And so it begins...

[Joe Guy]

And I assume the lights are on but......

[MajGenl.Meade]

He doesn't like to illuminate that area, Joe.

[RayThom]

I hacked into lib's medical file at the asylum. This explains so much.



Sadly, it's terminal.

[Scooter]

Trump rule to protect contractors who discriminate against LGBT workers

The Trump administration opened the door Wednesday to permitting government contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees with a proposed rule that frames the issue as protecting companies’ religious beliefs.

The Labor Department proposal follows a string of Supreme Court decisions that protected business owners’ rights to refuse service to gay customers in some circumstances and to opt out of coverage for employees’ birth control, and that expanded churches’ ability to qualify for government funding.

In October the high court will hear arguments about whether discrimination against LGBT employees violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Trump Justice Department, reversing its previous stance under President Barack Obama, will argue that it does not.

Wednesday's proposed rule for the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs will clarify that government contractors may make employment decisions that align with their religious beliefs. While the rule states that contractors may not discriminate on the basis of race, sex or other protected statuses, it is likely to prompt criticism from Democrats as tacit permission to discriminate against LGBTQ employees.

“Conscience and religious freedom rights have been given second-class treatment for too long,” a senior Labor Department official told reporters. “This fulfills the president’s promise to promote and protect our fundamental and inalienable rights of conscience and religious liberty, the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights in the First Amendment itself.”

But in a written statement, American Civil Liberties Union Senior Legislative Counsel Ian Thompson said, "Once again, the Trump administration is shamefully working to license taxpayer-funded discrimination in the name of religion ... We will work to stop this rule that seeks to undermine our civil rights protections and encourages discrimination in the workplace.”

[Big RR]

And so his idiocy continues; this man must be voted out of office. What religious groups say an LGBT person cannot be an employee or earn a living? None, I'd bet. But Trump is somehow making this a religious question so he can spew his hatred and get his supporters riled up so that they forget that Mexico never paid for the wall.

[Scooter]

Trans workers not protected by civil rights law, Trump admin tells Supreme Court

The Trump administration on Friday filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that transgender workers are not protected by federal civil rights law and can be fired because of their gender identity.

The brief was submitted in a case concerning Aimee Stephens, a transgender woman who was fired from a Detroit funeral home after she informed her employer that she was beginning her gender transition. The case, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., is one of three cases concerning LGBTQ workers’ rights that the Supreme Court is expected to hear this fall.

The brief, submitted by Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco and other Department of Justice attorneys, argues that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, “does not bar discrimination because of transgender status.”

“In 1964, the ordinary public meaning of ‘sex’ was biological sex. It did not encompass transgender status,” the brief states. “In the particular context of Title VII — legislation originally designed to eliminate employment discrimination against racial and other minorities — it was especially clear that the prohibition on discrimination because of ‘sex’ referred to unequal treatment of men and women in the workplace.”

If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, it will be overturning a decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with Stephens in March 2018.

“Discrimination against employees, either because of their failure to conform to sex stereotypes or their transgender and transitioning status, is illegal under Title VII,” Judge Karen Nelson Moore wrote in the 6th Circuit’s decision. “The unrefuted facts show that the Funeral Home fired Stephens because she refused to abide by her employer’s stereotypical conception of her sex."

Moore added that requiring the Christian business owner, Thomas Rost, "to comply with Title VII's proscriptions on discrimination does not substantially burden his religious practice."

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the conservative legal group that had petitioned the high court to hear the Stephens case, said the lower court overstepped its bounds by “redefin[ing]” the term “sex” in Title VII to “mean something other than what Congress clearly intended.” Just hours before the Trump administration submitted its brief, ADF submitted one of its own, arguing that “judicially rewriting sex discrimination in Title VII will spill over into other federal laws that prohibit sex discrimination.”

“It will deny women and girls fair opportunities to compete in sports, to ascend to the winner’s podium, and to receive critical scholarships,” the ADF brief states. “It will also require domestic-abuse shelters to allow men to sleep in the same room as female survivors of rape and violence. And it may dictate that doctors and hospitals provide transition services even in violation of their religious beliefs.”

In addition to Stephens’ case, the Supreme Court is set to hear two cases dealing with workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Those cases — Zarda v. Altitude Express and Bostock v. Clayton County — will be consolidated.

The Trump administration has made its position clear on the scope of sex discrimination in Title VII, so Friday’s amicus brief did not come as a surprise to those following the cases. In July 2017, the Department of Justice submitted an amicus brief with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Zarda case opposing the extension of Title VII discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation. And in October 2018 — prior to the Supreme Court decision to hear the Stephens case — the DOJ filed a brief with the high court siding with the funeral home. In the Stephens case, the federal government is pitted against itself, since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a defendant in the case.

