Supreme Court Rules Civil Rights Act Protects LGBTQ Workers from Discrimination

[Edge-]

It's just simply allowing for society to pick and choose how much burden it's willing to bare, instead of being beholden to a bunch of people making decisions for that society without consulting them first (a.k.a. having a fuckton of kids without being able to support them, let alone give them the resources necessary to thrive).

Again, you're still describing eugenics with a dash of population control.

Eugenics is actively pursing something. Gene editing. Actively hunting "lesser" people (which is always authoritarian). Etc.

It's choosing who is allowed to reproduce in order to prioritize "desirable" traits and weed out "undesirable" traits, which can and has included "poor people" as an undesirable trait.

This is more letting nature take its course.

Civil society is not natural to begin with, so this is utter nonsense.

[eschatological]

The thing is this interferes with the tenets of a bunch of religions which don't accept LGBT clergy members because it comes against their religion. The SCOTUS is quite literally fucking with people's faith.

Not that I care that much, considering I'm an atheist, but it's funny how the SCOTUS is shoving the Agenda down the throats of the priests and the faithful, and thinking that millennia old dogmas will change because several people ordered it.

Your faith cannot interfere with the basic human rights of a person. In many rural areas, there are only religious-based hospitals around to serve people. SCOTUS generally makes an analysis about whether the harm of violating your rights (in this case, your religious rights) outweighs the harm of upholding them.

In this case, SCOTUS determined your religious feelings and beliefs aren't paramount to LGBTQ people's medical needs. An easy decision, imo. Especially considering the religions themselves are divided on homosexuality. Evangelicals say it's a sin, Anglicans are perfectly fine with it, Catholics are in a transition period where the current Pope has denounced homophobia and has moved to embrace LGBT Catholics.

- - - Updated - - -

Disagree, unless you suppose that humanity would undoubtedly universally abandon everyone who falls below the 1:1 give:get ratio. I don't think they would. I think humanity has more heart than that. It's just simply allowing for society to pick and choose how much burden it's willing to bare, instead of being beholden to a bunch of people making decisions for that society without consulting them first (a.k.a. having a fuckton of kids without being able to support them, let alone give them the resources necessary to thrive).

Eugenics is actively pursing something. Gene editing. Actively hunting "lesser" people (which is always authoritarian). Etc.

This is more letting nature take its course.

You are promoting an idea that some people are just "naturally" less than, and that you should "let nature take its course." This is, like I said, the root of what the pseudoscience of eugenics stemmed from.

And it's based in nothing but animus.

[The Butt Witch]

Your faith cannot interfere with the basic human rights of a person. In many rural areas, there are only religious-based hospitals around to serve people. SCOTUS generally makes an analysis about whether the harm of violating your rights (in this case, your religious rights) outweighs the harm of upholding them.

In this case, SCOTUS determined your religious feelings and beliefs aren't paramount to LGBTQ people's medical needs. An easy decision, imo. Especially considering the religions themselves are divided on homosexuality. Evangelicals say it's a sin, Anglicans are perfectly fine with it, Catholics are in a transition period where the current Pope has denounced homophobia and has moved to embrace LGBT Catholics.

Maybe you should try making that argument to someone of Islamic religion. Islam seems to be more and more popular, especially in Europe, and unlike Christians, who are everyone's punching bag because they don't really fight back, Muslims won't hesitate to tell you their opinions in a very...uncomfortable manner.

[eschatological]

Maybe you should try making that argument to someone of Islamic religion. Islam seems to be more and more popular, especially in Europe, and unlike Christians who are everyone's punching bag because they don't really fight back, Muslims won't hesitate to tell you their opinions in a very...uncomfortable manner.

Believe it or not, I know of 0 hospitals being run by Muslims in this country.

Obviously a Muslim denying service/employment to an LGBTQ person is equally horrific. It's not really a problem here in America....where this court case originates and applies to.

[Noxx79]

Maybe you should try making that argument to someone of Islamic religion. Islam seems to be more and more popular, especially in Europe, and unlike Christians, who are everyone's punching bag because they don't really fight back, Muslims won't hesitate to tell you their opinions in a very...uncomfortable manner.

Have you actually met a Muslim?

[The Butt Witch]

Have you actually met a Muslim?

I'm in Europe, so of course, and I even got into a fight with one over a dog shitting at the base of a tree, which somehow was extremely offensive, didn't even have time to pick it up when his old dude screaming something in Arabic came out of the house nearby and jumped me.

