|
So happy to see the pieces in the Times that give equal weight to a trans person's right to exist and a bigot's discomfort at the thought of trans folk existing. https://thinkprogress.org/new-york-times-shulevitz-transgender-80686781b4c3#.2xn82eplu
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
UN Calls for Worldwide Decriminalization of Homosexuality.  I wonder if anything will happen from this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
well it's the UN so..........................
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not exactly holding my breath about this. On the other hand, at least they're trying. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
By UN standards even saying some nice words about LGBT rights is a good step.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
It's a symbolic thing so I wouldn't expect anything tangible from it, but symbols can be important too. Even if this is another example of the UN ineffectually calling for Generic Nice Thing to happen, I'd say the increasing recognition of LGBT rights as a Generic Nice Thing on the international level is still a sign of progress.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
2spooky4me posted:I wouldn't call being removed from the bench a slap on the wrist. That he be broken upon a wheel and his shattered limbs threaded through the spokes. He should then be raised on a hugh pole where he can spend hours, or even days, writhing in total agony while crows peck at his eyes and flesh until he dies of shock. That or like a harsh statement about how he is a total douche.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...rriage_benefitsquote:Nearly one-third of Texas state lawmakers, along with candidates for the state legislature, pastors, and other anti-LGBT activists are saying the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell decision does not give legally-married same-sex couples who are government employees the right to the spousal benefits their different-sex peers have, or even the right to live together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
poo poo like that is part of why I'm not in any rush to ever move back to Texas and I'm not even gay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
So it's just more people admitting that they have no idea how laws and the supreme court work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Schubalts posted:So it's just more people admitting that they have no idea how laws and the supreme court work? basically. They're also wasting taxpayer money while dragging this out in courts and are going to end up paying penalties to people they've discriminated against as a result. This is a giant waste of money only done to cater to bigoted white texans.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
This is the SCOTUS version of Fishmeching, like deliberately misinterpreting some writing just because they left out some information and therefor you have an opportunity to quibble over some dumb technicality.
MaxxBot fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Oct 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:This is the SCOTUS version of Fishmeching, like deliberately misinterpreting some writing just because they left out some information and therefor you have an opportunity to quibble over some dumb technicality. It's SCOTEX, in this case. "Quibbling" over "dumb" "technicalities" is a lot of the practice of law. As such, what's going on in TX is a legitimate, established technique used by everyone, no matter where they fall on the authoritarian/libertarian or right/left axes of the political compass. This gets noticed more when it's an issue that people are passionate about. (anti) Death penalty work involves a lot of not only quibbling over technicalities, but quibbling over technicalities that were decisively decided decades ago in the hope that maybe sometime in the future a court might decide differently. A lot of government answer briefs are polite ways to say, "WTF? You lost this issue in 19-frikkin-79, no court anywhere since then has ever ruled even slightly in your favor, and the court you're in front of now ruled against you on the same exact issue 5 months ago, for the 23rd time." You do it because you've got to, to give your client their best chance. What these anti-rights advocates in Texas are trying to do is to limit Obergefell strictly to the facts of the case. To do so, they have asserted that the broader Constitutional (Equal Protection) implications of the case do not logically follow. (Or just called for them to be ignored, because whargarble) I don't think Obergefell gives the anti rights nuts the latitude to limit it to its facts, but I'm not a SCOTEX judge. (but they already decided not to hear the case once before) A different set of anti-rights advocates are trying (and generally succeeding) to limit Heller and McDonald to their facts by the same techniques. The constitutional issues are less implication here, but there's more whargarble to make up for it. Granted, there was a little more 'laboratories of democracy' latitude in these decisions, but not as much as the anti rights nuts are running with. (But I'm not a SCOTUS judge) It's frustrating, but it means the system is working - sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Are they betting on a Trump win and a conservative Supreme Court nomination? It could easily go either way. From "of course we meant it covered everything" to "we left that out on purpose". Isn't the reason they limited the opinion the way they did precisely so they wouldn't be making a sweeping change and they want additional cases through the courts to hash it out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It's SCOTEX, in this case. "Quibbling" over "dumb" "technicalities" is a lot of the practice of law. As such, what's going on in TX is a legitimate, established technique used by everyone, no matter where they fall on the authoritarian/libertarian or right/left axes of the political compass. I don't think anyone is complaining about lawyers making the best arguments they can formulate on their clients' behalf no matter how hopeless the case as long as it keeps the gravy train coming. The complaint is that Texas politicians are willing to waste taxpayer money on such a hopeless case for such a despicable cause in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Some good news, same sex marriage is now legal in the British Antarctic territory! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_British_Antarctic_Territory
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 08:24
|
|
|
freeze the gays
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
According to Argentina, that's been the case since 2010.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Best wishes Mr and Mr Penguin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Best wishes Mr and Mr Penguin. thank
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Same sex marriage legislation passed unanimously in Gibraltar, hasn't come into effect yet but with no political opposition it shouldn't take too long. http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/gibraltar-passes-sex-marriage-unanimous-support/#gs.X=qvhjo
