And so it begins...

[Scooter]

‘Friend Of Gays’ Donald Trump Just Gutted Obama Order Protecting LGBT Federal Employees

by Daniela Costa
03/28/2017

Donald Trump signed an executive order yesterday allowing federal contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees.

Trump’s order revokes three previous orders signed by Barack Obama, including Executive Order 13673, the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Order”.

Signed in 2014, the order required companies receiving sizable federal contracts to demonstrate that they have acted in compliance for at least three years with federal laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender stereotyping.

“This administration has made it extremely difficult to enforce these federal laws as applied to federal contractors,” Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal attorney, told Keen News Service. “It’s sending a message to these companies that the federal government simply doesn’t care whether or not they violate the law.”

Federal contractors will also no longer have to prove compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibit discrimination based on HIV status and other disabilities.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on sex in employment, has suffered the same fate. The Obama administration had previously argued that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity.

[Bicycle Bill]

Am I the only one who's noticed that while his highness King Dampnut the First Trump is busy making all these changes by regal proclamation executive order, there hasn't been a single law, i.e., a bill that have been proposed, debated, voted on, and passed by Congress, to cross his desk?

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

The camps will be coming soon. wesw will be happy to get steady work.

President Trump has reportedly invited conservative leaders to visit the White House on Thursday for the signing of an executive order on religious liberty.

Politico reported Tuesday that two senior administration officials confirmed the plan. One source noted that the language of the order has not yet been finalized by the White House lawyers, but a draft leaked in February would give businesses and individuals the ability to claim broad religious objections.

The Trump administration has been under fire since, with critics arguing that it would allow discrimination against the LGBT community.

Following the initial leak, Vice President Pence and his team have reportedly worked on rewriting the language of the document.

One conservative source familiar with the new text, however, told Politico that the language is still "very, very strong."

The potential signing of the executive order would also coincide with the National Day of Prayer.

Pence reportedly has been ramping up pressure on Trump to sign the order. Similar legislation caused a national controversy under Pence's watch as Indiana governor.

[Big RR]

I'm not sure what an Executive Order would do in this case as it would not make such discrimination anymore legal or constitutional than it is now (although who knows what the SC would do). I imagine he could order federal officials to discriminate based on sexual orientation (or give them the right to do so without fear for their jobs), but that would not extend to businesses and individuals, and he could also order the Justice department and solicitor general not to litigate cases that involve this (but he would not need an executive order for that--it could come from the AG), not would it stop court challenges from those affected.

Does anyone have any ideas.

[Sue U]

Like all his Executive Orders, it is pure pandering to his supporters, so he can claim to have "done something" about their special issue. It's not his fault if some unelected so-called judge hurts your fee-fees by ruling it unconstitutional. (Not sure if a judge can also rule it stupid.)

MAGA!

[Scooter]

In Texas: 'It’s an all-out assault on LGBT people'

AUSTIN — One bill would make it legal to decline adoption services to gay couples. Another could deny them marriage licenses. Others would bar transgender Texans from using the public bathroom of their choice.

Supporters of the bills circulating in the Texas Legislature this session say they’re intended to protect the religious rights of citizens or maintain safety in public bathrooms. Critics counter they’re an unprecedented attack on LGBT rights.

Gay rights activists count 24 bills introduced into the Legislature this session they say infringe on the rights of LGBT residents in Texas — more than any other time in state history. The bills are a new front in the attack on LGBT rights by Texas’ Republican-led Legislature following a key U.S. Supreme Court decision two years ago recognizing the right to marry for same-sex couples, said Chuck Smith, president of Equality Texas, which advocates for LGBT rights.

“This is the most number of specifically anti-LGBT bills that we’ve ever faced,” he said. “It’s an all-out assault on LGBT people.”

One of the most contentious bills has been Senate Bill 6, the so-called “bathroom bill,” which would require that people use bathrooms in public schools and government buildings based on their “biological sex” and prohibit transgender people from using bathrooms that align with their gender identity.

Just as it did for a similar law recently passed in North Carolina, Senate Bill 6 has drawn withering criticism from civil rights activists as well as business and tourism leaders. In a letter to Texas senators in March, Chris Wallace, president of the Texas Association of Business, warned that the bill, if passed, would lead to at least $407 million in direct spending losses for the state. The bill passed the Senate but has stalled in the House.

