LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus
- Blackhawk
- Posts: 45681
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
- Location: Southwest Indiana
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Once. I ate there once. Then the issues appeared. Their chicken was good. They're also surrounded by about a dozen other fast food places that have comparable food at comparable prices.
What doesn't kill me makes me stranger.
- Enough
- Posts: 14688
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:05 pm
- Location: Serendipity
- Contact:
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Iirc they have had siting issues in some cities.Exodor wrote:They just built two near me. There are so many food options here why would I spend my money on a franchise that has made it clear they don't value my business or values?
I wonder if they're pushing into other more liberal markets and want to put this behind them.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
My blog (mostly photos): Fort Ephemera - My Flickr Photostream
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
“You only get one sunrise and one sunset a day, and you only get so many days on the planet. A good photographer does the math and doesn’t waste either.” ―Galen Rowell
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 84640
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
CNNIsgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:29 pm WaPo
In a contentious meeting years in the making, the United States’s third-largest faith community voted to emphasize its opposition to same-sex marriage and gay clergy — a decision which was cheered by conservatives in the global church, especially in Africa, but was deeply disappointing to many Americans who were eager for change.
United Methodist Church leaders are proposing a split into more than one denomination in a bid to resolve years of debate over LGBT clergy and same-sex weddings, according to the church's official news agency.
The proposal, from a 16-member group of bishops and church leaders, says a separation was "the best means to resolve our differences, allowing each part of the Church to remain true to its theological understanding, while recognizing the dignity, equality, integrity, and respect of every person."
...
New York Conference Bishop Thomas Bickerton, part of the group behind the proposal, told the official United Methodist News Service that heated debate at the conference demonstrated "the line in the sand had turned into a canyon."
...
The church's worldwide conference in May would need to approve the historic restructuring.
...
The proposal includes $25 million for the "traditionalist Methodist denomination." Another $2 million would be set aside for other potential new denominations. And $39 million will be allocated over eight years to "support communities historically marginalized by racism."
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Defiant
- Posts: 21045
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
- Location: Tongue in cheek
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas have opened the court’s term by calling for the overturning of its 2015 marriage equality decision.
https://www.advocate.com/news/2020/10/0 ... e-equalityThe question of whether to extend legal marriage rights to same-sex couples should have been solved state by state through legislation, Alito said.
“In Obergefell v. Hodges … the Court read a right to same-sex marriage into the Fourteenth Amendment, even though that right is found nowhere in the text. Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman. If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs. … The Court, however, bypassed that democratic process. Worse still, though it briefly acknowledged that those with sincerely held religious objections to same-sex marriage are often ‘decent and honorable,’ … the Court went on to suggest that those beliefs espoused a bigoted worldview.”
A state-by-state process would result in a patchwork of laws, with some states allowing same-sex marriages and not others, and some possibly not recognizing marriages performed in other states — and perhaps the federal government not recognizing them either, so many benefits available to opposite-sex couples would be denied to same-sex couples.
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 84640
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Yes, but that's because they're throwing a hissy that Supreme Court will not hear Kim Davis same-sex marriage case
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Jaymann
- Posts: 20502
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
- Location: California
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:42 pm Yes, but that's because they're throwing a hissy that Supreme Court will not hear Kim Davis same-sex marriage case
What a berk!Davis was defeated for reelection, and sued by two same-sex couples for refusing to issue marriage certificates. Her claim of qualified immunity was rejected by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
- Skinypupy
- Posts: 20951
- Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
- Location: Utah
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
How does the fact that two other people can get married "threaten" anyone's personal religious liberty in any way whatsoever?“Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.
That argument always baffles me.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 84640
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
For those accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Holman
- Posts: 29703
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Well, the Kim Davis case is that, as a homophobic and bigoted public official, she shouldn't have had to process a gay marriage license.Skinypupy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:28 pmHow does the fact that two other people can get married "threaten" anyone's personal religious liberty in any way whatsoever?“Several Members of the Court noted that the Court’s decision would threaten the religious liberty of the many Americans who believe that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman.
That argument always baffles me.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
- coopasonic
- Posts: 21098
- Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
- Location: Dallas-ish
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
In related news my wife's sister and fiancée became wife and wife today in a courthouse ceremony. They decided they needed to get it done while they still could.
-Coop
Black Lives Matter
Black Lives Matter
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 84640
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
It's almost as if people are the problem.
