[Politics] Trump, LBGT+ Ally

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,970
2,474
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Proving that Trump is THE LBGT ally, he has asked for the supreme court to make a precedent.
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-says-legal-fire-workers-for-being-transgender-2019-8

So the gist is that Trump asked for 'sex' under the anti-discrimination act meand biological sex. So, if you don't present as your assigned sex, you maybe can be discriminated against.

I don't know if this means if a guy wears nail polish that grounds to discriminate against, or you have actually transition.

The LBGT community can finally rest easy now that this is getting the attention it deserves.

Side note: the president is asking to set a precedent? Is that something he should be doing?
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
I didn't think that something a president can do, ie just tell the court this is a new rule. Like doesn't a law have to be passed, challenged and whatnot all the way to the Supreme court? Otherwise why can't Trump just say "New Rule: I can't be voted out of office, and brown people are bad."
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
13,474
2,469
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Its interesting to watch trump pretty much go after everything that his centrist supporters said he wouldn't. I wonder if blair white will cry about this also.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,970
2,474
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Silentpony said:
I didn't think that something a president can do, ie just tell the court this is a new rule. Like doesn't a law have to be passed, challenged and whatnot all the way to the Supreme court? Otherwise why can't Trump just say "New Rule: I can't be voted out of office, and brown people are bad."
I think it's interpreting a law a certain way. Like the supreme court interpreted this same law to cover transgender under Obama. I don't think Obama asked for the precedent in public, but he could have asked in private
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
trunkage said:
Silentpony said:
I didn't think that something a president can do, ie just tell the court this is a new rule. Like doesn't a law have to be passed, challenged and whatnot all the way to the Supreme court? Otherwise why can't Trump just say "New Rule: I can't be voted out of office, and brown people are bad."
I think it's interpreting a law a certain way. Like the supreme court interpreted this same law to cover transgender under Obama. I don't think Obama asked for the precedent in public, but he could have asked in private
But if its such a wild change, from yes protection to no protection that's in effect a brand new law. He's telling the supreme court what the law is, when that's not within his power

Worgen said:
Its interesting to watch trump pretty much go after everything that his centrist supporters said he wouldn't. I wonder if blair white will cry about this also.
Isn't Blair White that woman who is going around calling out Pedos using the trans identity to justify their actions?
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
You know it is still pretty baffling how anyone in the LGBT community can still support Trump after everything he has done. From trying to prevent same sex couples from adopting, kicking out Trans people from the Military, trying to take away their healthcare access and now he wants employers to be able to discriminate further.

https://thinkprogress.org/pro-lgbtq-republican-group-endorses-the-most-anti-lgbtq-president-since-reagan-991b94c990ab/

https://www.axios.com/trump-lgbtq-adoption-rules-religious-exemption-85f5fb22-d76d-4536-b275-0b279e904933.html
https://fenwayhealth.org/proposed-rule-by-trump-administration-would-gut-nondiscrimination-healthcare-regulations-protecting-lgbt-people-and-women-who-have-terminated-a-pregnancy/

But hey, Racism and sexism among the gay community is a thing too, so maybe it's possible they care more about being racist and sexist than they do about gay rights. It is sad that even though most White Nationalist groups hate LGBT people, we now have LGBT white nationalist anyhow. Go figure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_LGBT_community
https://newsone.com/3398887/michael-sam-says-he-faced-more-racism-in-the-lgbt-community-than-black-homophobia/
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/06/11/80-percent-of-black-gay-men-have-experienced-racism-in-the-gay-community/
https://gayexpress.co.nz/2017/03/casual-misogyny-in-gay-men/
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2018/7/20/gay-men-can-be-misogynists-too
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-henry-gay-misogyny_n_59f09df6e4b0cf6334a04c41
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/sep/04/they-just-wanted-to-silence-her-the-dark-side-of-gay-stan-culture
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Lil devils x said:
You know it is still pretty baffling how anyone in the LGBT community can still support Trump after everything he has done.
Literally everyone should be anti Trump because Trump has helped literally no one. Even Trump supporters are being screwed over, but they don't care because they like how racist he is.

