Don Lemon Tackles Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones Shocking Segregation-Era Photo With Little Rock Nine Survivor

[homersapien 11,393]

14 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You would be wrong.  The SCOTUS should interpret the Constitution, not re-write it or put their own spin on it.  It is not necessarily a living document.

Wrong about what?  That the SCOTUS is "often often disingenuous and illogical"?

So you think the SCOTUS is immaculately correct in all their decisions?  Then how do you explain all the dissenters in a given decision?  

Oh, I get it.  They are simply doing their job interpreting the constitution, when you  agree with the majority. 

Rather simplistic but understandable. 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

27 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Wrong about what?  That the SCOTUS is "often often disingenuous and illogical"?

So you think the SCOTUS is immaculately correct in all their decisions?  Then how do you explain all the dissenters in a given decision?  

Oh, I get it.  They are simply doing their job interpreting the constitution, when you  agree with the majority. 

Rather simplistic but understandable. 

 

Do you always have these conversations with yourself?  Does anybody get to join in?

No, the SCOTUS isn’t immaculately correct all the time, Roe is evidence of that, as so was the DredvScott decision.  Both were corrected.

Unless it is a 9-0 vote there will be dissenters or are you talking about people dissenting?

I have disagreed with several decisions made by the court, the latest was when Gorsuch agreed with the majority that trans people were covered under the sex discrimination clauses.  That was ridiculous. That should have been talked about and voted on by the Congress, but it is what it is.

I hope you have come to a conclusion with the conversations in your head.  Let me know if I can help.

[arein0 970]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I have disagreed with several decisions made by the court, the latest was when Gorsuch agreed with the majority that trans people were covered under the sex discrimination clauses.  That was ridiculous. That should have been talked about and voted on by the Congress, but it is what it is.

So basically, you think once a person changes their gender, they should lose their Constitutional Rights as a US citizen?

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

10 hours ago, arein0 said:

So basically, you think once a person changes their gender, they should lose their Constitutional Rights as a US citizen?

I’m curious; how did you come up with that assumption?

The SCOTUS basically interpreted a 1964 act as including gender identity.  In 1964 no one, and really no one, thought that someone could change their sex.  To interpret that law to include a transgender women is ridiculous.  It is not the purpose of the Supreme Court to make laws that have not been considered, that is the responsibility of Congress.

Congress would have the opportunity to discuss and get the thoughts of their constituents before making such a law, similar to the original 1964 act.

 

 

[arein0 970]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I’m curious; how did you come up with that assumption?

The SCOTUS basically interpreted a 1964 act as including gender identity.  In 1964 no one, and really no one, thought that someone could change their sex.  To interpret that law to include a transgender women is ridiculous.  It is not the purpose of the Supreme Court to make laws that have not been considered, that is the responsibility of Congress.

Congress would have the opportunity to discuss and get the thoughts of their constituents before making such a law, similar to the original 1964 act.

My interpretation of the 1964 act is that you cant use who the person is as a reason to discriminate, hire/fire, allow attendance to public school, who to serve at businesses open to the public, etc.

By excluding trans people from this clause, whether intentional or not, you are wanting to take a step towards segregation. You are wanting to take that first step in dehumanizing trans people. They are still humans and have value to society.

The biggest question I have for you is why do you want trans people to be excluded? Why do you constantly want discrimination in America?

I understand you and I dont think its natural, but to them, for whatever  reason, they dont think being their birthed gender is natural. 

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

10 minutes ago, arein0 said:

The biggest question I have for you is why do you want trans people to be excluded? Why do you constantly want discrimination in America?

I don’t necessarily want trans women excluded, my point is the Supreme Court should not decide if trans women should be included.  That question should be brought up in Congress where the people of the US will be able to be a part of the discussion.

 

14 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I understand you and I dont think its natural, but to them, for whatever  reason, they dont think being their birthed gender is natural

Do we bend over backwards to all mentally ill people or just to the gender dysphoric?

[arein0 970]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t necessarily want trans women excluded, my point is the Supreme Court should not decide if trans women should be included.  That question should be brought up in Congress where the people of the US will be able to be a part of the discussion.

Why does it make a difference if it is in the Supreme Court or Congress? You are still looking for reasons to legally discriminate! They are still humans.

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do we bend over backwards to all mentally ill people or just to the gender dysphoric?

Since you brought it up, I dont think we do enough for the mentally ill. I think we need to do a better job of identifying and providing help to the mentally ill. Crime, mass shootings, and suicides will decrease as a result. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

8 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Since you brought it up, I dont think we do enough for the mentally ill. I think we need to do a better job of identifying and providing help to the mentally ill. Crime, mass shootings, and suicides will decrease as a result. 

Refreshing thought. Well done!

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

19 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Why does it make a difference if it is in the Supreme Court or Congress? You are still looking for reasons to legally discriminate! They are still humans.

What is your thoughts on *The Respect for Marriage Act*?  The Supreme Court had ruled same sex marriage was legal and the Congress codified the ruling.  Did you see the need for Congress to do that?  It is now the law of the land.  Why wouldn’t it be a good thing for Congress to decide discriminating against sex in the workplace when things have changed since 1964?  Is it the Supreme Court’s responsibility to decide such matters?  They should have just refused the case.