The Supreme Court will hear the cases next term, which begins in October.

I hold out virtually no hope for the outcome of these cases with the current makeup of the Court. I think we are looking at another Bowers v. Hardwick-type decision that will not be overturned for a generation.

[Bicycle Bill]

And yet.....

Log Cabin Republicans back Trump

During the 2016 election, Log Cabin Republicans, the conservative LGBT organization, declined to endorse Donald Trump for president, even after Trump's vow, at the Republican convention, to “do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from violence and oppression.”

Since taking office, Trump and his administration have effectively rolled back rights for the LGBT community, reinstating a ban on transgender troops from serving in the U.S. military; reversing departmental protections against discrimination against transgender people; banning the flying of pride flags at U.S. embassies; and siding with a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  This month, the Department of Labor promulgated a draft rule that would allow government contractors to discriminate against LGBT employees on religious grounds.

That's why it was a surprise on Friday when the group — which normally waits until after the conventions to endorse a candidate — announced its endorsement of Trump's reelection bid.

In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Log Cabin Republicans chairman Robert Kabel and vice chair Jill Homan credited Trump with "removing gay rights as a wedge issue from the old Republican playbook" and "taking bold actions that benefit the LGBTQ community."

"He has committed to end the spread of HIV/AIDS in 10 years, through the use of proven science, medicine and technology to which we now have access," they wrote.  "Trump has used the United States’ outsize global influence to persuade other nations to adopt modern human rights standards, including launching an initiative to end the criminalization of homosexuality."

"While we do not agree with every policy or platform position presented by the White House or the Republican Party," they added, "we share a commitment to individual responsibility, personal freedom and a strong national defense."

These queers have their heads so far up each other's asses that they can't see the woods for the trees, I guess.
(and before you take me to task for using the word 'queer', remember — LGBTQ stands for Lesian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and QUEER.
If they can use the word in that context, then so can I.)

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

I thought it stood for "Questioning"; people who are uncomfortable with being identified by gender and the associated bag of expectations and generalizations entailed.

[Scooter]

Log Cabin Republicans = Chickens for Colonel Sanders or Turkeys for a Second Thanksgiving Day.

[Scooter]

Trump's America

[ex-khobar Andy]

From the Guardian:

A gay Missouri police sergeant has been awarded nearly $20m in damages after he was told if he wanted to be promoted he should “tone down the gayness”.

Keith Wildhaber, a sergeant with St Louis county police, filed a lawsuit against the department in 2017, after allegedly being passed over for promotion 23 times. Jurors in St Louis county court also heard that a police captain had called Wildhaber “fruity”.

“I was sickened by it,” Wildhaber told the court last week, according to the St Louis Post-Dispatch.

“I think I said: ‘I can’t believe we are having this conversation in 2014.’ It was devastating to hear.”
Advertisement

Wildhaber said he was told to “tone down the gayness” by John Saracino, a former St Louis county police board of commissioners member. Saracino has denied it.

Donna Woodland, a witness in the trial, supported Wildhaber’s complaint, the Post-Dispatch reported. Woodland testified that she had heard the St Louis county police captain Guy Means say Wildhaber was “way too out there with his gayness and he needed to tone it down if he wanted a white shirt [be promoted]”.

She also recalled Means saying: “You know about him, right? He’s fruity.”

The jury awarded Wildhaber $1.9m in actual damages and $10m in punitive damages on the discrimination allegation, according to the Post-Dispatch. It also found Wildhaber had been the victim of retaliation after filing his lawsuit, adding $999,000 in actual damages and $7m in punitive damages for that charge.

“We wanted to send a message,” the jury foreman, who was not named, told reporters. “If you discriminate you are going to pay a big price … You can’t defend the indefensible.”

The St Louis county executive, Sam Page, said in a statement he would appoint new members to the police board.

“Our police department must be a place where every community member and every officer is respected and treated with dignity. Employment decisions in the department must be made on merit and who is best for the job,” Page said.

“The time for leadership changes has come and change must start at the top.”

This perhaps not the time to argue whether his suffering was worth $20 million although I question it.

Who pays this $20 million? Do those who caused this man's suffering pay up out of their salaries or pensions? I suspect not: and that therefore the good taxpayers (and the bad) of St Louis will cough up. Has justice therefore been done?

