Posted on 10/09/2019 8:43:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I can imagine what Alito, likely brought up in an old fashioned Italian household like myself, is really thinking in his head.
Why wouldn’t they, they have changed the meaning of almost everything else.
Roberts lived a life with all the Hallmarks of a closet homo. Roberts did pro bono work for the Colorado people pushing for gay marriage at the very beginning of the movement.
It’s pretty obvious Roberts is going to line up against America again
Why not? It is basic freedom of association.
No one should be forced to associate with someone they do not wish to associate with.
No private employer should be forced to hire someone they do not wish to hire.
*Elena Kagan stated that “a man who loves other men cannot be treated differently by an employer than a woman who loves men.”*
It occurred to me after reading this sentence how the left has muddied the water by using “love” as a synonym for “sexually attracted to.”
Pretty soon it will be adults who “love” children.
Somehow or another the words “oral” and “sex” in the title construe yet a different meaning.
This should have less to do with “who loves whom” and more to do with acceptable behavior in a professional, social environment.
...and how in hell does a federal judge have any Constitutional authority to tell a private business how it must operate.
Not even the Supreme Court has the right to issue decisions on what is established fact. There are two sexes, and you cannot move from one to the other.
RE: This should have less to do with “who loves whom” and more to do with acceptable behavior in a professional, social environment.
Also, the right of a business to establish its own DRESS CODE.
lol
There’s a few witty comebacks to be made but not without the risk of getting suspended :)
oral arguments & sex - the jokes write themselves!
Just say “It depends on what the definition of “is” is.” :)
OK, who wrote that headline? Monica Lewinsky?
Her question shows why she certainly does not have the intellect to be on the bench. As far as I can tell from the article that was not an issue at all. The issue was whether a person can be protected from employer discipline by claiming discrimination. A heterosexual would also be fired if he groped a woman during a tandem sky dive.
Your thoughts are exactly what came to my mind first.
RE: Elena Kagan stated that “a man who loves other men cannot be treated differently by an employer than a woman who loves men.”
Sure, you can “love” anybody anyway you want, but if you want to work for a Christian business, you still have to adhere to their dress code.
I don’t know what relevance Kagan’s question has to this particular case.
How is “I’m gay so it’s OK if I touch your lady parts” different than “I’m a woman too, so it’s OK if I touch your lady parts”
Not wanting to be touched by anyone is your right.
It’s called assault no matter who does it.
Gay people should NOT be supporting cases of allowing assault under guise of being ‘gay’
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.