Another bill would allow county clerks to pass off issuing marriage licenses to other county officials if it conflicts with their religious beliefs, and another would keep transgender athletes from competing in high school sports. "If these bills are enacted in their current form, we will see litigation," Smith said.

Texas is not alone. This year, state lawmakers have introduced 131 anti-LGBT bills in 30 states, according to figures compiled by the Washington-based Human Rights Campaign. Only nine of those bills so far have passed into law. Texas leads the nation with the number of bills considered anti-LGBT. Last year, 252 bills were introduced, eight of which became laws, according to the HRC statistics.

The trend is a familiar one: Just as with reproductive or voter rights, when initiatives that impede minorities’ rights are blocked at the federal level, lawmakers turn to state houses to try to pass laws, said Cathryn Oakley, HRC’s senior legislative counsel. The anti-LGBT bills began surfacing as the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case headed to the Supreme Court, she said. In that landmark case, justices ruled 5-4 that same-sex couples had the fundamental right to marry.

“It’s happening all around the country,” Oakley said of the anti-LGBT bills. “Unsurprisingly, Texas just does it bigger.”

[Scooter]

Republican lawmaker: There’s a ‘distinction’ between gays and human beings

A Republican lawmaker has claimed that there is a “distinction” between human beings and homosexuals.

Rick Brattin, a Republican lawmaker in the Missouri House of Representatives, made the shocking claim during a debate over a bill amendment to protect LGBT people from discrimination.

Arguing against the amendment, Mr Brattin claimed it would infringe upon religious liberty.

He then claimed: “When you look at the tenets of religion, of the Bible, of the Qu’ran, of other religions, there is a distinction between homosexuality and just being a human being.”

The comment, which Mr Brattin has declined to explain, has been met with shock in the local community.

In an editorial, The Kansas City Star wrote: “The statement, made on the Missouri House floor, was deplorable.
Advertisement

“It betrayed a stunning lack of understanding of theology and self-government: The Constitution protects all Americans from the tyranny of any single faith-based approach to secular law.

“We asked Rep. Brattin to explain his statement, but he did not return a phone call to his office.”

The amendment to protect LGBT people was withdrawn after opposition from state Republicans.

In the same session, the House passed Senate Bill 43, a measure that would actually make it more difficult to sue for discrimination.

So now Republicans are justifying discrimination against us by denying that we are human.

And people claim I am exaggerating when I say that the camps are not far behind.

[rubato]

Wow.

Republican lawmaker: There’s a ‘distinction’ between gays and human beings

That reminds me of one of the most powerfully bigoted quotes I have ever heard. There was a story years ago about the changing demographic in a N. Ireland community. A woman said "People are moving out, And Catholics are moving in".


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

Fits right in with what one of the Trump boys said a few days back about those who disagree with his father not being people.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That "distinction" is a disgusting perversion of truth. The man should be .... well, dismissed with contempt is the weakest I can think of

[Guinevere]

Fits right in with what one of the Trump boys said a few days back about those who disagree with his father not being people.

He specifically said that Democrats are "not even people."

But come one, they have also made it clear that women are to go back to being chattel and breeders.

[Scooter]

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch showcases his anti-LGBTQ activism and rules against LGBTQ parents

NEW YORK – GLAAD, the world’s largest LGBTQ media advocacy organization, today questioned U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch’s true stance on equal rights for LGBTQ people after authoring the dissent for the Pavan v. Smith case yesterday, which granted married same-sex couples the right to have names of both parents on their child’s birth certificates. Justice Gorsuch’s choice to be the lead in the dissent opinion is the latest example in his long history of anti-LGBTQ activism, which GLAAD pointed out during his confirmation process last winter.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court of the United States yesterday ruled in favor of the LGBTQ couple from Arkansas in a 6-3 decision. In fact, Pavan v. Smith could be viewed as a compass on how the nation’s highest court could land on the upcoming Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, which questions a person’s ability to use religion as a weapon to openly discriminate against LGBTQ Americans based on so-called “religious exemption” grounds. The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it would take up this case in the fall.