[Ivanstone]

The thing is this interferes with the tenets of a bunch of religions which don't accept LGBT clergy members because it comes against their religion. The SCOTUS is quite literally fucking with people's faith.

Not that I care that much, considering I'm an atheist, but it's funny how the SCOTUS is shoving the Agenda down the throats of the priests and the faithful, and thinking that millennia old dogmas will change because several people ordered it.

https://www.united-church.ca/communi...nd-orientation
"The United Church affirms that gender and sexuality are gifts of God, and that all persons are made in the image of God. We welcome into full membership and ministry people of all sexual orientations and gender identities."

Funny how one Evangelical Christian church lets LGBTQ in but others don't. Its almost like there's something else at work here.

[Noxx79]

I'm in Europe, so of course, and I even got into a fight with one over a dog shitting at the base of a tree, which somehow was extremely offensive, didn't even have time to pick it up when his old dude screaming something in Arabic came out of the house nearby and jumped me.

Ok. So what where their views on homosexuality and transgenderism?.

[Surlybottle]

I wholeheartedly agree with the result and in my mind it's such a logical and obvious inclusion.

However, I still have issues with the role SCOTUS has taken for a very very long time. Congress needs to do a much better job writing legislation and trying for amendments rather than writing and passing vague and watered down laws in the hopes that the SCOTUS will uphold it. If a law doesn't keep up with the times, then a new one needs to be written and passed. Is that more difficult? Yes, but then that's the job of Congress.

Look at abortion. Such a hot button topic, Congress should write an amendment to the Constitution allowing for it and then get it ratified. Remove SCOTUS from the equation all together.

[Yadryonych]

Thus, it got derailed into forbidden topic

[BeepBoo]

It's choosing who is allowed to reproduce in order to prioritize "desirable" traits and weed out "undesirable" traits, which can and has included "poor people" as an undesirable trait.

Except no one is choosing that stuff. People are still free to do and fuck as much as they want. It's a conglomerate of individuals who are collectively deciding with their wallets, as opposed to needing big brother government to do it for them. There's no predetermined rhyme or reason to it.

Civil society is not natural to begin with, so this is utter nonsense.

It's plenty natural. Humans have desires that they cannot fill on their own, so they seek out others who can. Plain and simple. 100% natural.

Your faith cannot interfere with the basic human rights of a person.

I'm aware, and I'm for people not letting their faith dictate that type of
In many rural areas, there are only religious-based hospitals around to serve people. SCOTUS generally makes an analysis about whether the harm of violating your rights (in this case, your religious rights) outweighs the harm of upholding them.

In this case, SCOTUS determined your religious feelings and beliefs aren't paramount to LGBTQ people's medical needs.

Putting aside the fact that I'm for the protections... I still don't think someone's needs are paramount to my willingness to perform the act. Period. I'm not anything-phobic. I love people of all types. But, I will NOT stomach the government telling me what I MUST do for someone else I don't fucking want to do. I'll pick and choose who deserves my support myself.

You are promoting an idea that some people are just "naturally" less than, and that you should "let nature take its course." This is, like I said, the root of what the pseudoscience of eugenics stemmed from.

I suppose I don't care where eugenics stems from, because I'd never allow or advocate people to go that far. You can't go out and murder someone just because you think whatever trait they have makes them weak. It's not up to one, or many, people to decide what is too weak. If someone cannot get the support they need and they die, I suppose that is a round-about way of someone making the decision, but no one's rights were infringed upon because it's not anyone's right to demand someone else do something for them.

Besides that, people 100% do have different worth to society. Not everyone has the same capabilities, the same minds, the same predilections, etc. All of that stuff has to come together among people in a harmonious way that's best left unfettered as much as possible. This means some people end up falling through the cracks naturally because they can't find a place. Cry me a river. That's what it means to be human and to need the support of other people around you.

[eschatological]

And Oppenheimer didn't think his work would lead to Hiroshima. Oh well.

[breadisfunny]

Personally, if I were a doctor, if I knew someone was an asshole (like if the cop who killed floyd showed up on my operating table), I'd elect to pass on them and let someone else who didn't have internal qualms with that person decide to take it on. Otherwise, if the person in question can't manage to get anyone sympathetic to who they are as a person, maybe they should have made better life choices.

this is called negligent homicide.it's illegal. all your crying about muh freedoms doesn't change that fact.

[QUOTE]That's nice. Now if only neglect wasn't just some invented ethical/moral construct put forth by people who thought the concept was bad.

