Posted on 10/09/2019 8:43:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So, Justice Kagan... what is "he", a man or a woman?
Leftism exploiting mental illness.
Have bosses not yet learned to fire someone for any reason other than gender or freak shows. Fire them for being late. Fire them for taking long lunch hours. Fire them for not filling a form out correctly and on time. Fire them for leaving work early. Fire them for not doing xyz in a a timely manner. But never, ever fire a XY for parading around in heels and lipstick or a XX for suddenly growing a beard and looking like a lumberjack.
”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.
But neeeu.
Misguided, post-17th Amendment ratification, post-FDR era Supreme Court justices need to pull their heads out of their institutional indoctrination and recognize that the only mention of sex in the Constitution is in the 19th Amendment (19A). The states ratified that amendment in response to the Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett which recognized sex strictly on the basis of female and male biological sexes.
"19th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
In other words, the Democratic vote-winning Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CWA) and its titles are unconstitutional imo because they address sex related protections that are clearly outside the scope of Congress’s 19A voting rights powers.
Let's also throw in the 15th Amendment to undermine the constitutionally indefensible, non-voting-related race protections of CWA.
"15th Amendment:Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to fully support PDJT's vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also do this.
New patriot lawmakers also need to support PDJT in deciding the fate of people in prison for violating a federal law that the feds never had the express constitutional authority to make.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Corrections, insights welcome.
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.””’
There were many reasons why, when I became self-employed in 1980, I refused to hire ANY other persons to increase the number of bookkeeping clients I could deal with. I worked alone, and put in many a long day by myself.
In 1980, all this LBGTQ data certainly was not evident against employers.
I still have ONE client-—have had him for 50 years. I certainly value his loyalty.
I cannot even begin to understand how ANY employer today is expected to deal with ANY possible new employee.
If someone transes, isn’t it like they aren’t who they used to be? So wouldn’t they have to reapply for the job.
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.””’
There were many reasons why, when I became self-employed in 1980, I refused to hire ANY other persons to increase the number of bookkeeping clients I could deal with. I worked alone, and put in many a long day by myself.
In 1980, all this LBGTQ data certainly was not evident against employers.
I still have ONE client-—have had him for 50 years. I certainly value his loyalty.
I cannot even begin to understand how ANY employer today is expected to deal with ANY possible new employee.
“No one should be forced to associate with someone they do not wish to associate with.”
This right, recognized by the FIRST AMENDMENT, makes virtually all “civil rights” legislation unconstitutional as they compel interaction. Having the “right to do” something means you also have the “right to NOT do” the very same thing.
“No one should be forced to associate with someone they do not wish to associate with.”
Well that quaint idea died in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, the same one praised as a “great Republican victory” by conservative radio bleaters like Rush and Hannity.
Good luck defending your right of free association today, especially if you are guilty of White Privilege.
Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan both opposed that bill because it did trample on free association, and because it essentially created the government’s ability to charge you with Thought Crime. You won’t hear our “conservative” PC radio mouthpieces touch that argument, or explain how they are wiser than Goldwater and Reagan.
SC needs to rule that sociologists aren’t allowed to dictate biology.
The right to achieve greatly, without limit, if you can, is a critical part of the true promise of America. In no sense, is high achievement a special privilege; nor has the pursuit of greatness, by honorable endeavor been a special privilege, or anything but honorable pursuit.
Did RBG lift one or two fingers?
If Dims were not the hypocrites they are, they would not be pursuing a change in the Federal “anti-discrimination” laws, to add “LGBT” language to existing “protections” and simultaneoulsy trying to get judges to say no change in the law is needed to add that language, the judges can do it on their own.
But, in fact, they are pursing just such a Federal legislative change. Of course they know it will not get past the Senate or Trump’s desk if it does.
So like the hypocrites they are, when it comes to the Constitution, they want to have it both ways - the legislative route is the Constitutional route, no wait, the judges ARE the Constitution, they have told us so many times.
Would not this be an issue of contract law rather than sex discrimination. When a prospective employees presents themselves as a certain sex and you hire and make accommodations based on that declaration, doesn’t that become a material condition of employment. If they subsequently change their mind, they have unilaterally changed a material factor in the employment contract making it voidable. That is much different than treating individuals of different sexes differently because of their sex.
From a practical standpoint, how many times a day is a person entitled to change their sexual designation. If it can be changed at the sole discretion of the individual, then the sex of an employee becomes irrelevant and there can be no discrimination based on an irrelevant factor.
Indeed partner
I don’t have a good feeling about this. Gorsuch is marinated in this worldview, through his leftist “church” and associations in his law career.
Even if leftist don’t get exactly what they are demanding, the penchant of federal courts has been to “split the baby,” Solomon-style, and give something to each side, not to decisively decide what the Constitution says and doesn’t say.
The trans, gay, bi, et.al. alliance is lying to us and trying to deceive us.
They want everything to be questioned so they can get away with anything.
Gosh. Rush & Hannity tell us that this "wonderful" law was a high water mark in Republican glory- if not for GOP collaboration then Lyndon Johnson would never have gotten it passed.
What could possibly be the problem with it?
Well maybe the dangers that Goldwater, Reagan, and the once venerable National Review warned about when they opposed it.
The two laws that have had the greatest impact on America, by altering its demographics and the power of government to tell you how you must live, are the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Immigration law.
Don't hold your breath expecting the cowards we elect to change either one. For one thing global big business loves the result.
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.