- Jaymann
- Posts: 20502
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
- Location: California
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
So when the Suprem(acist) Court takes over, will all gay marriages be annulled?coopasonic wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:43 pm In related news my wife's sister and fiancée became wife and wife today in a courthouse ceremony. They decided they needed to get it done while they still could.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Maybe. That is one thing that makes this completely unseemly. They *aren't supposed to take positions like this*. Turning a bigot like Kim Davis into a martyr and throwing a hissy like this undermines the court's legitimacy. But I guess this is just the beginning.Jaymann wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:54 pmSo when the Suprem(acist) Court takes over, will all gay marriages be annulled?coopasonic wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:43 pm In related news my wife's sister and fiancée became wife and wife today in a courthouse ceremony. They decided they needed to get it done while they still could.
- Little Raven
- Posts: 8608
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
- Location: Austin, TX
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Highly unlikely. You would need a relevant case to be granted cert, and then you would need 5 justices to agree to reverse it. Roberts is almost certainly opposed, so we would need the other 5 conservative justices to be a unified block. There's not much history to suggest that's the case.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
\/ window into Outside Over There."
- Kurth
- Posts: 6366
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
- Location: Portland
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Also, we do realize that the "Suprem(acist) Court" just voted NOT to take up the Kim Davis appeal, right???Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:36 pmHighly unlikely. You would need a relevant case to be granted cert, and then you would need 5 justices to agree to reverse it. Roberts is almost certainly opposed, so we would need the other 5 conservative justices to be a unified block. There's not much history to suggest that's the case.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
- Jaymann
- Posts: 20502
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
- Location: California
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
I was referring to after the Trump nominee.Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:07 pmAlso, we do realize that the "Suprem(acist) Court" just voted NOT to take up the Kim Davis appeal, right???Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:36 pmHighly unlikely. You would need a relevant case to be granted cert, and then you would need 5 justices to agree to reverse it. Roberts is almost certainly opposed, so we would need the other 5 conservative justices to be a unified block. There's not much history to suggest that's the case.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
- Holman
- Posts: 29703
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Assuming a Biden win and a Democratic majority in the senate, what would be necessary to tilt the judiciary back towards reasonable sanity?
How much damage has 2017-2021 done to the courts, and what is necessary to fix it?
How much damage has 2017-2021 done to the courts, and what is necessary to fix it?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
- Little Raven
- Posts: 8608
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
- Location: Austin, TX
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
I would want evidence that the judiciary has actually become insane.
I certainly don't see any signs of that at the level of the Supreme Court. They're doing what they're supposed to do. But of course the Republicans have appointed a LOT of judges at lower levels, and I don't watch those very closely. Maybe they've actually gone off the rails.
I certainly don't see any signs of that at the level of the Supreme Court. They're doing what they're supposed to do. But of course the Republicans have appointed a LOT of judges at lower levels, and I don't watch those very closely. Maybe they've actually gone off the rails.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
\/ window into Outside Over There."
- Scraper
- Posts: 2939
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:59 pm
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
All it would really take is Biden winning and then Thomas retiring. That puts it back to the same make up that we've had for the last several years. To actually shift it towards democrats you would need Alito or Roberts to retire as well. None of the other conservative justices are anywhere near retirement.
FTE
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Alito and Thomas both said her case was flawed. Yet they still went out of their way to throw the hissy fit. They are waiting for a better case to come -- if it does "naturally" -- cough cough.Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:07 pmAlso, we do realize that the "Suprem(acist) Court" just voted NOT to take up the Kim Davis appeal, right???Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:36 pmHighly unlikely. You would need a relevant case to be granted cert, and then you would need 5 justices to agree to reverse it. Roberts is almost certainly opposed, so we would need the other 5 conservative justices to be a unified block. There's not much history to suggest that's the case.
- Kurth
- Posts: 6366
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
- Location: Portland
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
This vote was unanimous.Jaymann wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:08 pmI was referring to after the Trump nominee.Kurth wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:07 pmAlso, we do realize that the "Suprem(acist) Court" just voted NOT to take up the Kim Davis appeal, right???Little Raven wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 5:36 pmHighly unlikely. You would need a relevant case to be granted cert, and then you would need 5 justices to agree to reverse it. Roberts is almost certainly opposed, so we would need the other 5 conservative justices to be a unified block. There's not much history to suggest that's the case.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
- Holman
- Posts: 29703
- Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
- Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
I was thinking more of the courts at all levels. McConnell has done nothing but seat right-wing-friendly judges since 2017.Scraper wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 8:42 pmAll it would really take is Biden winning and then Thomas retiring. That puts it back to the same make up that we've had for the last several years. To actually shift it towards democrats you would need Alito or Roberts to retire as well. None of the other conservative justices are anywhere near retirement.
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
- Defiant
- Posts: 21045
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
- Location: Tongue in cheek
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
linkTexas officials are facing backlash after deciding to allow social workers to turn away clients on the basis of their disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.
At the direction of the governor’s office, the Texas State Board of Social Work Examiners voted unanimously to eliminate disability, sexual orientation and gender identity from the nondiscrimination clause of the code of conduct. The board made the decision during a joint meeting Monday with the Texas Behavioral Health Executive Council, which oversees regulatory agencies for professions related to mental health.
- Defiant
- Posts: 21045
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
- Location: Tongue in cheek
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurk ... n-therapy/A federal appeals court struck down Friday local ordinances prohibiting licensed therapists from engaging in “conversion therapy” practices that aim to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity—despite widespread consensus among experts that such therapy is harmful—arguing that banning the controversial practice is a violation of the therapists’ First Amendment rights.
- Defiant
- Posts: 21045
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
- Location: Tongue in cheek
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tulsi-ga ... 75841389b5Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) introduced legislation in the House on Thursday that would bar schools from receiving federal funding if they allow transgender girls and women and non-binary people to compete on sports teams consistent with their gender identities.
The bill — co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma — was met with immediate outrage from transgender activists and allies who labeled the legislation “blatantly transphobic.”
Thankfully, this troll is going to be out of office soon enough.
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
This just hastens something what we already were seeing. She is throwing in with the Trumpists. Maybe not politically but culturally. We'll be seeing her in a Fox News/OANN-type role shortly.
- Jaymann
- Posts: 20502
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
- Location: California
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Forget the sex changes and stick to regime changes, Tulsi.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
- Defiant
- Posts: 21045
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
- Location: Tongue in cheek
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) signaled late Tuesday he would oppose the Equality Act, legislation to expand the prohibition on anti-LGBTQ discrimination under federal law, throwing a massive wrench into plans of the bill’s supporters to guide it into law.
https://www.washingtonblade.com/2021/02 ... ality-act/LGBTQ rights supporters were counting on Romney to contribute Republican support to get the Equality Act across the finish line. With his vote off the table, it’s hard to see how the legislation’s proponents would be able to find the 10 votes in the Republican caucus to end a filibuster.
- YellowKing
- Posts: 31064
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
And that right there is why I'm always hesitant to praise Romney every time he bucks conventional Republican norms. That tiger's stripes haven't changed.
- Isgrimnur
- Posts: 84640
- Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
- Location: Chookity pok
- Contact:
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
He's still a religious red-stater.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Even with Romney they weren't going to get 10 votes. I'm not going to give him a pass but it seems hard to pin the Senate being a broken institution on Romney.
- UsulofDoom
- Posts: 1584
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:55 am
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
What would this mean for female sports? Universities and colleges receive federal money. They give out scholarships to female athletes. Now they have to give to top performing transgender's ? Tax payers pay for arenas so this should affect female pro sports as well. I don't watch female sports but they do matter to some. How could we support the Olympics in any way ?
I know it hurt this girls chances.
I know it hurt this girls chances.
If I make a grammar or spelling mistake, PM me. I will correct it. It’s better than you being an asshole!
No one knows the truth, only hypothesis, assumptions, conjectures, speculations, presumptions, guesses and theories.
We are not Gods, but nature. No more than one of many dominate species that will inhabit this planet for a short period of time, on its ever so long journey through the universe.
No one knows the truth, only hypothesis, assumptions, conjectures, speculations, presumptions, guesses and theories.
We are not Gods, but nature. No more than one of many dominate species that will inhabit this planet for a short period of time, on its ever so long journey through the universe.
- Jaymann
- Posts: 20502
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
- Location: California
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
I for one salute our new transgender overlords. Long may they reign!
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
I have a lot of exposure to this - before the world ended. I've seen this issue cause massive turmoil in a sport with female in the parent organization's name. I saw some very awkward and frankly unworkable schemes to try to address or balance trans inclusivity vs. perceived or realized advantages. For example, at one point hormone testing was bandied about and the idea was that someone undergoing transition would be included. This for many reasons has gone out the window.UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Thu Feb 25, 2021 6:42 pm What would this mean for female sports? Universities and colleges receive federal money. They give out scholarships to female athletes. Now they have to give to top performing transgender's ? Tax payers pay for arenas so this should affect female pro sports as well. I don't watch female sports but they do matter to some. How could we support the Olympics in any way ?
I know it hurt this girls chances.
In the end they threw open the floodgate to trans players and some of those trans athletes came in and dominated the sport. And I can't say that inherently is a bad thing. Especially since I'm mostly a bystander. I don't have an opinion one way or another. I just see that it is a difficult problem to solve. How we weigh inclusivity versus "fair competition" is one for that sport's membership to decide. And zooming out from the sport, society is going to have to figure this out as well. In the end there isn't a good "clean" solution there. Most of the compromises mean exclusion. Is that acceptable? Justice bends towards it being unacceptable to many. And we have a lot of activism as well. It has made this messy at best with a lot of jumping to conclusions about people's 'wokeness'. Heck I can't even talk about this *as an issue* in some circles without being classified as explicitly anti-trans.
Meanwhile, I've heard some players talk about being afraid - especially of injury - and often don't participate if a trans person is involved. Now how much of that is a real concern? I don't know. Probably not a lot but it isn't like anyone should be hot to collect injury statistics related to trans inclusivity. Especially since it has all sorts of ethical and privacy issues.
- hepcat
- Posts: 53842
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
I can’t even begin to figure out how to agree that it doesn’t seem fair without coming across as bigoted. Oof, I do not envy those who feel victimized on either side of the issue though. This is one argument that doesn’t really have any clear solution that doesn’t hurt someone.
Lord of His Pants
- Zarathud
- Posts: 16957
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
We resolved mens vs womens sports teams. We can add trans teams if necessary.
"A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on." -Terry Pratchett, The Truth
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it." -Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment
-
- Posts: 24795
- Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
This was discussed in some circles. It is seen as exclusionary. If they identify as women then they are women. This inherent conflict is what is weaponized by people like Greene. They seize on a legitimate disagreement, drive it to an absolute end, and use it to demonize these people. And that is just another front in an already wide identify politics battlefield. It's a real mess.
- Jaymann
- Posts: 20502
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
- Location: California
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
The problem as I see it is by definition insolvable. Since it is based on feelings of "identity" there is nothing further to say. But a major problem of course is the system can be easily gamed for personal gain, such as scholarships or money.
It reminds me of the problem with service animals. True service animals are a wonderful thing of immense value. But unscrupulous people soon realized you could exploit the law by taking your pet dog anywhere and simply stating that it is a service animal. You are not required to show any proof, and in fact a business owner can be fined for asking the wrong questions. Oh, and screw the people who are allergic to dogs, they don't have any lobbyists. Again, insolvable.
It reminds me of the problem with service animals. True service animals are a wonderful thing of immense value. But unscrupulous people soon realized you could exploit the law by taking your pet dog anywhere and simply stating that it is a service animal. You are not required to show any proof, and in fact a business owner can be fined for asking the wrong questions. Oh, and screw the people who are allergic to dogs, they don't have any lobbyists. Again, insolvable.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
]==(:::::::::::::>
Leave no bacon behind.
- UsulofDoom
- Posts: 1584
- Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:55 am
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
Will this mean that Fire, police and military will use Female tests on those that want to take the female test? How will this affect recruitment for government employees number for hiring men vs women? I don't know how this will pan out for us. I do see abuse about to happen by many.
If I make a grammar or spelling mistake, PM me. I will correct it. It’s better than you being an asshole!
No one knows the truth, only hypothesis, assumptions, conjectures, speculations, presumptions, guesses and theories.
We are not Gods, but nature. No more than one of many dominate species that will inhabit this planet for a short period of time, on its ever so long journey through the universe.
No one knows the truth, only hypothesis, assumptions, conjectures, speculations, presumptions, guesses and theories.
We are not Gods, but nature. No more than one of many dominate species that will inhabit this planet for a short period of time, on its ever so long journey through the universe.
- ImLawBoy
- Forum Admin
- Posts: 15359
- Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Chicago, IL
- Contact:
Re: LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)
The idea that people will "game the system" seems like a bit of a red herring to me. I'm sure there will be instances of it on the outliers, but it seems hard to imagine, for example, a flood of male students faking being females for four years to get one of the partial scholarships that are the norm for the non-money sports in college.
That's my purse! I don't know you!