If A President Declares A "State of Emergency"

Off the top of my head ...

• Declaring that people like her are unfit for military service, a move that would end many people's careers for no reason other than prejudice.
• Rescinding Department of Education guidance that transgender students be protected under federal civil rights laws.
• Rescinding another Obama-era policy aimed at protecting trans people from employment discrimination.
• Filing an amicus brief arguing that the Civil Rights Act does not apply to LGBT people.

The fact that Trump has been stymied in some of these attempts doesn't change the fact that he is actively working against Nova and others in her situation. And the fact that Obama couldn't wave a magic wand and make everything wonderful doesn't excuse Trump's attempts to do actual harm.

So? An awful lot of you pull the TL;DR thing and just glide away pretending it was never posted.

Thanks for that, your reactions on the topic are probably far less likely to be based on emotional reaction. Imo, no one should ever be discriminated against solely on the basis of their sexual preference.

What I was able to find was that military claimed that decision based on practical reasons like impaired readiness and inability to accommodate various special medical needs like e.g. hormone treatments, what evidence was there to refute that (besides things like probability that army guys were lying about their claims)?

Personally would be very glad if we rescinded the entire DOE. But anyway, DOE has zero authority regarding lawsuits or state education boards' policy, and anyone who had cause of action (basis for lawsuit) based on discrimination during Obama years continues to have the same basis to file during Trump years; the DOE's "guidance" about its opinion on civil rights protection is actually quite meaningless to adjudicating any lawsuit, and is primarily a matter of optics.

Need something more specific than "another policy" to respond directly to the merits of this claim. But the Equal Protection clause continues to protect against ANY discrimination (post-Trump law is same as pre-Trump law on this matter). Sounds exactly like above example, a matter of optics rather than any actual loss of liberty or protection against mistreatment based on sexual preference or gender identity - anyone with a discrimination claim still has it.

Sounds right under the law, however heartless it might sound to point out the facts - the Civil Rights Act bans "discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin." The language is pretty clear, though I'd gladly support amendment to add reference to sexual preference. But "Equal Protection" is still there, that's a pretty big one and pretty much dispositive of these concerns.

Worth adding that if anyone does try pulling anything like that, they should remember that we can still recover deleted posts if need be.

We're not in the same universe as perfect. We're even far from good in many areas. But, "the most consequential year in our history since 1865?" Yeah, no. Sorry. That's histrionics talking, not rational sense.

Dude get a life.

get a hardhat.

Get back to me in 12 months.

Good god man.

Life tip for you - applies to almost everything: when someone with a direct stake in an issue, skin in the games as they say, and it's an issue you personally DON'T have a stake in and therefore pay little attention to, you best play is to STFU and LISTEN so you can get up to speed on the subject before you decide to go ahead and talk out of your ass.

tafkats did a good job in a short list of examples from a long list of possibilities but let me repeat for you what i have explained before. In great detail so you can follow along.

About 20 states and a couple hundred cities have laws which bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (refereed to as SOGI laws). We're about maxed out on getting that done locally between Culture War Pharisees like ADF fighting every attempt, and red-state legislators passing Supremacy laws (such as TN did) in which no city is allowed to have broader protections than the state has.

These laws forbid discrimination in the standard suite of areas that already existed for categories like race, religion, etc - employment, housing, and public accommodations.

In MS the legislature passed HB1523 which literally writes a blank check giving you permission to discriminate as long as you say Jesus made you do it. That's how bad it is.

So, in all other places without state and local SOGI laws, our only recourse is the federal agencies or federal court.
Federal EEOC courts, as well as a multitude of Appeals court decisions have held that discrimination because of SO/GI is sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The reasoning is that given the reason for rejecting a trans person is based on non-conformity to sex-based expectations, the cause for discrimination is inherently related to sex.

Inevitably one of these - likely multiple - will end up before SCOTUS. Their are three separate such decisions pending their response (on whether to review) right NOW.

Likewise, similar logic underlies several important court victories related to schools under the ban on sex discrimination in Title IX - if the conclusion is stuck down for either of these Titles it will undermine the logic for the other.

If these fall, it will take an act of Congress (known as the Equality Act) to amend the CRA to clarify and that will never get through a GOP senate or, likely, past a filibuster. I likely would not live to see the day when I am legally equal before the law in this country (short of moving to a place with local laws).