Here's the thing with neglect and forced work/help: it favors the weak and being weak because you're never obligated to do anything if you can't, meanwhile everyone else literally has to bend over backwards for you because "Oh, you poor thing! You couldn't possibly survive on your own!"

Nothx. Strong > weak.

Morals/ethics aren't some hard fact. They're delusions people sell themselves. Don't believe me? Tell me exactly where your line for "acceptable" neglect falls, and I'll show you an infinite number of other lines that are just as valid. I can't neglect what I don't own. Me not repairing someone else's car even though I'm capable isn't me neglecting their car. The point is you have to prove why I have a responsibility to care for the thing/person in the first place. I don't have some universal obligation to care for all my fellow man.

Life is no more or less precious on it's own than any other argument of the same form. I didn't have that person. I'm not related to that person. That person is nothing to me. I owe them nothing and they owe me nothing. 404: neglect not found. [QUOTE]
1. the law and society doesn't care if you think something is made up.
2.you seem to be really hung up on this tired old outdated concept for what is essentially barbarism where the strong dominate the weak. i thought we got past this shit for the most part but you seem to cheerfully want to return to it. why?
3.moral/ethics are what we base our laws around. you can sit there and pout all you want about it but it doesn't change anything.
4. the law doesn't care about your feelings.

- - - Updated - - -

To the state telling me I have to do something I don't want to and pointing a gun at my head if I don't. "You will work another 5 hours to get this thing done. THESE PEOPLE ARE RELYING ON YOU! You can't just choose to shirk them. Negligence!"

oh nos how dare you have to do something you don't want to do. the world is ending....seriously though this post reads like it was written by someone whose 8 or 9 whining that they don't want to do something.

- - - Updated - - -

None. There are none. And people in business would learn that eventually on their own over time, because 99% of the population won't put up with people who are openly racist. The'd be shunned. The priority is to get them to be openly racist so we can out them and either reform or ostracize them.

But the labor market didn't cause the destitution, so I don't mind it being a coercing factor... that's what I'm saying. Idiots, poor people, etc, fucking and having kids instead of being intelligent about it, or people not adequately preparing and not having safety nets of their own so if they do fall, they end up getting back into the "point of no return" poverty things are all personal issues.

*Worthless to you. You can't even prove to me that humans DESERVE and SHOULD continue to exist.

Sorry, to qualify for ASPD you have to have desires and shows of harm and disregard. I have neither. I have 0 desire to go out and actively hurt someone.

you claim to not be sociopathic but have no empathy for people in hardship and want to actively keep in place the systems that perpetuate the hardship and constantly whine about how you have to provide for them by the state and you seem to support a system of eugenics by proxy and in an earlier post stated you would basically let someone die on an operating table if given the chance YEP TOTALLY NOT A SOCIOPATH.

- - - Updated - - -

Disagree, unless you suppose that humanity would undoubtedly universally abandon everyone who falls below the 1:1 give:get ratio. I don't think they would. I think humanity has more heart than that. It's just simply allowing for society to pick and choose how much burden it's willing to bare, instead of being beholden to a bunch of people making decisions for that society without consulting them first (a.k.a. having a fuckton of kids without being able to support them, let alone give them the resources necessary to thrive).

Eugenics is actively pursing something. Gene editing. Actively hunting "lesser" people (which is always authoritarian). Etc.

This is more letting nature take its course.

so a libertarian's wet dream. that has never ever worked out. EVER. also why are you advocating for a natural form of eugenics if your supposedly not a sociopath?

[Ivanstone]

But, I will NOT stomach the government telling me what I MUST do for someone else I don't fucking want to do. I'll pick and choose who deserves my support myself.

Contrary to what you believe this isn't about you. Do you know what happens when a bunch of people take the same tiresome attitude that your taking? Nothing gets done. That's why these protections exist.

Living amongst other people requires that you sacrifice some freedom. If you don't like it go live in the fucking woods by yourself.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Nah, I'm more of the opinion that such assholes would get weeded out themselves if they were actually that bad. That, or maybe they're so good at what they do they could still sustain, in which case, I'd blame the patients (people like me from the above example) who would toss their moral qualms to the wind as soon as it benefits them personally.

Ah look, it's the "magic hand of the free market" argument. "If it's so bad, it will just sort itself out and not exist". And yet human history has shown us that humans have done horrible things for generations even with many knowing that it was horrible simply because those horrible people could sustain themselves perfectly fine while doing those things because there were enough other horrible people going along with it.