He literally called one of his supporters fat and the supporter still wanted to suck his dick. They dont care.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
13,474
2,469
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Silentpony said:
trunkage said:
Silentpony said:
I didn't think that something a president can do, ie just tell the court this is a new rule. Like doesn't a law have to be passed, challenged and whatnot all the way to the Supreme court? Otherwise why can't Trump just say "New Rule: I can't be voted out of office, and brown people are bad."
I think it's interpreting a law a certain way. Like the supreme court interpreted this same law to cover transgender under Obama. I don't think Obama asked for the precedent in public, but he could have asked in private
But if its such a wild change, from yes protection to no protection that's in effect a brand new law. He's telling the supreme court what the law is, when that's not within his power

Worgen said:
Its interesting to watch trump pretty much go after everything that his centrist supporters said he wouldn't. I wonder if blair white will cry about this also.
Isn't Blair White that woman who is going around calling out Pedos using the trans identity to justify their actions?
No idea but I know shes a conservative trans-woman who tends to be an uncle tom about things. Like thinking that a trans individual should only be called their preferred pronoun if they can 100% pass and telling lgbt people that they should vote for trump since he won't pull anything against them.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
Saelune said:
they don't care because they like how racist he is.
Yeah. The ONLY consistent theme between Trump and his supporters has been racism and bigotry. There's no point in saying "not all Trump supporters" anymore. It's all of them. Every single one that remains.
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
1,747
515
118
Just stop taking them at their word. Assume everything they say is a lie and everything they do is an act of terrorism. These people don't have the best in mind for anyone other than themselves and even that doesn't really apply to your average Trump voter. Trump represents a shadowy cabal of unimaginably wealthy oligarchs whose morals and ethics couldn't possibly be farther removed from that of the average middle class person. They rely on a voterbase that has been gaslit by a generously funded media apparatus constructing a fake reality that bears little semblance to anyone's actual experience.

Unless you have yearly income of multiple millions none of these bloodsuckers represent your interests. No matter if your gay or straight, black or white, man or woman, they are the enemy and they sure as hell see you as the enemy. And if your gay, or coloured, or have an inconvenient political opinion they'd kill you right on the street if they only knew they'd get away with it. And as countless acts of terrorism have demonstrated, some of them will do it even if they don't.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,934
48
53
Country
United States
Silentpony said:
Isn't Blair White that woman who is going around calling out Pedos using the trans identity to justify their actions?
Well, she's certainly getting in the swing of that. To quote a recent video, she's feeling like her channel is "becoming a predator hunting channel, and I'm actually 100% okay with it."
 

Tireseas_v1legacy

Plop plop plop
Sep 28, 2009
2,419
0
0
I'm shocked that an administration that has shown pretty much uniform hostility to LGBTQIA+ individuals in excess of even most social conservatives would ask that we be not even remotely protected
Silentpony said:
I didn't think that something a president can do, ie just tell the court this is a new rule. Like doesn't a law have to be passed, challenged and whatnot all the way to the Supreme court? Otherwise why can't Trump just say "New Rule: I can't be voted out of office, and brown people are bad."
So, when it comes to the Supreme Court, the Executive branch plays a few parts (very macro-level discussion)

1) as party: US government sues or gets sued (or, in the case of criminal law, is the prosecutor), DoJ represents the US in suit from trial to closure/dismissal (with a few exceptions). Pretty much anything where a US agency or government is a party to a matter is going to fall into this category, often with the name of the respective agency head at the top.

2) as intervention: the US government has an interest in the outcome of litigation, so they intervene to effectively take over as one of the parties (although the party they take over will still receive the applicable relief if granted by the court and upheld on appeal, if applicable).

3) as amicus curiae: the US government during the appellate process can involve themselves as amicus curiae (Latin, "friend of the Court"), which has them submit a brief in addition to the actual parties outlining the US governments position on the law at issue. Many organizations can submit amicus briefs with the permission of the court, but amicus briefs from the US government are often focused on largely do to being the official position of the US government.

In this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on the Plaintiff's behalf after she submitted her complaint to the EEOC, so the EEOC is the Plaintiff in this matter. The government is essentially reversing it's position now from its original position, though the Supreme Court is not bound by the positions of the parties when they make their decisions.