I am not looking for a way to legally discriminate, I am looking to have laws made the proper way and not let 9 people decide such things.

Roe v Wade is a perfect example; the SCOTUS decided, out of whole cloth, that abortion was legal with little or no boundaries.  It morphed from safe, legal and rare to abortion on demand at any time.  The court can’t put up those guardrails like Congress can.

I’m sorry you can’t see that.

34 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Since you brought it up, I dont think we do enough for the mentally ill. I think we need to do a better job of identifying and providing help to the mentally ill. Crime, mass shootings, and suicides will decrease as a result. 

I agree here.  Well done.

[arein0 970]

38 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why wouldn’t it be a good thing for Congress to decide discriminating against sex in the workplace when things have changed since 1964?  Is it the Supreme Court’s responsibility to decide such matters?  They should have just refused the case.

I am not looking for a way to legally discriminate, I am looking to have laws made the proper way and not let 9 people decide such things.

Why do you think trans people shouldnt be covered by the 1964 act? Doesnt trans fall in line with gender/sex? Wasnt this already codified into law? 

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

12 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Why do you think trans people shouldnt be covered by the 1964 act? Doesnt trans fall in line with gender/sex? Wasnt this already codified into law? 

The 1964 act is law, at the time there were no talk of gender.   The way this seems to have gone down is somebody was discriminated against, weren’t satisfied with the results of the ruling and took it to the Supreme Court.  Should people be discriminated by their employer?  No, they shouldn’t.   I also don’t think the Supreme Court should have heard the case and had Congress make a ruling about the relatively new concept of gender/sex.

As it stands now, the 1964 act covers Title VII and nothing else.  It would have been nice to be all encompassing and include Title IX also.  That is the one for athletics and schools.  This will be drawn out for a while, but we would have settled a lot more questions.  The men participating in women’s sports is a hot one.

[arein0 970]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The 1964 act is law, at the time there were no talk of gender.   The way this seems to have gone down is somebody was discriminated against, weren’t satisfied with the results of the ruling and took it to the Supreme Court.  Should people be discriminated by their employer?  No, they shouldn’t.   I also don’t think the Supreme Court should have heard the case and had Congress make a ruling about the relatively new concept of gender/sex.

Do you see how if the Supreme Court doesnt take the case, it opens the door for more discrimination?

Also, to play devils advocate, couldnt the same argument about the relatively new concept of gender/sex also be applied to the relatively new concept of assault rifles? What about if a new religion pops up, do those followers have the right to practice their religion?

Why are those topics all encompassing and not up for discussion, but someone's gender/sex is up for discussion?

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

2 hours ago, arein0 said:

Do you see how if the Supreme Court doesnt take the case, it opens the door for more discrimination?

Yes, it would and when it rose to the level of concern it would be addressed by Congress like abortion was.

2 hours ago, arein0 said:

Also, to play devils advocate, couldnt the same argument about the relatively new concept of gender/sex also be applied to the relatively new concept of assault rifles? What about if a new religion pops up, do those followers have the right to practice their religion?

Assault rifles is addressed in the Constitution as is religion.  Gender was not even thought of when the Constitution was written.

Gender will be the next LBGTQwoeoao push.  

If you listened to Biden celebrating the newly passed act, he is not satisfied with the status quo.  Even though gender identity has noting to do with same sex marriage he basically said if you do agree with the new gender identity you are a bigot, same as a racist, xenophobe, homophobe or any other phobia. They will not stop.

[Leftfield 2,617]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, it would and when it rose to the level of concern it would be addressed by Congress like abortion was.

So people being discriminated against have to hope Congress becomes concerned? Does that sound like "Land of the Free" to you?

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Assault rifles is addressed in the Constitution as is religion.  Gender was not even thought of when the Constitution was written.

Please show me where the Constitution addressed assault rifles.

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Gender will be the next LBGTQwoeoao push.  

You're back to this now?

[homersapien 11,393]

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, it would and when it rose to the level of concern it would be addressed by Congress like abortion was.

Assault rifles is addressed in the Constitution as is religion.  Gender was not even thought of when the Constitution was written.

Gender will be the next LBGTQwoeoao push.  

If you listened to Biden celebrating the newly passed act, he is not satisfied with the status quo.  Even though gender identity has noting to do with same sex marriage he basically said if you do agree with the new gender identity you are a bigot, same as a racist, xenophobe, homophobe or any other phobia. They will not stop.

1) Are hand grenades "arms"?

2) What is the "new gender identity"?

3) What do you mean by "Gender will be the next LBGTQwoeoao push."? 

Edited December 14, 2022 by homersapien

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

So people being discriminated against have to hope Congress becomes concerned? Does that sound like "Land of the Free" to you?

Please show me where the Constitution addressed assault rifles.

You're back to this now?

If it rises to that level; yes.  I mean that’s what lawyers are for, right?

