The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Trump hits the Homos Again. [Faith-Based Discrimination in Medicine]

TX-Beau said:
Silly Boy, The Fed regulates religion, speech, the press, and even your freedom - there is NO SUCH THING as an unbridgeable right. There are circumstances and rules under which the Fed can take all of that from you. If you are incapable of understanding, I lack the patience to educate you.

You. Are. Wrong.
Click to expand...

You've gone from the clear understanding of the U.S. Constitution as it exists to limit the power of the federal government to an argument that I'd call sophomoric, but that would be an insult to sophomores everyplace. Your straw man argument shows you really don't have anything to add.
 
Sausy said:
Freedom of religion doesn't apply when using "conscience" you fail to respect basic rights of others. Freedom of religion does not extend to freedom to blatantly discriminate. And I wish these devoted conservative "constitutionalists" would be anywhere close to as righteous as when the religious right makes inroads towards subverting those very freedoms they claim to love so much. One's freedom ends when it interferes with the basic freedom of others. Plenty of people in years past were denied basic freedoms because they were another color... they had to sit in the back of the bus or train, could not use the same entrances or exits or even sit at the same lunch counters or drink from the same water fountains or god forbid, put even a toe in the same pool reserved for the white folks. It was unconstitutional then and even though it's not as blatant as color these days, it's still wrong when because one isn't straight, they just don't get served because it "offends" some one or some group's religious beliefs. If Jesus himself basically reformed the Ten Commandments to one basic ideal, "love one another as I have loved you".. UNCONDITIONALLY… this whole bullshit shouldn't even be a thing.
Click to expand...

Two of the funniest statements ever!

"One's freedom ends when it interferes with the basic freedom of others."

So when the federal government tells me whom I can hire; whose freedom is being interfered with? Do others have a "basic freedom" to the jobs my private company creates, or do I have a basic freedom to hire and not hire people of my choosing?

"It was unconstitutional then...."

Actually, no it was not "unconstitutional". In Plessy v Ferguson the SCOTUS specifically found separate facilities for different races constitutional. That is what is wrong with allowing courts to stray away from original texts and original meaning.
opinterph said:
The new rules appear to compliment the administration’s move to rescind transgender health protections.
Click to expand...

The new rules appear..... Critics complain..... The Department received comments.....

None of that has anything to do with the actual rules as written. Let the rules take effect and if someone feels they have been discriminated against, then there are remedies for that.

opinterph said:
Transgender health protections prevent discrimination against transgender persons seeking medical care.
Click to expand...

So you think there are doctors who wouldn't set a transgender person's broken leg because they are transgender? Or what? What are you talking about?
 
PrivateTimm said:
You've gone from the clear understanding of the U.S. Constitution as it exists to limit the power of the federal government to an argument that I'd call sophomoric, but that would be an insult to sophomores everyplace. Your straw man argument shows you really don't have anything to add.
Click to expand...

Then why did you bother to have your snit?

You. Are. Wrong.
 
For everyone else, this poster is using the same kind of bigoted reasoning that they used to justify Jim Crow. Anytime we hear a "States Rights" argument in any of its many guises, it's time to get suspicious, because at the bottom it always means that reasoning wants to hate without governmental interference.

Just like Trump, and just like this completely bogus "defense" of religious freedom.
 
Of course the first time Muslims refused to hire Christians the right would break all land speed records dragging them into court - if they didn't just torch the business one dark night.

The sad thing is that the people who came up with this argument knew damn well exactly what they wanted, to fuck over LGBT people, and went to great lengths to invent this as a fig leaf because they could no longer call you a f***** outright and get away with it.

They knew very well that people of lesser ability would parrot it about with no understanding of just how bogus it is.
 
PrivateTimm said:
You've gone from the clear understanding of the U.S. Constitution as it exists to limit the power of the federal government to an argument that I'd call sophomoric, but that would be an insult to sophomores everyplace. Your straw man argument shows you really don't have anything to add.
Click to expand...

Why are you so obsessed with the Constitution? Trump swore to uphold it when he took office and he's been stomping on it and using it for his own personal ass wipe since he took one hand off the Bible and lowered the other one. The only times he has 'used' the Constitution, he did it only to his advantage and personal gain.
 
gsdx said:
Why are you so obsessed with the Constitution? Trump swore to uphold it when he took office and he's been stomping on it and using it for his own personal ass wipe since he took one hand off the Bible and lowered the other one. The only times he has 'used' the Constitution, he did it only to his advantage and personal gain.
Click to expand...

