• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Judge Rules It’s OK to Discriminate Against LGBTQ People. Why has the GOP come to oppose transgenders so vigorously?

Gardener said:
There is no discrimination.

Other people born with a penis and testicles are not allowed to compete against women, either.
Click to expand...
Actually. since only certain people born with a penis are allowed to participate in womens sports, it is a fact that every other male forbidden to do so is being discriminated against.
 
Helix said:
It's possible that gay "conservatives" who bought into the faux anti-trans hate campaign might discover that they're the next right wing target in coming years.
Click to expand...

pic8587276.jpg
 
j brown's body said:
"Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who holds a reputation for being a far-right activist judge, declared that while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not protect LGBTQ people from workplace harassment based on their sexual or gender orientation. The case was brought forth by the Heritage Foundation, a far-right, culturally conservative organization that heavily influenced the writings and goals of Project 2025.

Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, specifically targeted transgender people in his ruling, stating that they had to simply deal with any kind of discriminatory treatment in their workplace. He deduced that “a male employee must use male facilities like other males,” an assertion that completely invalidates transgender identity in its entirety rather than actually acknowledging the issues they face at work. Kacsmaryk even went so far as to order federal employment policy to remove“all language defining ‘sex’ in Title VII to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity.”.

This all directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County ruling, which stated plainly that Title VII protects LGBTQ workers from identity-based firing and harassment."

Link

Why do Republicans oppose transgenders so vigorously?

It wasn't always this way In 2016, polls showed most Republicans opposed anti-transgender bathroom laws.

There was quite a public backlash against NC's anti-trans bathroom bill.

In the 2016 election, Trump's seemed to personally support transgenders using the bathroom of their choice.

"Discussing the North Carolina law that prohibits transgender individuals from using a bathroom that does not match their gender at birth during a town hall event on NBC's Today on April 21, 2016, Trump said, "There have been very few complaints the way it is. People go. They use the bathroom that they feel is appropriate." Trump continued "There has been so little trouble."[10]

Link

What changed?
Click to expand...
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is a racist man who needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred. His judgments are based on his racist ideals and biases.

His ruling will be defeated upon appeal. The man needs to be faced with the loss of his license and being persona non grata in all courthouses unless he is the defendant in a case.

Republicans hate anything and everything that is not just like they are.
 
Fletch said:
What rights are being violated here? Be specific.
Click to expand...

Equal rights. The judge has said they have no protection against discriminatory treatment.
 
Fletch said:
They have equal rights. Not sure what you re saying.
Click to expand...
The judge just ruled otherwise if you bothered to read the decision?
 
Lisa said:
The judge just ruled otherwise if you bothered to read the decision?
Click to expand...
a male employee must use male facilities like other males is not discrimination. An example of discrimination would be to allow one male to use female facilities and enter womens sports and deny that to another male.
 
Lord of Planar said:
There is legal and illegal discrimination.
Click to expand...
WTF! There is no such thing as legal discrimination. Discrimination by its very nature is illegal because you are willfully treating one person different or lesser than another because of their race, ancestry, creed, color, gender/sex, age, or disability.
 
Fletch said:
How are they being discriminated against?
Click to expand...

The judge says they can be discriminated against. The court is declaring that they are not equal.
 
j brown's body said:
Yet in 2016, Trump claimed there were no problems with transgenders using the bathroom of their choice.

What happened?
Click to expand...
I know you think you have a gotcha, but countless politicians on both sides have changed their positions since, like, forever. Sometimes they sincerely change their minds; sometimes they're just chasing votes, like when Joe Biden ran as a Moderate and became a Far Leftie as soon as he attained power.
 
If ya got a dong go mens.
if ya got a slit go ladies. What's wrong with their privacy?

What I see as wrong is a 6'5" male trans playing a lil ladies sport like Tennis, golf, Disc golf etc.
Genetically a Male has more overall upper body strength than the ladies of his area of size.
He is just designed faster. Bolt proved what a tall man can do, world's fastest still.
 
Last edited:
j brown's body said:
Jim Crow comes to mind. Are you a fan of Jim Crow?
Click to expand...
Not at all. Words have meaning. Everyone discriminates, as in "discriminating taste." Some people prefer chocolate, others vanilla for example. For hiring practices, many jobs discriminate against not having a college degree, and even require specific fields of study.

To discriminate is not automatically equal to bigotry, though the brainwashed leftists seem to think so. We have many words at our disposal to distinguish specific uses.

It is amazing how many times the pundits on the left use incorrect verbiage. It isn't because they are stupid, but because they know their audience is stupid.

To discriminate against a person identifying as a woman, but has a penis, and baring them from entry into a private space for women is proper discrimination.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Not at all. Words have meaning. Everyone discriminates, as in "discriminating taste." Some people prefer chocolate, others vanilla for example. For hiring practices, many jobs discriminate against not having a college degree, and even require specific fields of study.

To discriminate is not automatically equal to bigotry, though the brainwashed leftists seem to think so. We have many words at our disposal to distinguish specific uses.

It is amazing how many times the pundits on the left use incorrect verbiage. It isn't because they are stupid, but because they know their audience is stupid.

To discriminate against a person identifying as a woman, but has a penis, and baring them from entry into a private space for women is proper discrimination.
Click to expand...

Well, we may not look at all things equally, but the law should look at people equally.

In light of our Jim Crow legacy, I'm not eager to get back on the discrimination train.

as Trump himself once pointed out, there didn't seem to be any problems with it.
 
j brown's body said:
Well, we may not look at all things equally, but the law should look at people equally.
Click to expand...
Yes, it should. If you have a penis, you are not allowed on areas designated for women only. If you have a vagina, you are not allowed in areas designated for men only.

That is a proper way to discriminate. Equal rights and not bigoted.
j brown's body said:
In light of our Jim Crow legacy, I'm not eager to get back on the discrimination train.
Click to expand...
It appears you want to argue against a dead strawman. You brought it up. Not me.
 
j brown's body said:
"Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who holds a reputation for being a far-right activist judge, declared that while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not protect LGBTQ people from workplace harassment based on their sexual or gender orientation. The case was brought forth by the Heritage Foundation, a far-right, culturally conservative organization that heavily influenced the writings and goals of Project 2025.
Click to expand...
snipped for brevity.
j brown's body said:
Link

What changed?
Click to expand...
What changed?

1748018939079.png

It is a states rights issue.

See 10th amendment.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom