Not sexually attracted to a trans-queeer? You may be charged with federal crimes.

she is now just ashes, otherwise I'd pay to see you do necrophilia on a trans
 
jmdrake said:
What? No. It's not saying you have to accept somebody's gayness.
Click to expand...

Can't discriminate based upon "actual or perceived attraction." By my reading that has a couple of effects. One would be that a business couldn't decide on its own whether or not a person is "actually gay." That's what I mean by accept. Not socially or morally or whatever, but legally.


You couldn't say "oh well I'm not discriminating against them because they are gay, because they're not actually gay, which I determined based on the fact that they are not currently married to another man."


There's also the opposite effect, which would be if a person were perceived to be gay when they aren't actually, and are discriminated against for the perceived attraction regardless of their actual attraction.


In both cases the purpose seems to be that they are eliminating possible defenses against discrimination lawsuits which would either "oh, he isn't actually gay" and/or "well, I only thought he was gay." In both cases it prevents courts from having to determine whether a person is or is not actually gay.


jmdrake said:
Okay, back to what the language actually means. You can't discriminate against someone under this bill for liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the same sex. You can't discriminate for liking the opposite sex. You can't discriminate for not liking the opposite sex. So, under this law, a gay bar could not discriminate against a heterosexual bartender. And that shouldn't be a shocker. The 1964 Civil Rights Act prevents a black owned bar from discriminating against white bartenders on the basis of race.
Click to expand...

It's broader than that.
 
Last edited:
TheCount said:
Can't discriminate based upon "actual or perceived attraction." By my reading that has a couple of effects. One would be that a business couldn't decide on its own whether or not a person is "actually gay." That's what I mean by accept. Not socially or morally or whatever, but legally.


You couldn't say "oh well I'm not discriminating against them because they are gay, because they're not actually gay, which I determined based on the fact that they are not currently married to another man."
Click to expand...

My brain hurts reading this.



As I was explaining to [MENTION=3169]Anti Federalist[/MENTION], any interpretation of an amended Civil Rights Act is to look at how the current CRA is interpreted. It's not a thing of "Well I didn't discriminate against you for being black because I perceive you as being white even though you told me you were black." it's "I didn't discriminate against you for being black because I fired you for being repetitively tardy and that has nothing to do with you being black." Certainly if an employee is in the closet and there's no evidence that he informed his boss that he was gay, then that would be a pretty solid defense against a CRA claim. But the has EVERYTHING to do with the REASON the employee was fired and not some twisted interpretation of what the language you are referencing. If I have a legitimate reason for firing you and I never give any indication that I fired you for anything other than that reason and I fire other people that don't fit your protected class for the same reason then I have a rock solid CRA defense. If, on the other hand, I only fire gay people, or black people, or women, or some other protected class for that same reason, then I have a problem. Look at the other language in the definitions section of the act.

14) LGBTQ people often face discrimination when seeking to rent or purchase housing, as well as in every other aspect of obtaining and maintaining housing. LGBTQ people in same-sex relationships are often discriminated against when two names associated with one gender appear on a housing application, and transgender people often encounter discrimination when credit checks or inquiries reveal a former name.

^That is what the "perceived" language is talking about. Two people could be best friends, or it could be a man and a woman with the feminine or masculine names. Think "The Boy Named Sue" song by Johnny Cash. (In college I knew a young man named Wanda that was dating a young lady named Wanda). Someone seeing such an application might perceive this was a gay couple when it wasn't.

There's also the opposite effect, which would be if a person were perceived to be gay when they aren't actually, and are discriminated against for the perceived attraction regardless of their actual attraction.
Click to expand...

That is ONLY two scenarios contemplated by the bill are 1) a person thinks he's dealing with a gay person and discriminates against him because he's gay or 2) a person thinks he's dealing with a straight person and discriminates against him because he is straight. The "I'm going to pretend this gay person is straight even though he told me he is gay so I can discriminate against him" is NOT what the perception clause means. That's already covered by other language.

In both cases the purpose seems to be that they are eliminating possible defenses against discrimination lawsuits which would either "oh, he isn't actually gay" and/or "well, I only thought he was gay." In both cases it prevents courts from having to determine whether a person is or is not actually gay.
Click to expand...

^That is not the same as saying "You have to accept someone's gayness." In fact ^that is what I've been saying all along. Again, if you discriminate against someone because he's gay or because you think he's gay or because he's straight or because you think he's straight then, if your discrimination falls under the CRA, you are liable. Specifically this is what you said earlier that I disagree with.

"So if they say that they're gay but they aren't in a relationship with another man, you couldn't discount their gayness."

If someone says their gay and you fire him, you need to have some reason to that has nothing to do with him being gay. Whether or not you believe he is gay is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

It's broader than that.
Click to expand...

That depends on the definition of "that."
 
Anti Federalist said:
I'm going to thank you for your time, and sincerely express my appreciation for spelling it out, as someone with a legal background.

My final comment on this, other than, wait and see, since it's pretty much assured of passage, is this:

If I had dollar for every time somebody told me there is "NO WAY" some obscure law could not be twisted to mean something utterly different, I'd be kicking it with Popeye Bezos on the yacht.
Click to expand...

LOL. You're welcome and touche'! Here is my final response. I thought I laid out enough concerning stuff about the new law as it stands without going down the "A gay person can make you have sex with him" rabbit hole. It does concern me that religious affiliated institutions will have to deal with this. I've already seen it happen. When I first went to Vanderbilt there was a Christian Legal Society. I never joined but I had respect for them. They would offer to pray for you when exams were coming up, would have weekly worship services etc. My second year three women started the LGBT legal association. (Q hadn't yet arrived). I was cool with them too but didn't join them either for obvious reasons. ONE YEAR later I read in the paper that the Christian Legal Society lost its funding. Why? The fact that their bylaws required officers to have a personal faith in Jesus and lead worship services was considered "intolerant." (See: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-political-student-organizations-under-attack) Maybe that was just a coincidence. I dunno. But it seems the more "inclusive" our society becomes, the Christian views are being sidelined. I mean seriously there are so many flavors of Christianity, including Christian churches with gay pastors, that it's crazy that requirement that an officer be a believer is deemed "intolerant." Can I be over the chess club if I hate chess and never learned how to play it? And then there's the question of parents and children. We already have the James Younger case to deal with. How will this new law affect that? What about parents of "Q" children who take them to a conservative church where they hear fire and brimstone about the life they are considering? Yes the CRA doesn't directly affect that, but the Bob Jones University Case shows me how the law can be applied in ways it was never intended to be applied. So...just because I don't share one particular concern with you doesn't mean I don't have concerns.
 
jmdrake said:
LOL. You're welcome and touche'! Here is my final response. I thought I laid out enough concerning stuff about the new law as it stands without going down the "A gay person can make you have sex with him" rabbit hole. It does concern me that religious affiliated institutions will have to deal with this. I've already seen it happen. When I first went to Vanderbilt there was a Christian Legal Society. I never joined but I had respect for them. They would offer to pray for you when exams were coming up, would have weekly worship services etc. My second year three women started the LGBT legal association. (Q hadn't yet arrived). I was cool with them too but didn't join them either for obvious reasons. ONE YEAR later I read in the paper that the Christian Legal Society lost its funding. Why? The fact that their bylaws required officers to have a personal faith in Jesus and lead worship services was considered "intolerant." (See: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-political-student-organizations-under-attack) Maybe that was just a coincidence. I dunno. But it seems the more "inclusive" our society becomes, the Christian views are being sidelined. I mean seriously there are so many flavors of Christianity, including Christian churches with gay pastors, that it's crazy that requirement that an officer be a believer is deemed "intolerant." Can I be over the chess club if I hate chess and never learned how to play it? And then there's the question of parents and children. We already have the James Younger case to deal with. How will this new law affect that? What about parents of "Q" children who take them to a conservative church where they hear fire and brimstone about the life they are considering? Yes the CRA doesn't directly affect that, but the Bob Jones University Case shows me how the law can be applied in ways it was never intended to be applied. So...just because I don't share one particular concern with you doesn't mean I don't have concerns.
Click to expand...

No doubt at all...there's no telling in what direction this will go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Feds Investigate California Schools Accused Of Hiding Children's Gender Transition From Parents
Replies
0
Views
19
Swordsmyth
Swordsmyth
I
Travel Ban for Trans People. Refusal to renew passports even with birth genders.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
jmdrake
AOC calls Green Party 'predatory' because VP nominee is against men in women's sports
Replies
4
Views
792
Okie RP fan
Okie RP fan
jmdrake
Media Discovers Trump Right - Harris Does Support Trans Surgery For Illegal Aliens
Replies
1
Views
408
WarriorLiberty
W
W
Move to strip gender rights from Iowa's civil rights law rejected by legislators
Replies
0
Views
287
WarriorLiberty
W
Back
Top