- Jan 15, 2013
- United Kingdom
A major plank of the argument was that rights must have a "historical" basis.A major plank of the single justice's opinion was not that other things like gay marriage need to be reexamined.
Ok, whatever? So you understand why they have lawyers give opinions even though it doesn't affect the outcome.It's a show in America too...
Because the Dems repealed the ban. So you can see how easily taken away these rights are.So there is no ban on trans military? So they have that right it looks like.
Uh-huh, and in some areas, kids aren't allowed to take part.Athletics is based on sex, not gender.
No, this is categorically false. Stores are not allowed to just refuse service to someone based on the colour of their skin. That's absolutely illegal. There are certain protected characteristics.Stores have always been allowed to discriminate based on anything, it's private property, they can tell you to leave because you have on jorts if they want.
So your counter-argument is just.... a personal assumption that it won't be enforced, because... what? Because you personally haven't heard about it?Again, what rights, just sounds like they might not be able to use the bathroom they want... and like where is that actually gonna be enforced...?
Just give empathy a try. Just try it once, you might like it.
Gay marriage was passed in so many states before Obergell solely because of Dem votes (with Republicans stridently voting against). It was Dem justices in SCOTUS that got Obergefell passed, against Republican opposition. Workplace protections against discrimination have been passed by Dem votes, against Republican opposition. That trans military ban was repealed... by the Dems. Against Republican opposition.And dems vote on things that majorly help gay people? Because they actually don't vote on such things.