Justice Department Makes Move Toward Backing Sexual Orientation Claims Under Existing Law

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Jan 29, 2016 7:50 AM GMT
    Justice Department Makes Move Toward Backing Sexual Orientation Claims Under Existing Law

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/justice-department-makes-move-toward-backing-sexual-orientat
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2016 6:22 PM GMT
    The article makes a mountain out of a molehill, while Obama's DOJ spends taxpayers' money in an attempt to end-run the legislated limits of Tit. VII by punting the ball into the courts. The government still has every opportunity to seek dismissal of this case by alternative means, including but not limited to a motion for summary judgment, though I doubt it would bring one. As for the merits, why didn't the government just accept the employee's claim and reach a settlement with him? Answer: because that would not have driven the law in the direction they wanted. Once again, a worthy goal is tarnished by illegal procedures in attempting to reach it. And, will it be worth it after all? District court decisions are not binding precedent and govern only the case in which they were decided. A little legal knowledge, Ms. Lynch, is a dangerous - and expensive - thing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2016 8:40 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidThe article makes a mountain out of a molehill, while Obama's DOJ spends taxpayers' money in an attempt to end-run the legislated limits of Tit. VII by punting the ball into the courts. The government still has every opportunity to seek dismissal of this case by alternative means, including but not limited to a motion for summary judgment, though I doubt it would bring one. As for the merits, why didn't the government just accept the employee's claim and reach a settlement with him? Answer: because that would not have driven the law in the direction they wanted. Once again, a worthy goal is tarnished by illegal procedures in attempting to reach it. And, will it be worth it after all? District court decisions are not binding precedent and govern only the case in which they were decided. A little legal knowledge, Ms. Lynch, is a dangerous - and expensive - thing.


    The usual crock of shit from you. The dolt who doesn't understand "HIV IS NOT A CRIME".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2016 8:50 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    MGINSD saidThe article makes a mountain out of a molehill, while Obama's DOJ spends taxpayers' money in an attempt to end-run the legislated limits of Tit. VII by punting the ball into the courts. The government still has every opportunity to seek dismissal of this case by alternative means, including but not limited to a motion for summary judgment, though I doubt it would bring one. As for the merits, why didn't the government just accept the employee's claim and reach a settlement with him? Answer: because that would not have driven the law in the direction they wanted. Once again, a worthy goal is tarnished by illegal procedures in attempting to reach it. And, will it be worth it after all? District court decisions are not binding precedent and govern only the case in which they were decided. A little legal knowledge, Ms. Lynch, is a dangerous - and expensive - thing.


    The usual crock of shit from you. The dolt who doesn't understand "HIV IS NOT A CRIME".


    He does not understand a lot of others things too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2016 8:54 PM GMT
    I understand the law well enough to have successfully retired from it - after establishing a precedent directly benefiting our rights. The one thing I don't - and refuse to - understand, is the permissive, liberal mindset that casts the law aside in pursuit of its goals. Like criminal behavior, I don't bother with understanding it, just identifying and "marginalizing" it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2016 8:59 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    MGINSD saidThe article makes a mountain out of a molehill, while Obama's DOJ spends taxpayers' money in an attempt to end-run the legislated limits of Tit. VII by punting the ball into the courts. The government still has every opportunity to seek dismissal of this case by alternative means, including but not limited to a motion for summary judgment, though I doubt it would bring one. As for the merits, why didn't the government just accept the employee's claim and reach a settlement with him? Answer: because that would not have driven the law in the direction they wanted. Once again, a worthy goal is tarnished by illegal procedures in attempting to reach it. And, will it be worth it after all? District court decisions are not binding precedent and govern only the case in which they were decided. A little legal knowledge, Ms. Lynch, is a dangerous - and expensive - thing.


    The usual crock of shit from you. The dolt who doesn't understand "HIV IS NOT A CRIME".

    And you are the dolt who doesn't understand that while HIV isn't a crime, knowingly or recklessly spreading it is. Every time you twist my words with this absurd point, I am going to rebut it, so in the interest of saving space, let's just go by my prior posts and keep my position as a "running objection."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2016 9:40 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    timmm55 said
    MGINSD saidThe article makes a mountain out of a molehill, while Obama's DOJ spends taxpayers' money in an attempt to end-run the legislated limits of Tit. VII by punting the ball into the courts. The government still has every opportunity to seek dismissal of this case by alternative means, including but not limited to a motion for summary judgment, though I doubt it would bring one. As for the merits, why didn't the government just accept the employee's claim and reach a settlement with him? Answer: because that would not have driven the law in the direction they wanted. Once again, a worthy goal is tarnished by illegal procedures in attempting to reach it. And, will it be worth it after all? District court decisions are not binding precedent and govern only the case in which they were decided. A little legal knowledge, Ms. Lynch, is a dangerous - and expensive - thing.


    The usual crock of shit from you. The dolt who doesn't understand "HIV IS NOT A CRIME".

    And you are the dolt who doesn't understand that while HIV isn't a crime, knowingly or recklessly spreading it is. Every time you twist my words with this absurd point, I am going to rebut it, so in the interest of saving space, let's just go by my prior posts and keep my position as a "running objection."


    You say it isn't a crime, they why are people in prison for having HIV and not infecting anyone? Do you know (apparently NOT!) that getting HIV is not a requirement for these laws?
    "Reckless Endangerment" is having HIV and having sex.....no matter if protection is used (condoms and/or Undetectable) or actual HIV transmission.

