Liberal Forum

Misty » 26 Jul 2017 4:50 pm » wrote:Jeeezuz H. Christ, aren't there any other threads on this forum that you guys can hang out in?

Russia!

Sgt Bilko » 27 Jul 2017 12:31 pm » wrote:Here is the New York Times calling for censorship of the opposing views.

Termin8tor » 27 Jul 2017 12:30 pm » wrote: We're basically in agreement. She tries to throw her weight around, but only weaklings cave to her.

Justice Dept. Weighs In Against Protections for Gays in the Workplace

The Department of Justice has filed court papers arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under former President Barack Obama.

The department’s move to insert itself into the New York case was an uncommon example of top officials in Washington opining directly in the courts on what is an important but essentially private dispute between a worker and his boss over gay rights issues.

Civil rights advocates immediately criticized the filing not only for the arguments it advanced, but also for having been made on the same day that President Trump announced on Twitter that transgender people would be banned from serving in the military.

The department’s amicus brief was filed on Wednesday in the Second Circuit appeals court in the case of Donald Zarda, a sky diving instructor. In 2010, Mr. Zarda was fired by his employer, a Long Island-based company called Altitude Express.

Before taking a female client on a tandem dive, Mr. Zarda told the woman he was gay to assuage any awkwardness that might arise from the fact that he would be tightly strapped to her during the jump.

The woman’s husband complained to the company, which subsequently fired Mr. Zarda.

Mr. Zarda then sued Altitude Express, claiming it had violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in the workplace based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department has now stepped into the fray, as BuzzFeed reported on Wednesday night.

In its court brief, the department noted that every Congress since 1974 has declined to add a sexual-orientation provision to Title VII, despite what it called “notable changes in societal and cultural attitudes.”

The brief also claimed that the federal government, as the largest employer in the country, has a “substantial and unique interest” in the proper interpretation of Title VII.

“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,” the brief said.

“It does not, as has been settled for decades.

Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.”

In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under Mr.Obama, issued a very different ruling, deciding on a vote of three Democrats to two Republicans that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was illegal.

That ruling, which was reviewed by the Obama administration’s Justice Department, did not formally bind the federal courts, although courts often defer to federal agencies when they interpret laws that come under their jurisdiction.

But in its brief, the Trump administration’s Justice Department said that the E.E.O.C., which has also filed court papers supporting Mr. Zarda, was “not speaking for the United States.”

A lower court on Long Island first considered Mr. Zarda’s case in 2015 and ruled against him, deciding, despite the E.E.O.C. ruling, that sexual orientation was not included in the civil rights law’s prohibition against discrimination based on “sex.”

In April, the Second Circuit in New York upheld that court’s decision, even though it noted that there was “a longstanding tension in Title VII case law.”

Federal appeals courts have issued contradictory rulings on the matter.

In 2000, while considering the case of a Long Island postal worker, Dwayne Simonton, who was abused at work for being gay, the Second Circuit ruled that the language of Title VII did not bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The ruling also noted that Congress has repeatedly declined to include such a provision in the law.

“There can be no doubt that the conduct allegedly engaged in by Simonton’s co-workers is morally reprehensible,” the court wrote in 2000.

It added, however, that “the law is well-settled in this circuit.”

Shortly after the new brief was filed, civil rights advocates attacked it.

In a statement on Wednesday, Vanita Gupta, who ran the Justice Department’s civil-rights division under Mr. Obama, said that the Trump administration’s court filing “contravenes recent court decisions and guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”

On Twitter on Wednesday night, Ms. Gupta, who is the president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, noted that only political appointees, not career employees, from her former office at the Justice Department had signed the brief.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the brief a “gratuitous and extraordinary attack on L.G.B.T. people’s civil rights.”

In a statement, James Esseks, the director of the organization’s L.G.B.T. and H.I.V. Project, added, “The Sessions-led Justice Department and the Trump administration are actively working to expose people to discrimination.”

In his own statement, Devin O’Malley, a Justice Department spokesman, said that the brief was “consistent with the Justice Department’s longstanding position and the holdings of 10 different courts of appeals.”

Mr. O’Malley added that the filing “reaffirms the department’s fundamental belief that the courts cannot expand the law beyond what Congress has provided.”

Misty » 27 Jul 2017 1:30 pm » wrote:Justice Dept. Weighs In Against Protections for Gays in the Workplace

Everything President Trump Has Said About The LGBTQ Community, Including Fighting For Them

Trump administration reportedly threatens Alaskan interests after senator votes 'no' on health care.

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski was one of the two Republicans to vote against Tuesday's GOP's effort to open debate on health care legislation, and it appears the Trump administration is interested in retaliating.

The Alaska Dispatch News reported on Wednesday that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke called both of the Republican senators who represent Alaska in the U.S. Senate to let them know "the vote had put Alaska's future with the administration in jeopardy."