[Big RR]

From the article, it appears most of the award was punitive damages, which are designed to prevent recurrences of the conduct, not compensate him for damages suffered. And since he is a county employee, the county will be responsible for the payment since they hired/appointed the person who did what was complained of.

[Bicycle Bill]

I know the basis of the lawsuit was that he was passed over for promotion because he was (whatever word we are using this week to define that kind of a person) and the jury obviously agreed, but the whole thing still sounds circumstantial to me.  He was gay; he did not get promoted; so UNDOUBTEDLY the reason he did not get promoted was because he was gay?

And then there are the quotes attributed to Capt. Guy Means and John Saracino, which tend to raise another question —
If those people being quoted are citizens of these here United States and have the right of free speech, then why CAN'T they call someone "fruity" if they feel like it without having to worry about every syllable they utter being examined under a microscope in a court of law?

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

the whole thing still sounds circumstantial to me.  He was gay; he did not get promoted; so UNDOUBTEDLY the reason he did not get promoted was because he was gay?

Apparently having both the plaintiff AND a witness being TOLD in so many words that being gay was keeping him from being promoted is not enough evidence for you:

Wildhaber said he was told to “tone down the gayness” by John Saracino, a former St Louis county police board of commissioners member.

Donna Woodland, a witness in the trial, supported Wildhaber’s complaint, the Post-Dispatch reported. Woodland testified that she had heard the St Louis county police captain Guy Means say Wildhaber was “way too out there with his gayness and he needed to tone it down if he wanted a white shirt [be promoted]”.

If those people being quoted are citizens of these here United States and have the right of free speech, then why CAN'T they call someone "fruity" if they feel like it without having to worry about every syllable they utter being examined under a microscope in a court of law?

Gee, I don't know, how about because in the context of a conversation about why someone was refused promotion, they provide corroboration of discriminatory intent?

I guess in your universe, if someone confesses to robbing a bank, the 1st Amendment precludes having their words "being examined under a microscope in a court of law" during a trial in which they have been charged for robbing said bank.

[Joe Guy]

The guy could have avoided all that trouble and would have been promoted if he would have just stopped being gay. It's too bad I didn't have the opportunity to advise him before all this trouble happened.

[RayThom]

$20M? This seems like a frivolous lawsuit.

I didn't read anywhere that Wildhaber made even one attempt to pray the gay away.

[Big RR]

I know the basis of the lawsuit was that he was passed over for promotion because he was (whatever word we are using this week to define that kind of a person) and the jury obviously agreed, but the whole thing still sou (unless she says no)nds circumstantial to me.  He was gay; he did not get promoted; so UNDOUBTEDLY the reason he did not get promoted was because he was gay?

And then there are the quotes attributed to Capt. Guy Means and John Saracino, which tend to raise another question —
If those people being quoted are citizens of these here United States and have the right of free speech, then why CAN'T they call someone "fruity" if they feel like it without having to worry about every syllable they utter being examined under a microscope in a court of law?

-"BB"-

For the same reason I am free to have an affair with whatever woman I want, but I can incur liability if she is an employee of mine, in which case harassment laws apply. Anyone is free to hate whomever they choose for whatever reason, but they cannot dole promotions out based on that prejudice.

[BoSoxGal]

Ugh BB reading your post made me want to vomit. Thanks for reminding what a Neanderthal you are.

[ex-khobar Andy]

From CNN:

An Iowa man has been sentenced to 15 years after burning an LGBT flag hanging from a church

I certainly don't agree with burning an LBGT flag; but we seem to have adopted the rule which sees US flag burning as protected speech. Burning an LBGT flag seems to me to be in the same category as Nazis marching in Skokie: hugely offensive to most of us but allowing them to do so is the price you pay for a liberal democracy. Burning people or their houses is not, of course, protected speech.

At the same time, our KY ex-governor Matt Bevan has issued something like 600 pardons and sentence commutations on his way out the door. You may recall that in usually solid R Kentucky he was beaten by the D in the governor's race in November.

Among the forgiven is one Micah Schoettle, who was convicted of repeatedly assaulting a 9-year-old girl. But also from CNN:

Former Kentucky Gov. Bevin pardoned a child rapist. One of his reasons: The 9-year-old victim's hymen was intact

Again, I certainly don't condone burning a LBGT flag. But we now have the monstrous injustice whereby the guy who did that is locked up for 15 years while a child rapist is freed by a POS ex-governor. A man of the right and a very pubic Christian to boot.

[Scooter]

The law permits someone to burn their own flag as protected speech. This person burned someone else's flag, i.e. committed arson for the purpose of terrorizing them.