GLAAD urges the media and Americans to highlight Justice Gorsuch’s opinion on Pavan v. Smith because it could be an indication on where he will fall in the Masterpiece case. Further, Gorsuch’s dissent falls directly in line with the Trump Administration and its pattern of eraring LGBTQ Americans from the fabric of this nation. For a look at the administration’s anti-LGBTQ activism since the start of Donald Trump’s presidency, check out GLAAD’s Trump Accountability Project.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch’s Anti-LGBTQ Activism

• Argued that certain minority civil rights issues, like marriage equality, should be settled through elections or legislatures, not the courts.
• Signaled willingness to allow religious employers to use their personal beliefs to sidestep federal law in lower court decisions in the famous Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the Poor cases
• Ruled numerous times against the transgender community, including a refusal to provide healthcare to a transgender woman who was incarcerated and against a transgender woman who filed an employment discrimination lawsuit.
• Described LGBT rights as merely part of liberals' social agenda. "American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide..."
• Described as "an ardent defender of religious liberties and pluralistic accommodations for religious adherents" and "a natural successor to Scalia in adopting a pro-religion conception of the establishment clause."
• Defended keeping military recruiters on campus despite the military's discriminatory stance on LGBTQ soldiers.
• Endorsed by and "good friends" with National Organization for Marriage co-founder Prof. Robert George.
• Endorsed by author of Colorado's same-sex marriage ban, former ADF Senior Counsel Mike Norton who said "He'd be great for America."
• Endorsed by ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence, "I think if the president nominates him, it would be good."

[Burning Petard]

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy--Live Long and Prosper

snailgate

[RayThom]

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy--Live Long and Prosper
snailgate

Kennedy did not retire today... but what will tomorrow bring? And once he does, expect the Notorious RBG to soon follow.

Next year, watch the new, conservative Supremes narrow down Roe v. Wade's scope by limiting access to abortion while leaving the decision technically intact.

And all the land will hear Friar Pence chortle from the chapel inside the palace of Lord Dampnut.

[Big RR]

Ray--the right justices could easily do what you say, but let's not forget who is doing the nomination; somehow I doubt his next choice will be as erudite or distinguished as Gorsuch, and someone who may split the court along intellectual lines, with some seriously trying to do a good job and the others trying to impose an agenda. And Kennedy and RBG may well hang on for another 4 years or so

[wesw]

I don t know why you would have such a doubt , RR.

his record of appointing top notch , qualified and respected people to the most powerful govt positions speaks for itself , I think.....

but I ll recite a few anyway.....

gorsuch, as you mentioned...., and mattis as SecDef.....

tillerson is certainly a high caliber, successful player in the world....

Kelly at Homeland......

his national security advisor too....., mc master.

even sessions is more than well qualified by his resume'...., though he is certainly a politician.....

past is prologue, I think....

assume the best...., at least occasionally.....

big hug?

[wesw]

...and Comey....

I suppose that we all thought that he was erudite.

but know that we have gotten to know him better do any of us think that he should be FBI director?

schemes and intrigue seem to be his forte'....

idk....

all the division seems to be destroying us and is just what putin dreams of, I think.....

screw the commies, hug a republican!!!!

...or at least an independent.

[Big RR]

Well, I won't debate the qualifications of each of his appointments in this thread--it's been done on this board before (and some are better/worse than others), but I have serious concerns about his commitment to appoint further USSC justices based on their legal acumen and credentials rather than their political positions and some perceived sense of "loyalty" to him which seems to pervade all his appointments, be they in government or business. the USSC should have jsutices which represent the best legal minds in the USA--but I doubt his commitment to that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

We need to abandon this "LGBTQ" false identity. People are either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual (the latter of which simply means wanting to have sex with anyone at all of legal age). Transexuals and Q people who can't make up their minds are in a different category entirely.

The recent (and quite correct) decision to allow two homosexuals to put their names on a birth certificate has nothing whatsoever to do with B, T or Q. They are, quite simply and honestly, H.

The effort to identify people as if they are all members of one homogeneous group is simple verbal trickery. One might as well add C for communist or L for lepidopterist.

[Econoline]

There is already an "L" in LGBTQ, so I guess they already know all they need to know about butterflies?



(Or did you mean there should be another "L" in there? There are probably a lot of people in Cymru named Llgbtq who would strongly object to that.)