Your above argument that such people will get naturally weeded out hinges entirely on assuming everyone has proper morals. So you either made that argument out of laziness because you had nothing better to counter, or you just plain don't realize that there are plenty of horrible people out there willing to support each other.

That's the entire crux of this argument. If you stand back and do nothing, then nothing will ever change. Those horrible people will keep practicing medicine. It takes a great number of people rising up and forcing moral standards onto others for things to change. You think that sounds bad, forcing your morals onto others? Guess what the ENTIRETY of human history is? Guess how our morals have evolved? Through bloody revolution. America has a long history of riots, protests, violence, and even war to change the "norm" of the country.

And even if you don't want to use violence, even if you insist things will change naturally on their own without speaking up, without violence, without riots, protests, etc. can you guess what happens if no one speaks up? Precisely nothing. Nothing changes.

[BeepBoo]

assuming everyone has proper morals.

Most, but yes. Or at least enough to have a commanding force. If they don't, then why should THOSE morals be the ones we're all forced to accept as "right"? Morals aren't objective. You thinking yours need to be enshrined is precisely the issue.

you just plain don't realize that there are plenty of horrible people out there willing to support each other.

I do, I just think that if we didn't have as many deprived people existing, there wouldn't be anyone for those horrible people to exploit. They'd be a lot more desperate for labor than they will EVER have to be right now. That, and I think it's pretty obvious that enough people do have good morals to combat that type of shit. Just look at this straw that finally broke the camel's back on systemic racism of cops.

Guess what the ENTIRETY of human history is?

Right, so might makes right. Whoever is strongest wins. Then I hope you're okay when there's a different victor, otherwise you're just a hypocrite that thinks they're special and deserves to lord over others. Look at the middle east for some other evolution of morals through "might makes right."

And even if you don't want to use violence, even if you insist things will change naturally on their own without speaking up, without violence, without riots, protests, etc. can you guess what happens if no one speaks up? Precisely nothing. Nothing changes.

Who tf said anything about not speaking up? About not doing anything when you see injustices? Starbucks originally had some dumb "employees can't wear BLM" policy, that got changed in like a week flat due to public outcry. Nascar banned the southern loser flag. The NFL admitted they were wrong about kneeling. The list goes on.

People don't just stomach atrocities. If it gets to a point that is bad enough, they DO do things without force or violence. In addition, I'm all for meeting violence with equal and opposite intentions. Ergo, peaceful protests turning into riots when your police are retards and pop off tear gas, etc... all for it.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Right, so might makes right. Whoever is strongest wins.

It seems you completely missed the point. The other side in most instances of history could have fought back. In the last 100 years, the racists could have banded together to keep the status quo of racial inequality. Some tried. There were shootings and they held protests of their own against moving forward. MLK was freaking assassinated. But there was no concerted effort to oppose progression of morals, to resist these protests and riots, because they knew they were in the wrong.

Who tf said anything about not speaking up? About not doing anything when you see injustices?

You're the one who was talking about not taking any action in this thread simply because you felt like everything would sort itself out without even having to take action.

[Saltysquidoon]

Ok so first of all 172 pages on an in personum case? Holy shit team, you have to drop the mic sometime.
I must say the elegant application of the wording of the text to sidestep the (admittedly viable) ordinary v historical meaning issue (which was the biggest hurdle by a mile) was a masterwork, that application of the text everyone's been quoting is going in law textbooks and not because of the importance of the decision.

And If I could just veer to the topic of judicial activism for a second.
Judicial activism doesn't exist and cannot, in fact, exist for two reasons:

1. The legislative body creates law the court merely enforces it and has the power to do so as it sees fit within the meaning of the statute. Resultantly the legislative body can always overrule common (judge-made) law with statute so it is essentially never the case that judges 'make law' alone;
2. The argument is borne of the (mis)apprehension that the judicial branch of government is somehow servile or subordinate to the other two branches purely on the basis that judges are appointed as opposed to elected, which holds no weight at all especially in the American context where judges are often elected and the executive branch appointed.

The claim of judicial activism (like so many these days) is merely a tool created to attack the source of an argument when you cannot fight the argument head-on.

[BeepBoo]

You're the one who was talking about not taking any action in this thread simply because you felt like everything would sort itself out without even having to take action.

No government action != no action. ThatsThePoint.jpg

[Felya]

No government action != no action. ThatsThePoint.jpg

Could you provide an example.jpg?