Its the 2nd amendment.  I’m surprised you’re not aware of this amendment.  The right to bare arms and shall not be infringed, something like that.

Do you thing any of what has transpired with the respect of marriage act would have been successful with out the coalition?

[homersapien 11,393]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Its the 2nd amendment.  I’m surprised you’re not aware of this amendment.  The right to bare arms and shall not be infringed, something like that.

 

I'd like to see anyone make me wear long sleeves during summer.

They'd have to pry my T-shirt off my cold, dead back! 

[arein0 970]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes, it would and when it rose to the level of concern it would be addressed by Congress like abortion was.

Any discrimination is a concern. It was addressed by Congress in 1964 when they stated no person should be discriminated against based on sex or gender. Being trans falls into both categories of sex and gender. Just because it is "new" doesnt mean it doesnt fall into those categories. How are you not understanding this?

For your 2A, where does my right to bear arms stop? What defines an arm? Can I own a WMD?

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) Are hand grenades "arms"?

2) What is the new "gender identity"?

3) What do you mean by "Gender will be the next LBGTQwoeoao push."? 

1, I haven’t looked into it.  If they can be sold legally then I guess they are.

2, Well there is over 50 of them at last count.  You can look them up.

3, They will push everyone to accept gender identity.  They are teaching it in schools, but parents are pushing back.  They are mutilating minors and Biden, in his speech yesterday, denounced laws that prevent this practice.  That’s their new frontier, they aren’t satisfied with this win.

 

[Leftfield 2,617]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

If it rises to that level; yes.  I mean that’s what lawyers are for, right?

How long did black people have to wait for the Civil Rights Act? You think any marginalized minority should have to wait that long for their inherent rights?

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Its the 2nd amendment.  I’m surprised you’re not aware of this amendment.  The right to bare arms and shall not be infringed, something like that.

Great! I'll run right out and get my RPG and carry it around town, since it's obvious the 2nd Amendment is absolute!

As an aside, since the fact it's not absolute has been pointed out ad nauseum, you might want to consider pulling your head out of your ass about it.

Once again, please show me where the Constitution addresses assault rifles. You claim Congress wasn't thinking about gender/sex for the Civil Rights Act, but apparently believe they were thinking about assault rifles more than a century before they existed.

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

IDo you thing any of what has transpired with the respect of marriage act would have been successful with out the coalition?

My point was your belittling of the coalition by calling it "LBGTQwoeoao," like you used to do quite a bit. Seemed like you had dropped that, but I guess when you get rankled about it you return to form.

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

17 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Any discrimination is a concern. It was addressed by Congress in 1964 when they stated no person should be discriminated against based on sex or gender. Being trans falls into both categories of sex and gender. Just because it is "new" doesnt mean it doesnt fall into those categories. How are you not understanding this?

For your 2A, where does my right to bear arms stop? What defines an arm? Can I own a WMD?

Gender was not in the 1964 wording, it was added later as was sexual orientation, in June of 2020 to be exact.

The concept was *new* enough the case went to the Supreme Court.  I’m not arguing the matter didn’t need to be addressed, I’m saying I wish the Congress would have been involved.  Stop paining me with your broad brush.

Where does your 2nd Amendment rights stop?  It stops with what you can afford or you the size of your ego whichever is smaller.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

25 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

They are teaching it in schools,

This is a lie.

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

42 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You think any marginalized minority should have to wait that long for their inherent rights?

Why are you trying to think for me, you’re not good at it.

43 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Great! I'll run right out and get my RPG and carry it around town, since it's obvious the 2nd Amendment is absolute!

As an aside, since the fact it's not absolute has been pointed out ad nauseum, you might want to consider pulling your head out of your ass about it.

Once again, please show me where the Constitution addresses assault rifles. You claim Congress wasn't thinking about gender/sex for the Civil Rights Act, but apparently believe they were thinking about assault rifles more than a century before they existed.

If you own a RPG you got it legally, if you didn’t get it legally I would mention it on here.

Please define *Assault Weapon*.  It is one of those scary black or desert brown semiautomatic rifles?  Does it have a shroud so you don’t burn your hand when you shoot it?  I will go with the tried and true; the musket was the assault weapon of choice when the Constitution was written.  You have the right to own a gun, if you choose not to, that’s alright. 

*Assault Weapons* were banned in 1994 and the ban was lifted 10 years later.  Biden wants a 2nd bite of that apple.  I doubt it will happen.

51 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

My point was your belittling of the coalition by calling it "LBGTQwoeoao," like you used to do quite a bit. Seemed like you had dropped that, but I guess when you get rankled about it you return to form.

It did mellow a little, but after Biden’s speech during the his celebration I decided to pull it out again.  It fits.

[Leftfield 2,617]

55 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why are you trying to think for me, you’re not good at it.

Well, somebody has to do it.

58 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Please define *Assault Weapon*.

You used the term in the post I responded to, but you're asking me to give you the definition?

Thanks for proving the above...

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you own a RPG you got it legally...

...again....

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I will go with the tried and true; the musket was the assault weapon of choice when the Constitution was written.

...aaaaaaand again.