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Same sex marriage legislation passed unanimously in Gibraltar, hasn't come into effect yet but with no political opposition it shouldn't take too long. It's real stupid of me, but all that comes to mind hearing this (Past the obvious initial "Good!") is Overwatch jokes 
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Schubalts posted:So it's just more people admitting that they have no idea how laws and the supreme court work? Reminder that the reason why Texas seceded from Mexico was because American ranchers wanted slaves and Mexico outlawed slavery in the late 1820s. So Texas has pretty much always been like this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
x-post from USPOL: Supreme Court to Rule in Transgender Access Case quote:WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday entered the intense national debate over transgender rights, announcing that it would decide whether a transgender boy may use the boys’ bathroom in a Virginia high school. Keep in mind, the lower district court ruled in favor of the Trans student, so if the Supreme Court goes 4-4, it'll affirm to the Lower Court's decision, which was in the trans student's favor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Kind of wonder if the Supreme Court will over reach on that one just a teensy bit and possibly open the door for persons who are transgender being a protected class possibly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Kind of wonder if the Supreme Court will over reach on that one just a teensy bit and possibly open the door for persons who are transgender being a protected class possibly. I do think that there's groundwork for a decision like that with PricewaterHouse v. Hopkins and the more recent EEOC decision in Macy v. Holder, so they could easily say that PricewaterHouse's "sex stereotypes" applies to transgender people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Kind of wonder if the Supreme Court will over reach on that one just a teensy bit and possibly open the door for persons who are transgender being a protected class possibly. If the Supremes rule for the kid they will necessarily be making gender identification a protected class, but only where Title IX applies. It would be overreaching to come out and rule that gender identification is a protected class under the Civil rights act. (However, I'll bet the inevitable application of this ruling to the CRA will be mentioned in dicta by the majority and bemoaned by the dissent)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
joat mon posted:If the Supremes rule for the kid they will necessarily be making gender identification a protected class, but only where Title IX applies. They're not technically ruling that gender identification is a protected class, as far as the legal arguments I've seen go they're actually arguing that sex discrimination is taking place when trans people are being discriminated against (as in, people are discriminating against their appearance/behaviour on the basis of their biological sex characteristics, not their expressed gender identity).
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
They can only do so because congress created the protected class of "sex."
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
They're pretty deferential to policy statements from agencies interpreting their own rules. They had a 9-0 ruling last year flipping a federal circuit rule along similar lines. It wasn't a sexual identity case, but they flipped federal circuit rules on their head and set up a massive amount of deference to an agency issuing an interpretation. Despite the subject matter of the case, the letter in question by all rights appears to be a valid interpretation of the regulations. I think this comes down in favor of GG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
The court also consider context in some cases , it's like saying we created this law because such and such happened. The court cam be all " Yea that's not good enough".
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:The court also consider context in some cases , it's like saying we created this law because such and such happened. The court cam be all " Yea that's not good enough". The thing is, there's no law created here. The letter itself doesn't have any force of action. It's merely an interpretive document. The court just last year changed years of federal circuit preference and unequivocally stated agencies are to be given vast deference unless an interpretive doc is “is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.” The letter that the DoJ/DoE jointly issued is a valid interpretation of the governing regulation of Title IX that doesn't create any new rule. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Oct 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
Australia's non-binding plebiscite on marriage equality has been voted down by their senate. This is good, because it was never anything more than the equivalent of their conservatives hoping to distract the pro-marriage movement, like jangling their keys in front of a baby. Public opinion favors marriage equality, but ultra-conservatives in government continue to stall by any means available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
But now the bigots can't push to have antivillification legislation suspended so that they can go full hate speech against gay people  Our poor Attorney-General George "why can't I call them niggers?" Brandis must be turning in his loving grave at this historic injustice. Treating anyone who's not a straight, white, rich man with anything other than contempt and grinding them into the dirt goes against everything the LNP believes in. Megillah Gorilla fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Nov 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Reminder that homophobia is alive and well -- even among "progressives"! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Another win for the EEOC's view that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBT people. http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N1D901I Looks like this is going to be settled by the courts before our hopelessly gridlocked congress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Reminder that homophobia is alive and well -- even among "progressives"! And Pseudoscience promotion is common on both the Right and Left 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Reminder that homophobia is alive and well -- even among "progressives"! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Ok kiddos. Shits hitting the fan. There's going to be a lot of shock and despair but we're going to need all hands on deck to roll up our sleeves and fight. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
Welp. Goodbye Obergefell. Goodbye Lawrence. Like I needed a reason to never go back to Texas at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 07:45
|
|