The calls were allegedly made not long after President Trump tweeted at one of the two -- Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

"Senator @lisamurkowski of the Great State of Alaska really let the Republicans, and our country, down yesterday. Too bad!" he wrote in that tweet.

Murkowski initially voted against moving forward with plans to repeal Obamacare on Tuesday, and then cast two subsequent votes against a repeal plan and a repeal and replace plan.

Her fellow Republican senator from Alaska, Dan Sullivan, voted yes on all three.

While the Interior secretary is not typically seen as one of the most high-profile members a president's administration, for state's like Alaska that have vast amounts of land and natural resources, the department can have a lot of power of the state.

According to the Alaska Dispatch News, the nomination of Alaskans to posts in the Interior Department, future drilling operations and other regulatory issues could be on the line.

Murkowski has yet to comment on the matter, but she had made it clear on Tuesday why she voted against the Republican health care measure.

"I voted 'no' today to give the Senate another chance to take this to the committee process.

I still believe that's the best route, but we now have this debate on the open floor.

We all recognize that we have much work to do to address the healthcare concerns of this country," she said in a statement.

Misty » 27 Jul 2017 1:30 pm » wrote:Everything President Trump Has Said About The LGBTQ Community, Including Fighting For Them

Misty » 27 Jul 2017 1:37 pm » wrote:
CULT45 is one vindictive SOB.

Misty » 27 Jul 2017 1:37 pm » wrote: CULT45 is one vindictive SOB.

Misty » 27 Jul 2017 1:37 pm » wrote:CULT45 is one vindictive SOB.

Trans People in the Military Are Here to Stay

Chelsea Manning, New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/opin ... ef=opinion

Joint chiefs of staff chairman says transgender policy unchanged for now.

The U.S. will continue to permit transgender individuals to serve openly in the military until Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has received President Donald Trump's "direction" to change the policy and figured out how to implement it, the nation's top military officer said Thursday.

In a memo to all military service chiefs, commanders and enlisted military leaders, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said "there will be no modifications" to current policy for now, amid questions about Trump's announcement on Twitter that the U.S. government will not "accept or allow" transgender people to serve in any capacity in the military.

"I know there are questions about yesterday's announcement," Dunford began, adding that nothing would change until the president's direction has been received by Mattis and Mattis has issued "implementation guidance."

"In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect," Dunford wrote. "As importantly, given the current fight and the challenges we face, we will all remain focused on accomplishing our assigned missions."

The Dunford statement suggests that Mattis was given no presidential direction on changing the transgender policy.

Mattis has been away on vacation this week and has been publicly silent amid questions about whether he favors Trump's announced ban.

Dunford himself was not aware that Trump was going to announce a transgender service ban on Wednesday, a U.S. official said.

The official was not authorized to discuss the matter and so spoke on condition of anonymity.

Trump's announcement caught the Pentagon flat-footed and unable to explain what it called Trump's "guidance."

His proclamation, on Twitter rather than any formal announcement, drew bipartisan denunciations and threw currently serving transgender soldiers into limbo.

"Please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military," the commander in chief tweeted.

Trump wrote that he had consulted with "my generals and military experts," but he did not mention Mattis, the retired Marine general who less than one month ago told the military service chiefs to spend another six months weighing the costs and benefits of allowing transgender individuals to enlist.

At the time, Mattis said this "does not presuppose the outcome of the review," but Trump's tweets appeared to have done just that.

The Pentagon has refused to release any data on the number of transgender people currently serving. A Rand Corp. study has estimated the number at between 1,320 and 6,630 out of 1.3 million active-duty troops.

Criticism for Trump's action was immediate and strong from both political parties.

His action is "harmful, misguided and weakens, not strengthens our military," said Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

John McCain, the Arizona Republican and Vietnam War hero, said Trump was simply wrong.

"Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving," he said. "There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train and deploy to leave the military -- regardless of their gender identity."

Not everyone at the Capitol agreed.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said, "The president's decision was the absolute right decision. ... It's about time that a decision is made to restore the warrior culture and allow the U.S. military to get back to business."

Transgender people already in uniform were concerned about what comes next.

"Everybody is hurt, everybody is scared," said Rudy Akbarian, 26, who is in the military but did not want to identify his branch.

Akbarian, who said his chain of command was supportive as he transitioned from female to male, said his time to re-enlist is coming up and he might stay to ensure there is a strong voice for transgender troops like himself.

Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Defense Department was working with the White House to "address the new guidance" from Trump. That suggested there is not yet any new written policy or executive order.

Trump's sudden declaration appears to halt a decades-long trend toward more inclusive policies on military service, including the repeal in 2010 of a ban on gays serving openly.

President Bill Clinton in 1993 began the push to allow gays to serve.

In December 2015, President Barack Obama's Pentagon chief, Ash Carter, announced that all military positions would be open to women.

Liberalizing policy on transgender troops was the next step.

