in nurse’s faces, acting all Karen when you see someone with darker skin tone, supporting the blasphemer-in-chief, assaulting women by grabbing their genitals, not making cakes for a loving couple. I mean, the list goes on. And, I know, the general response is, “Well, it was against The Old Testament to be gay back in Christ’s time.” So were many things Jesus preached about. He just never preached about homosexuality. I wonder why He never did. Most not have been all that important to Him. Not sure why it’s all that relevant in an argument today. Just a justification for hatred, I guess.
We had three or four really good articles with valid discussions that actually seemed to almost get through to the conservative right-wing base on these boards, and the comments actually were allowed to stay because things didn’t get absurd!
A serious question. A posting in an Atlanta television station blog indicated that plaintiff Bostock’s wage and benefits damages would likely not exceed $600,000, and amount that Clayton County could easily manage. There was no discussion regarding the potential claims of the estates of the other 2 plaintiff’s who are deceased. There was mention that the combined billable hours of the plaintiff’s would likely exceed 3000 hrs., and that Title VII would place the payment burden burden on the defendents. I understand that the billing hours and rates will likely be negotiated in a lower court, but these three combined cases were advocated with amicus briefs by numerous interest groups, and even defended by the Justice Department. Accordingly I am wondering if the likely $10 to $20 million recoverable attorney costs will be born only by the funeral home and county ( the skydiving defendent is reportedly broke) or will other defendent/advocates who prolonged the litigation be expected to participate in these costs. The funeral home was reported to be a big enterprise capable of paying these costs, and obviously the County would have means of paying the bill. Any thoughts?
In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968), the Court considered 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(b), the provision in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that provides for discretionary fee awards to prevailing parties. Noting that a plaintiff who is successful in a Title II suit vindicates “a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority”—enjoining racial discrimination—the Court held that under Title II a successful plaintiff “should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render an award unjust.” Id. at 402.
In Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975), the Court held that the Piggie Park standard of awarding attorneys’ fees to a successful plaintiff is equally applicable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k)
And Jesus said, “I hate the homos! Make sure they never get jobs. Make sure they don’t have any of the same rights as you heteros. They don rainbow flags which just makes me sick. They are icky people. I am going to stick with my best friend, the hooker. She is waaaay better than those same-sexers!”
So freaking fantastic to see even those who consider themselves strictly conservative are evolving on this issue. Standing ovation SCOTUS on this! Finally, some good news is happening with this and the BLM movement. It’s almost like we are getting our country back.
Right ON! When 6 people can decide for the entire country on issues that should be decided by the representatives of the people (Congress) instead, now THAT’S democracy. Hurray!
Can’t wait for Planet to celebrate the coming expansion of gun rights by the Supremes . . . probably won’t hear so much celebration then.
And when you guys defund the police, let me know what the country you got back is like . . . especially in high crime areas.
Right-wingers can’t even get behind their own Supreme Court majority! It’s like blaming the Democrats for not getting bills passed even though Republicans had majorities in all three branches of government. Always someone else’s fault, right?
Left Wingers have no principles! It’s like they can’t figure out that when the Supreme Court makes laws, conservatives don’t like it. No matter what the new law is.
Left Wingers think democracy is getting in the way of, you know, progress!
Craig, we’ve been over this, you’re arguing against LGBTQ rights by arguing against the way it was resolved. No one cares for your bigoted opinion or your ignorant worldview.
The end does not justify the means. The method is often more important than the rights, because the method then becomes the means later on for future aspects. The process is important.
Meaning: If you can alter an existing law (which is what happened here) you can alter any law, which is often how actual fascism occurs and targeting of groups occurs this way as well. Renewing and changing laws is the job of congress, interpreting them is the law of the supreme justice. The supreme court is not meant to change the intent of the original law, and they just did. That’s a bad thing, and it isn’t being against gay rights, or bigoted, saying such.
“interpreting them is the law of the supreme justice. The supreme court is not meant to change the intent of the original law, ”
RIGHT. 100% AGREE. YOU ARE CORRECT.
The INTENT of that law was to protect people from workplace discrimination.
The SC ruled the intent of that law was to provide protection to ALL people, regardless of sex.
“Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
No rewriting of the law there.
Just an interpretation that protection against discrimination should be given to all people.
In 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed, not one single person in Congress interpreted the protection against discrimination based on sex as protection of people who wanted to be another sex. Not one person thought that.
This was without a doubt, a new law made by the Supreme Court. 11 Appellate Court decisions – including some in very liberal districts – agreed that “sex” is what you are born with, according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Just because Rosenblatt thinks there are now 72 genders doesn’t make it so. There are two.
