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.There is no discrimination.
Other people born with a penis and testicles are not allowed to compete against women, either.
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.
They certainly love their victim blaming. It comes with the belief that everything that happens to you is because of personal failing.Trans are doing that?
They never can't answer this I think he's talking about the right to use whatever the help toilet they want which isn't their right.What rights are being violated here? Be specific.
Persecution fetish.
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."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?
What rights are being violated here? Be specific.
They have equal rights. Not sure what you re saying.Equal rights. The judge has said they have no protection against discriminatory treatment.
The judge just ruled otherwise if you bothered to read the decision?They have equal rights. Not sure what you re saying.
There is legal and illegal discrimination.They have equal rights. Not sure what you re saying.
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.The judge just ruled otherwise if you bothered to read the decision?
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.There is legal and illegal discrimination.
They have equal rights. Not sure what you re saying.
There is legal and illegal discrimination.
How are they being discriminated against?If they don't have protection against discrimination, they don't have equal rights.
How are they being discriminated against?
That doesnt answer the question. How are they being discriminated against?The judge says they can be discriminated against. The court is declaring that they are not equal.
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.Yet in 2016, Trump claimed there were no problems with transgenders using the bathroom of their choice.
What happened?
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.Jim Crow comes to mind. Are you a fan of Jim Crow?
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.
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.Well, we may not look at all things equally, but the law should look at people equally.
It appears you want to argue against a dead strawman. You brought it up. Not me.In light of our Jim Crow legacy, I'm not eager to get back on the discrimination train.
snipped for brevity."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.
What changed?
There is legal and illegal discrimination.
The Civil Rights Act is not a 10th amendment issue.snipped for brevity.
What changed?
View attachment 67571344
It is a states rights issue.
See 10th amendment.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?