    HIV criminalization makes a minor crime a felony. Like the man in Texas who spat at an officer. The risk is nil, but because it was attempted murder or some other BS he was jailed for years. Still may be.

    I don't have to twist anything. Your lack of knowledge is apparent in your comments. In another thread you asked me to provide any states that have HIV laws. There are 33. Then you ask me to provide an instance: and I gave you Nick Rhoades in Iowa. THEN you said it was only ONE! I gave you a video of several more...and a link to many more.

    Then you stopped posting.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2016 9:46 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidI understand the law well enough to have successfully retired from it - after establishing a precedent directly benefiting our rights. The one thing I don't - and refuse to - understand, is the permissive, liberal mindset that casts the law aside in pursuit of its goals. Like criminal behavior, I don't bother with understanding it, just identifying and "marginalizing" it.


    That God you are retired! Attrition is inevitable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2016 10:49 PM GMT
    I don't expect you to, but most reasonable minds would forgive me for not monitoring your posts on a daily, or shorter, basis, especially when they're so hostile and uninformed. I just now saw and read your posts of 1-25-16 and find nothing in there, or anywhere else you've posted, to make me change anything I've posted, or know or believe, to date.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 29, 2016 11:21 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidI don't expect you to, but most reasonable minds would forgive me for not monitoring your posts on a daily, or shorter, basis, especially when they're so hostile and uninformed. I just now saw and read your posts of 1-25-16 and find nothing in there, or anywhere else you've posted, to make me change anything I've posted, or know or believe, to date.


    Wow, that a cobbled bunch of gobble-de-goop!

    It was several days ago. Not daily or shorter.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4168950

    Your deflections are of Teflon quality.....you think LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2016 1:14 AM GMT
    timmm55 said
    MGINSD saidI don't expect you to, but most reasonable minds would forgive me for not monitoring your posts on a daily, or shorter, basis, especially when they're so hostile and uninformed. I just now saw and read your posts of 1-25-16 and find nothing in there, or anywhere else you've posted, to make me change anything I've posted, or know or believe, to date.


    Wow, that a cobbled bunch of gobble-de-goop!

    It was several days ago. Not daily or shorter.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4168950

    Your deflections are of Teflon quality.....you think LOL

    Believe me or not as you will; IDGAS. My purpose is to ensure an accurate record, which I don't expect you to understand, given your still-deficient reading and comprehension skills. And, I prefer Calphalon to Teflon; it doesn't scratch as easily.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2016 2:11 AM GMT
    MGINSD said
    timmm55 said
    MGINSD saidI don't expect you to, but most reasonable minds would forgive me for not monitoring your posts on a daily, or shorter, basis, especially when they're so hostile and uninformed. I just now saw and read your posts of 1-25-16 and find nothing in there, or anywhere else you've posted, to make me change anything I've posted, or know or believe, to date.


    Wow, that a cobbled bunch of gobble-de-goop!

    It was several days ago. Not daily or shorter.

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4168950

    Your deflections are of Teflon quality.....you think LOL

    Believe me or not as you will; IDGAS. My purpose is to ensure an accurate record, which I don't expect you to understand, given your still-deficient reading and comprehension skills. And, I prefer Calphalon to Teflon; it doesn't scratch as easily.
    MSG-plaid_zpss79ip8my.jpg

    fixed
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2016 3:01 AM GMT
    How come every other thread on this forum turns into 2 dudes trying to convince each other how much they hate one another?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2016 5:04 AM GMT

    I think its a great idea to attempt to use the existing Title VII to protect LGBT's, under sex based discrimination, such as the EEOC has already voted upon, last year July.

    But some in our own community, want 'full naming rights' and separate category's used. It does get confusing when you don't specifically see 'sexual orientation and gender identity' words used next to race and gender under Title VII but then see these protections in other federal documents or departments.

    I think the US Labor Dept, Office of Contract Compliance got it right with executive order 11246 final rule (41CFR 60-1) that requires the specific words' sexual orientation and gender identity' to appear in federal contracting language.

    http://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/pdf/ofccp_eeo_supplement_final_jrf_qa_508c.pdf


    EO 11246 was existing since it was created in 1965, last amended by conservative president GW Bush which added religious employment protections in 2002, then existing 11246 was 'hidden' for at least a decade before it surfaced again in 2013. Title VII is just as old as 11246, basically.

    Once the DOJ formally recognizes LGBT employment protections, the EEOC should formally add the words 'sexual orientation and gender identity' to Title VII as separate category's, in line with the US Labor Department, OFCCP

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2016 4:21 PM GMT
    What's next Liberals: sticking a needle of heroin in to someone else's arm is legal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2016 7:38 PM GMT
    javelin7 saidHow come every other thread on this forum turns into 2 dudes trying to convince each other how much they hate one another?

    Look who devolved the conversation into name calling first, and you have your answer, as is the case on most other threads. Among my many faults is an inability to turn the other cheek, or let false facts lie. I can't recall that you and I ever sunk to this level, but for some it's all they understand - and I've always been good at foreign languages.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 30, 2016 8:53 PM GMT
    STOP FEEDING THE REPUKE TROLLS ON THIS SITE!!!
    (Like the two right above)

    There is no point going back and forth with these douchebags. It is EXACTLY what they want. Otherwise they get no acknowledgement here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 31, 2016 11:01 AM GMT
    It's amazing how the ignorant out themselves, jumping immediately into insults and invective because they lack either the knowledge or intelligence to form a reasonable argument.