I don't think that Trump has ever found an actual Constitutional argument. All of his arguments that I can think of are varieties of this one. Take some simplistic mythology about the Constitution, twist it to justify whatever the hell you want it to mean. Usually in service of fucking over someone else.
 
PrivateTimm said:
Do others have a "basic freedom" to the jobs my private company creates, or do I have a basic freedom to hire and not hire people of my choosing?
Click to expand...

You have the freedom to hire whomever you wish, provided you do not discriminate against protected persons or protected classes in the hiring process. Generally speaking, your hires should reflect the applicant pool of qualified candidates within the geographic area from which it is reasonable to anticipate you will find qualified workers to meet the specific knowledge, skills, and abilities required by each respective job specification as needed to satisfy your business’ human resource needs. That may sound complicated, but it’s actually quite simple. If your hiring practices are intentionally discriminatory or similarly unfair, you have interfered with the freedom of others and have injured the community of which your business is a part.
 
PrivateTimm said:
So you think there are doctors who wouldn't set a transgender person's broken leg because they are transgender? Or what? What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

For the moment, let’s assume I can name something that is medically indicated, but involves a procedure to which some doctors would invoke a faith-based objection – and assuming the rules governing their practice of medicine suggest they have permission to object …


PrivateTimm said:
Let the rules take effect and if someone feels they have been discriminated against, then there are remedies for that.
Click to expand...

[RFLOAT]
opinterph said:
What could be more fair?
Click to expand...
[/RFLOAT]
Considering that the new rules are written to be intentionally vague,
 
One can even legally discriminate. If you set up your organization as private, specifically catering only to whatever criteria you define. It's only when operating in the public sphere that the law takes notice. So, the Catholic church of Yourcity doesn't have to let pagans dance about evergreens in their hallowed halls, but the Catholic hospital serving all of Yourcity can't just let them die when the fir falls on them.
 
opinterph said:
Considering that the new rules are written to be intentionally vague,
Click to expand...

Of course, if they delineated exactly what they intended there's no chance in hell they'd get it. It's why bigots write bad law, their lawyers know it's bad law, but there is no way to legally do what they want without leaping vast chasms of obfuscation.
 
I very much doubt if TrumpCo. is thinking about the homos when they got a 'donation' of Truvada to help prevent the spread of HIV.
 
I very much doubt if Gilead is thinking about TrumpCo. when they donated Truvada to help prevent the spread of HIV.

We believe today’s donation, combined with efforts to address the root causes of the epidemic, such as racism, violence against women, stigma, homophobia, and transphobia, can play an important role in ending the HIV epidemic in the United States, particularly in parts of the country with the highest burden of disease.
Click to expand...
 
Sadly, there seem to be few efforts being made to combat the root causes....

Maeanwhile, an interesting article by someone who dug into the root causes of this 'protective' decreee by the Trump administration.

...the coded language used by the Trump administration, couched in protecting religious beliefs rather than permitting discrimination against LGBTQ people and other groups, is being allowed to frame the discussion. Using this coded language to attack LGBTQ rights has benefited this administration as it continues to galvanize conservative evangelicals — who know exactly who is being targeted — while not alienating people who might see these efforts as an attack on civil rights.
Click to expand...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...flN99bQpy1BfZ2HjgFUQa3iyahKEkZy-9QI61-GpgOTdo
 
Michelangelo Signorile is a lot of things, but cheesy isn't one of them.

Schubert, sitting on a panel with other anti-LGBTQ religious leaders at the annual Values Voter Summit as they mapped out strategy to fight LGBTQ rights, had just explained that the battle against marriage equality would mirror the battle against legal abortion if his side lost at the high court. The following year his side did in fact lose, when the court handed down the historic Obergefell ruling.

LGBTQ discrimination recast as 'freedom'

“In a broad sense, it will be similar to the pro-life movement after Roe v. Wade,” Schubert told me, claiming that “religious liberty issues will be very much in the crosshairs” if marriage equality prevailed. “An example would be protecting the right of a believer in traditional marriage from being punished by the government. Conscience protections — those sorts of things,” Schubert said.
Click to expand...

His article starts out with a declaration by a foe of lgbtq rights...Schubert basically told him what their strategy would be.

Signorile is reporting this. He didn't pull it out of his ass.

But trust you to trash the vices for the LGBTQ community.

You seem to be constantly in opposition to protection for the LGBTQ citizens in the US. We have to wonder why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top