Law: “The terms “because of sex” or “on the basis of sex” include, but are not limited to….”
BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO….
This leaves the law open to interpretation about what “on the basis of sex” really means.
The lawmakers left this definition open to include other reasons not listed in the original statute because they knew other scenarios not specifically called out in the law in 1964 could be applicable in the future.
What a BSer you are Rosenblatt. I always knew you weren’t the sharpest guy on the internet, but now I am thinking you are dishonest too.
Laws are passed at the time they are passed for the people alive at the time. No laws are EVER passed for whatever comes up in the future that isn’t specifically and clearly stated in the law.
That is why there have been several DEMOCRAT attempts to amend the Civil Rights Act to include transgender people. Because they recognized they were NOT included originally.
Stop lying. It is worse than your usual nitpicking.
“No laws are EVER passed for whatever comes up in the future that isn’t specifically and clearly stated in the law.”
Which is why the 2nd amendment didn’t perceive the future of arms manufacturing, and we shouldn’t have to allow assault rifles in the hands of every american, right?
Or is the truth that you just want a double standard when you want? And you happen to want to oppress LGBTQ people at all costs, so you refuse to use the same logic on this problem because it would be inconvenient.
Your hypocrisy is showing.
This is not a matter of hypocrisy or some hip phrases and right wing vs left wing. The right has been consistent on this as is, reinterpreting laws is not good. You on the left are the whimsical ones who believe the supreme court should change laws, in other words, agent is being consistent. Or Craig, or whoever he is.
You are allowing bad things to potentially happen allowing a rewriting of a law rather than interpretation, and there is no interpretation that this law was meant for this purpose, so the supreme court did not do their jobs. This was the job of congress. The means matters, the end doe not justify the means, see my comment to Jon.
Ugh phrasing matters, reinterpreting laws in ways they were not written. A judge is to interpret, but it is to be interpreted as written and as intended.
The judges know very well the law was not meant for this purpose.
So they are not doing their job here.
Human nature is so predictable . . . when President Trump’s conservative nominees were being considered for the SCOTUS, every anti-Trump and liberal person was screaming about how it was going to end civilization. Now that the SCOTUS has decided on a few cases, including this latest one on gay rights, all of a sudden the justices are humane, civil, and on the right side of history. You can’t fix hypocrisy or stupidity!
I’ve never hired or fired a person because they were gay, but rather because they were either qualified or completely incompetent for the position. Nothing more, nothing less.
I mean, we all knew Justice Drunky McRaperson wasn’t going to evolve on this but I think that has more to do with the fact he is against consensual sex of any kind, whether it be same sex or not. Or, perhaps he’s against strong cocktails like you’ll find being poured at a gay bar. He likes beer!
Pretty reprehensible liable. But coming from you, what did I expect.
DR. What’s Her Face couldn’t remember how she got there, how she got home, when it was, where it was, or what the house even looked like. She couldn’t find a single person to verify they ever remembered such a party. And she didn’t have a single “friend” testify that they ever saw her and Kavanaugh together. Ever.
Speaking of drunk. Her friends testitifed DR. “only one beer” was a pretty heavy drinker back in high school. (Which is why she couldn’t remember the alleged incident for decades, I guess.)
We all watched the same testimony, the republicans who wanted a conservative supreme court justice no matter what and the dishonest right-wing cronies like you that follow are the only one who believe your garbage.
Keep victim blaming because your political party endorsed a rapist. The world saw the same testimony you did and we all know you’re full of it. Victim blaming isn’t a good look on anyone, especially when you’re defending a frat-bro douchebag being propped up solely because the right knew they could trust him to vote with the party line. No surprise he voted against LGBTQ rights, nor that you argue against them, but maybe be less of a sore loser? No one cares what you think, just as no one cares what your political party thinks. Recent polls show support of BLM and progressive movements 20% higher than Trumpy’s approval, again, your days are numbered. See you in november LOL
You said it, Rosen. And then whites like bob have the nerve to insist that it’s “fair”. The game has been rigged, everyone has access to world history at the tip of their fingers. Bob tries to lie about things we can literally just look up in 3 seconds on google LOL
It’s actually a very easy fix. Hire private investigators, monitor social media, don’t hire them to begin with. Come back later and I’ll save you even more legal fees.
Who is “them”? Are you suggesting that you will not hire people from the LGBTQ community because of their sexual orientation?
Boy I sure hope you never pass on hiring such an applicant. This thread would be pretty damning when they sue you.
We see you. Bigot.
