Current Events Thread

[steverocks35]

Originally Posted by thebigabd

Isn't Chaz the guy played by Will Ferrell in Wedding Crashers who teaches them how to crash weddings?

He has graduated to crashing funerals!

[SoonerBounce13]

I wish we, as a country, could go back in time and look at how the US looked 200 years ago, 100 years ago, 50 years ago and see the change that has happened and realize that the racism of today is about 1/100th of the racism of yesteryear. There isn't one black person from 200 years ago that wouldn't trade places with a black person from today in a heart beat. That doesn't mean we shouldn't always strive to do better...but we also need perspective and truth.

People want so badly to be a victim and be against something that they create these things in their heads. We have a natural urge to fight against evil. But we first have to figure out what evil is. What is the enemy? It isn't white people. It isn't cops. It isn't black people. It is Satan. And how do you defeat THE evil one? With Love. We all need more love.

[mict085]

Originally Posted by steverocks35

Here, read all about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capito...utonomous_Zone

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ge/3179232001/

"Once criticized by President Donald Trump and Fox News commentators as a haven for anarchists and the far-left antifa movement, CHAZ has morphed into what looks and feels like a mini-Burning Man festival, complete with its own corps of volunteer street cleaners and medics, as well as dreadlocked white girls blowing soap bubbles and taking selfies in front of paintings of men and women killed by Seattle police."

Also included, but not mentioned by you, is the theft, rape, assaults, and shakedowns by armed thugs. This is not some festival. It’s a lawless area of idiots that are terrorizing the neighborhood while the democrat mayor and governor sit in their mansions and do nothing.

[steverocks35]

Originally Posted by mict085

Also included, but not mentioned by you, is the theft, rape, assaults, and shakedowns by armed thugs. This is not some festival. It’s a lawless area of idiots that are terrorizing the neighborhood while the democrat mayor and governor sit in their mansions and do nothing.

Do you have a credible link to reports of all these "thefts, rape, assaults, and shakedowns by armed thugs?"

I haven't seen any, and the reports I saw also said that the protesters were not armed.

[steverocks35]

Wow, look who is attempting to stir up controversy and lie to its readers. I'm SHOCKED! Lol

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...tonomous-zone/

[thebigabd]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/polit...ase/index.html

Supreme Court, with a 6-3 decision, says federal law grants LGBTQ workers from discrimination.

What was interesting about this case was that the employers didn't really deny they fired employees for being gay, they just argued it's not against the law.

[sheepdogs1]

Originally Posted by thebigabd

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/polit...ase/index.html

Supreme Court, with a 6-3 decision, says federal law grants LGBTQ workers from discrimination.

What was interesting about this case was that the employers didn't really deny they fired employees for being gay, they just argued it's not against the law.

Are you happy w/the ruling?

[steverocks35]

Originally Posted by sheepdogs1

Are you happy w/the ruling?

Are you?

[SoonerBounce13]

Originally Posted by thebigabd

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/polit...ase/index.html

Supreme Court, with a 6-3 decision, says federal law grants LGBTQ workers from discrimination.

What was interesting about this case was that the employers didn't really deny they fired employees for being gay, they just argued it's not against the law.

So is this basically saying that a company can't use sexual orientation as a determining factor for employment?

[steverocks35]

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

So is this basically saying that a company can't use sexual orientation as a determining factor for employment?

That's the way I read it.

[SoonerBounce13]

Or is it that you can't fire someone for it?

[SoonerBounce13]

I agree with the dissenting judges that it seems the court is trying to legislate this issue instead of congress doing the legislating

[thebigabd]

Originally Posted by sheepdogs1

Are you happy w/the ruling?

Yea, I agree with it... I think Neil Gorsuch did a good job articulating it.

[thebigabd]

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

Or is it that you can't fire someone for it?

It's that one... You can't fire or discriminate against someone for being gay.

[steverocks35]

Originally Posted by thebigabd

It's that one... You can't fire or discriminate against someone for being gay.

But if you can't fire them for it then you also can't refuse to hire them because of it. They are now a protected class according to the law.

[SoonerBounce13]

Originally Posted by thebigabd

It's that one... You can't fire or discriminate against someone for being gay.

or trans it appears.

