I'm guessing he's doing as many as he can.
Posted on 03/29/2017 1:32:00 PM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Keeping his promise to lessen paperwork on businesses due to unnecessary gov regulations. Sounds like a win to me.
Well liberals, you refuse to accept that Trump is your president, so go complain to Hillary about it.
To smooch the butt of less than 2% of the American population, for “protection above and beyond what is defined in the U.S. Constitution for the other 98% of America”, was fool-hardy discrimination, and not necessary.
Morons, don’t they understand this is about reducing regulations on companies and therefore lowering costs?
Every American is protected from mistreatment in the work-place.
Now the LGBT folks will have to live under the same rules the rest of us do.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa /s
How does a company prove it is in compliance, if nothing comes up and there was no action to be taken?
What I see here is a move to eliminate the need for businesses to come up with some idiotic new idea to prove something was improved that wasn't in need of a fix.
So a federally mandated preference is “protection.”
Got it.
Maybe you should have them over for hugs and chocolate.
“By removing the requirement that companies prove their compliance with federal law”
In other words he removed the “prove you stopped beating your wife” clause.
I don’t have any gay friends.
____________________________________
Even better - I don’t even know any gay people. Or maybe I do, but they have the common decency to keep it to themselves.
I have no homosexual friends, yes I know a few , but choose to stay away from the drama queens I know.
Nailed it. Obama went too far and granted all sorts of freebies and benefits to the queers. Trump is just setting things straight.
Pun intended.
Exactly!
The complaint is that Trump is removing the lawyer-speak for "do what we say, or else" provision.
If their version of "protection" were applied to the first amendment, the Feds would be required to build churches.
They’ll feel better after Appletinis.
Thanks. Interesting argument with regard to the First Amendment issue there.
I'm guessing he's doing as many as he can.
There were a few guys out of the dozens that I had to work with in the city that I liked.
Low key, didn’t mention the lifestyle etc
But none would I consider calling on a Friday night to go hang out for drinks.
One guy had a party and had gals from the office were invited so i went.
The apartment was indescribably feminine.
They greeted us with some kind of flowing robes and sandals.
It was culture shock
Patriots are reminded that the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect deals with voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment. And since LGBT issues are clearly outside the scope of voting rights, lawless Obama’s protection for LGBT workers was not only based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers, but consider the following.
Obama was also arguably violating the Constitution’s Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 which the Founding States had made in part to prohibit the feds from establishing privileged / protected classes which Obama was effectively doing with LGBT people imo.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States [emphasis added]: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
But what’s arguably even worse than Obama’s action is that the uniparty Congress just sat on its hands and let Obama get away with his constitutionally questionable actions imo.
Getting back to Trump, and with all due respect to Trump, despite his rolling back Obama's politically correct LGBT protections, the following problem remains. Trump is arguably helping to expand the federal government’s powers, citizens probably not understanding that Obama didn’t have the constitutional authority to establish LGBT protections in the first place imo.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November ’18 !
Since Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.