Seriously. God I know he claims to own an agency in what was it SC? And he’s a member of some pathetic civil war re-enactment group. If only someone could find out from this information who he is, I bet the EDD would love to see this thread.
Hey Jon,
Seems those who are the loudest speaking out on this are closet gays or impotent. Gay isn’t contagious but COVID is. And, these unfrozen cavemen aren’t afraid of that.
LOL and Jack advocates for hiring a private investigator to find out if someone’s gay or not before hiring them. Yeah, nothing despicable about you at all SARCASM.
Everybody is the hero of their own story. It takes a real hero to realize they aren’t the hero, they are the same as everyone else, and then build some bridges.
Maybe you’re mature enough to know what I am saying here. Probably not. But this is critical and you need to learn this.
Look at aaaaallll the people who have come to your defense LOL like I said no one cares you big annoying fuddy duddy.
Hey Jack,
Newsflash: The very same sexual acts go on inside hetero bedrooms, too. Why are you so jealous?
And then we have this again.
We don’t need these comments, thank you very much. You are very well aware of why Jack is against the acts, for biblical reasons.
Stating this is not needed at all, nor related.
I did not defend hate speech, for one, I didn’t direct Jack’s speech, I directed his beliefs, and religious beliefs regarding gay behavior is not hate.
Moving on, I directed someone putting an absurd sexual acts post here, which no one thinks about or cares about, including the guy he targeted to degrade, it is not appropriate.
Moving forward, I am not a bigot.
Jon,
I don’t read bob ever. He’s trying to argue religion on this? I remember all the times Jesus directly addressed homosexuality. Not a single time. Huh! He did say, “What you do onto others, you do onto me.” So, I guess that includes discriminating against gays, spitting in nurse’s faces, acting all Karen when you see someone with darker skin tone, supporting the blasphemer-in-chief, assaulting women by grabbing their genitals, not making cakes for a loving couple. I mean, the list goes on. And, I know, the general response is, “Well, it was against The Old Testament to be gay back in Christ’s time.” So were many things Jesus preached about. He just never preached about homosexuality. I wonder why He never did. Most not have been all that important to Him. Not sure why it’s all that relevant in an argument today. Just a justification for hatred, I guess.
Trying to excuse bigotry with “biblical reasons” is garbage. Your religion doesn’t justify you being a homophobic bigot.
YOUR post is not needed. Jack’s post is not needed. If he didn’t want criticism for his hateful views he should have kept them to himself.
We had three or four really good articles with valid discussions that actually seemed to almost get through to the conservative right-wing base on these boards, and the comments actually were allowed to stay because things didn’t get absurd!
And then bob started posting again…
A serious question. A posting in an Atlanta television station blog indicated that plaintiff Bostock’s wage and benefits damages would likely not exceed $600,000, and amount that Clayton County could easily manage. There was no discussion regarding the potential claims of the estates of the other 2 plaintiff’s who are deceased. There was mention that the combined billable hours of the plaintiff’s would likely exceed 3000 hrs., and that Title VII would place the payment burden burden on the defendents. I understand that the billing hours and rates will likely be negotiated in a lower court, but these three combined cases were advocated with amicus briefs by numerous interest groups, and even defended by the Justice Department. Accordingly I am wondering if the likely $10 to $20 million recoverable attorney costs will be born only by the funeral home and county ( the skydiving defendent is reportedly broke) or will other defendent/advocates who prolonged the litigation be expected to participate in these costs. The funeral home was reported to be a big enterprise capable of paying these costs, and obviously the County would have means of paying the bill. Any thoughts?
Apologies for a deficient posting. I am referring to plaintiff attorney and legal costs.
Hi Boonedoggie:
I never considered that issue when a case gets this far. I found the link below that talks about that issue.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/94-970.html
In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968), the Court considered 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(b), the provision in Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that provides for discretionary fee awards to prevailing parties. Noting that a plaintiff who is successful in a Title II suit vindicates “a policy that Congress considered of the highest priority”—enjoining racial discrimination—the Court held that under Title II a successful plaintiff “should ordinarily recover an attorney’s fee unless special circumstances would render an award unjust.” Id. at 402.
In Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975), the Court held that the Piggie Park standard of awarding attorneys’ fees to a successful plaintiff is equally applicable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k)
And Jesus said, “I hate the homos! Make sure they never get jobs. Make sure they don’t have any of the same rights as you heteros. They don rainbow flags which just makes me sick. They are icky people. I am going to stick with my best friend, the hooker. She is waaaay better than those same-sexers!”
Oh wait, He didn’t say that.