One of the cases was that an employeee had a sex change and came back to work dressing like a woman.

I guess my argument would be that if sexual orientation is a determination of who you are, and you changed your sexual orientation or "sex" after being employed, then you aren't the same person I hired.

Yeah, thats a stretch, but I just don't see how this is covered under the current laws

[sheepdogs1]

Originally Posted by thebigabd

Yea, I agree with it... I think Neil Gorsuch did a good job articulating it.

Good for you. And it was decided by a conservative court majority let alone by judges appointed by .................

[SoonerBounce13]

Originally Posted by sheepdogs1

Good for you. And it was decided by a conservative court majority let alone by judges appointed by .................

That is the only positive I get from the ruling

[steverocks35]

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

That is the only positive I get from the ruling

Do you think it should be allowable to fire someone if you find out they are gay? I thought we were way past that as a society.

[SoonerBounce13]

Originally Posted by steverocks35

Do you think it should be allowable to fire someone if you find out they are gay? I thought we were way past that as a society.

Yes I do. I have more issues with now not being able to use sexual orientation as a hiring metric. But I also believe that a company should be able to have control of whom they employ.

I'm not saying it would be right or wrong for somebody to do it, but I think as an owner, you should be able to decide who works for you

[thebigabd]

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

I agree with the dissenting judges that it seems the court is trying to legislate this issue instead of congress doing the legislating

I disagree...

“The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court in a 6–3 ruling. “That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal justices joined the opinion.

The textualist approach in this case would essentially require lawmakers to list out every specific thing you can't discriminate against... It says you can't discriminate based on "race, color, religion, sex, and national origin".... So today, the Supreme Court says that applies to being gay, because if if you discriminate for being gay you have discriminated against their sex.

“Rather than suggesting that the statutory language bears some other meaning, the employers and dissents merely suggest that, because few in 1964 expected today’s result, we should not dare to admit that it follows ineluctably from the statutory text,” Gorsuch responded. “When a new application emerges that is both unexpected and important, they would seemingly have us merely point out the question, refer the subject back to Congress, and decline to enforce the plain terms of the law in the meantime.” This approach, Gorsuch concluded, was incompatible with their obligation to interpret and apply the law as it’s written.

[sheepdogs1]

And it looks like a Jefferson statue in Oregon was torn down. Was not a problem under a democratic president even though there exists no one who can proclaim that they spent a day in their life where Thomas was not a slave owner. Convenience has no bounds when it comes to liberals. A finicky bunch they are.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/thomas-...rtland-oregon/

[SoonerBounce13]

Originally Posted by thebigabd

I disagree...

“The statute’s message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court in a 6–3 ruling. “That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.” Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal justices joined the opinion.

The textualist approach in this case would essentially require lawmakers to list out every specific thing you can't discriminate against... It says you can't discriminate based on "race, color, religion, sex, and national origin".... So today, the Supreme Court says that applies to being gay, because if if you discriminate for being gay you have discriminated against their sex.

“Rather than suggesting that the statutory language bears some other meaning, the employers and dissents merely suggest that, because few in 1964 expected today’s result, we should not dare to admit that it follows ineluctably from the statutory text,” Gorsuch responded. “When a new application emerges that is both unexpected and important, they would seemingly have us merely point out the question, refer the subject back to Congress, and decline to enforce the plain terms of the law in the meantime.” This approach, Gorsuch concluded, was incompatible with their obligation to interpret and apply the law as it’s written.

this is just idiotic.

Sexual orientation is not sex. We have lost the definition of what sex is in this world. It has changed definitions. Somebody's sex is vastly different than somebody's orientation

[steverocks35]

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

Yes I do. I have more issues with now not being able to use sexual orientation as a hiring metric. But I also believe that a company should be able to have control of whom they employ.

I'm not saying it would be right or wrong for somebody to do it, but I think as an owner, you should be able to decide who works for you

So what if someone buys a company and fires all the African-American people that work there. Would that be okay?

[BCSooners]

Originally Posted by SoonerBounce13

Yes I do. I have more issues with now not being able to use sexual orientation as a hiring metric. But I also believe that a company should be able to have control of whom they employ.

I'm not saying it would be right or wrong for somebody to do it, but I think as an owner, you should be able to decide who works for you

Man that’s sad.