In short, the official position of the US government has changed, but the court can pretty much ignore it at this point. There's even a possibility a non-profit will take up the plaintiff's case if the court grants them the ability to intervene given the government's change in position.

Arguments are set for October 8.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
Tireseas said:
I'm shocked that an administration that has shown pretty much uniform hostility to LGBTQIA+ individuals in excess of even most social conservatives would ask that we be not even remotely protected
Silentpony said:
I didn't think that something a president can do, ie just tell the court this is a new rule. Like doesn't a law have to be passed, challenged and whatnot all the way to the Supreme court? Otherwise why can't Trump just say "New Rule: I can't be voted out of office, and brown people are bad."
So, when it comes to the Supreme Court, the Executive branch plays a few parts (very macro-level discussion)

1) as party: US government sues or gets sued (or, in the case of criminal law, is the prosecutor), DoJ represents the US in suit from trial to closure/dismissal (with a few exceptions). Pretty much anything where a US agency or government is a party to a matter is going to fall into this category, often with the name of the respective agency head at the top.

2) as intervention: the US government has an interest in the outcome of litigation, so they intervene to effectively take over as one of the parties (although the party they take over will still receive the applicable relief if granted by the court and upheld on appeal, if applicable).

3) as amicus curiae: the US government during the appellate process can involve themselves as amicus curiae (Latin, "friend of the Court"), which has them submit a brief in addition to the actual parties outlining the US governments position on the law at issue. Many organizations can submit amicus briefs with the permission of the court, but amicus briefs from the US government are often focused on largely do to being the official position of the US government.

In this case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on the Plaintiff's behalf after she submitted her complaint to the EEOC, so the EEOC is the Plaintiff in this matter. The government is essentially reversing it's position now from its original position, though the Supreme Court is not bound by the positions of the parties when they make their decisions.

In short, the official position of the US government has changed, but the court can pretty much ignore it at this point. There's even a possibility a non-profit will take up the plaintiff's case if the court grants them the ability to intervene given the government's change in position.

Arguments are set for October 8.
Oh I get it. So Trump isn't telling the Court what to do, he's just telling him the official position of his administration.
 

Tireseas_v1legacy

Plop plop plop
Sep 28, 2009
2,419
0
0
Silentpony said:
Oh I get it. So Trump isn't telling the Court what to do, he's just telling him the official position of his administration.
Effectively, yes. And as the administration in power, it is the opinion of the US government.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
1,890
1,351
118
Country
4
Clearly, such a democratic left-wing position. (in sarcastic reference to positions stated in another thread)
 

PsychedelicDiamond

Wild at Heart and weird on top
Legacy
Jan 30, 2011
1,747
515
118
Silentpony said:
Isn't Blair White that woman who is going around calling out Pedos using the trans identity to justify their actions?
Is that a thing that happens in any meaningful capacity?
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
"The Justice Department under the Trump administration, is arguing that workplace discrimination based on sex does not apply to transgender workers."

I mean, they could be right about that. But if that's the case, just add gender to the list and make it clear cut.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Shadowstar38 said:
"The Justice Department under the Trump administration, is arguing that workplace discrimination based on sex does not apply to transgender workers."

I mean, they could be right about that. But if that's the case, just add gender to the list and make it clear cut.
Those who look for such loopholes in equal rights protections are just bigots. We shouldn't need all these increasingly specific specifications, equal should just mean equal.
 

Shadowstar38

New member
Jul 20, 2011
2,204
0
0
Saelune said:
Shadowstar38 said:
"The Justice Department under the Trump administration, is arguing that workplace discrimination based on sex does not apply to transgender workers."

I mean, they could be right about that. But if that's the case, just add gender to the list and make it clear cut.
Those who look for such loopholes in equal rights protections are just bigots. We shouldn't need all these increasingly specific specifications, equal should just mean equal.
Ideally, yes. But if we could count on people to not be assholes, we wouldn't need laws put in writing in the first place.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
PsychedelicDiamond said:
Silentpony said:
Isn't Blair White that woman who is going around calling out Pedos using the trans identity to justify their actions?
Is that a thing that happens in any meaningful capacity?
Well to be fair even one person doing deserves to be called out. Having said that, apparently yes, there appear to be a number of people who have fetishized one or more aspect of trans culture, and unfortunately it involves children.