Just last week, when asked about the transgender issue at a Senate hearing, Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "I am an advocate of every qualified person who can meet the physical standards to serve in our uniformed services to be able to do so."

He mentioned no opposition among service chiefs to allowing transgender service.

Transgender service members have been able to serve openly since 2016, when Carter ended the ban. Since Oct. 1, transgender troops could receive medical care and start changing their gender identifications in the Pentagon's personnel system.

Carter also gave the services until July 1 to develop policies to allow people already identifying as transgender to join the military if they meet normal standards and have been stable in their identified genders for 18 months.

On June 30, Mattis extended the July 1 deadline to next Jan. 1, saying the services should study the impact on the "readiness and lethality of our forces."

That is the prism through which Mattis has viewed most, if not all, personnel issues.

Just last week he ordered a high-level Pentagon review aimed at verifying that all military personnel policies "support and enhance warfighting readiness and force lethality."

In a series of tweets, Trump said allowing transgender troops to serve is an unacceptable burden on the military's ability to fight and win wars.

"Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail," he wrote.

The Rand Corp., a federally funded think tank, has estimated that extending gender transition-related health care coverage to transgender personnel would cost the military $2.4 million to $8.4 million a year, out of a yearly Pentagon budget of more than $600 billion.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump had made "a military decision."

She said it was his judgment that allowing transgender service "erodes military readiness and unit cohesion."

Sanders said the "president's national security team was part of this consultation" and that Trump "informed" Mattis of his decision immediately after he made it on Tuesday.

Misty » 27 Jul 2017 1:59 pm » wrote:

SAD!

Misty » 27 Jul 2017 2:10 pm » wrote:Somebody's lying.
My money is on the W H.
I don't think this was a 'military' decision at all.

The Price I’ve Paid for Opposing Donald Trump

By David French

Trump’s alt-right trolls have subjected me and my family to an unending torrent of abuse that I wouldn’t wish on anyone.

I distinctly remember the first time I saw a picture of my then-seven-year-old daughter’s face in a gas chamber.

It was the evening of September 17, 2015.

I had just posted a short item to the Corner calling out notorious Trump ally Ann Coulter for aping the white-nationalist language and rhetoric of the so-called alt-right.

Within minutes, the tweets came flooding in.

My youngest daughter is African American, adopted from Ethiopia, and in alt-right circles that’s an unforgivable sin.

It’s called “race-cucking” or “raising the enemy.”

I saw images of my daughter’s face in gas chambers, with a smiling Trump in a Nazi uniform preparing to press a button and kill her.

I saw her face photo-shopped into images of slaves.

She was called a “niglet” and a “dindu.”

The alt-right unleashed on my wife, Nancy, claiming that she had slept with black men while I was deployed to Iraq, and that I loved to watch while she had sex with “black bucks.”

People sent her pornographic images of black men having sex with white women, with someone photoshopped to look like me, watching.

When we both publicized some of the racist attacks — I in National Review and Nancy in the Washington Post — things took a far more ominous turn.

Late the next evening — while Nancy was, fortunately, offline attending a veterans’ charity event in D.C. — the darker quarters of the alt-right found her Patheos blog.

Several different accounts began posting images and GIFs of extreme violence in her comments section.

Click on a post and scroll down and you’ll see pictures of black men shooting other black men, close-up images of suicides, GIFs of grisly executions — the kinds of psyche-scarring things that one can’t “unsee.”

Had I not deployed to Iraq and witnessed death up close, the images would have shocked me.

I quickly got on the phone with Nancy, told her not to look at her website, and got busy deleting comments and blocking IP addresses, but in the meantime a few friends and neighbors had seen the posts.

The next Sunday, friends from church approached, expressing concern not just for our safety but for theirs as well.

We live in a community where most of the streets have similar names, and it’s common for UPS drivers, FedEx deliveries, and friends to end up at the wrong house.

They interpreted the images as threats, and they didn’t want anyone to drive into our neighborhood, looking for the Frenches, intent on turning image into reality.

It took days — and hundreds of IP blocks and Twitter reports — but things finally calmed down.

The racist images slowed from a flood to a trickle, I relaxed a bit at night, and life returned, I thought, to normal. I was wrong.

Our “normal” had changed.

This wasn’t the beginning of the end of our troubles, but rather the end of the beginning.

Misty » 27 Jul 2017 2:58 pm » wrote: The Price I’ve Paid for Opposing Donald Trump
By David French
Trump’s alt-right trolls have subjected me and my family to an unending torrent of abuse that I wouldn’t wish on anyone.

Boy Scouts official apologizes for 'political rhetoric' of Trump speech.

An official with the Boy Scouts of America apologized to the Scouting community on Thursday for the political content of President Donald Trump's speech at the National Scout Jamboree.

"I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree," said Chief Scout Executive Michael Surbaugh. "That was never our intent."

Misty » 27 Jul 2017 4:55 pm » wrote: How sad that the Boy Scouts had to apologize for the POTUS.