This literally means - though such extremes are unlikely - that i could be picked up by an EMT who refused to treat me because of his backward ass religion and have NO arena in which to seek recourse. A child who's trans in a red state high school could be denied any acknowledgment of her identity and expelled if she didn't conform to male norm expectations and have no recourse. Examples are legion.

Obama instructed Federal agencies like DoL, DoJ, and DoE to follow the legal logic that Title VII and Title IX - and all other federal law which bars discrimination on the basis of sex - covered SO/GI discrimination and that had effects throughout the government. Clinton would unquestionably let those policies stand and would have advocated for the Equality act to be sure.

Most importantly, she would have added two judges, replacing two conservatives with two liberals.

The Clinton Court would ABSOLUTELY have upheld the lower courts re Title VII and IX
Trumps court is HIGHLY likely to reverse them if they take them up.

This is quite literally a life and death decision for my community - there are people who, if they can't find work and end up homeless, will attempt to take their own life. I have seen it happen.

And I haven't even mentioned in this post that 1/3 of Trumps court appointments who have been ratified have a professional history of working to restrict LGB/T rights while working with or for culture war groups.

Or that his executive policies reversed all of Obama's moves to apply SO/GI protections via Executive branch agencies that he's able to do (a couple of things require extensive process to change and remain in place) or that his DoJ sides with the "religious liberty" bullshit pushed in court cases by the Pharisees instead of in defense of people like me.

Trump is a disaster in a multitude of other, worse, ways - and it is true that a Cruz or a Walker or a Rubio would have done all this same culture wear bullshit too.

But if you can't see the difference in what any Republican would be doing now, and what Clinton would be doing...then honestly I'm just going to pass over everything else you say because you are not quick enough on the uptake for me to take the time to explain literally anything to you.

There's 65,000 posts of oldfella doing that, though. Old dog (literally) <> new tricks.

I meant exclaim. "Oh woe is us" and all that jazz.

"Here's an assertion."

"Prove it!"

"Okay, here are 10 examples demonstrating it."

"Get a life! You're having a meltdown!"

Generally it's more that Trump is prepared to court the support of white supremacists if it suits his political ends. It's not about what he believes, it's about how far he'll go.

Personally I'm not convinced @Nova is being unreasonable. We are in fact living through monumental times and Trump is an existential threat to the worlds status quo, precisely because he represents such a wild card and because he has such a talent for convincing people the sky is green.

Take yourself for instance. Regardless of claiming you aren't an outright Trump supporter you genuinely seem to believe his claims of a massive upsurge in the political, economic and social wellbeing of the nation, insisting on it despite the massive job losses in industry, the soaring national debt, the longest government shutdown in history, the growing likelihood of a downgrade in the US credit rating, the nazis openly marching in the streets, the massive upsurge in hate crimes, US withdrawal from climate change conventions, open racism and the absurd pantomime that is the wall. You genuinely seem to believe in this utterly imaginary "light switch" moment you've referred to.

Perhaps it's easier to see from the outside (although Nova is only one of many US citizens who are apparently keeping their eyes open), but it's commonplace for disaster to be heralded by the sounds of applause. Brexit is a similar example over here, with a public referendum having shown massive support for very possibly the single most self destructive decision in the modern era.

But if Nova is having a meltdown I'm proud of her for it because it seems to me that far from being histrionic she's seeing things far more clearly than you are and has every reason to be frustrated with her warnings falling on deaf ears.

The logic of Republican apologists in a nutshell:

"Hey, see that guy over there? Did he buy you a new car and pave your street with gold? No? Well, until he does, you're not allowed to complain about my guy trying to set your house on fire and constantly punching you in the face!"

"If the Republican President talks about making your very existence a crime, to where even existing in certain job positions is seen as a valid reason for termination, and pushes to have that policy made into law, you're overreacting if they haven't actually done anything yet. Plus, even if they do, how bad could it be? It's better than living in Russia. That said, if someone talks about gun control, not enacting policies, just discussion, then that shit needs shut down now, because the very fabric of our nation is being attacked, and we have to stop it right now before it affects our rights."

Where?, show me your best single example.

Nova's not being unreasonable, but her claim is inaccurate and wholly emotional. Oldfella asked for an example of how Nova was personally affected. Tafk and nova reply with broad generalities about challenges for LGBT, raising real concerns - but all impact on nova is theoretical - and no reply on specific. Broad solidarity with her cause. I used to date a Palestinian girl, after work drinks would make her drunk and crying "oh, man, think of my people (Pals in around Israel), what am I gonna do about my people?!" I understand solidarity - but find it non persuasive. My gal had good life in NYC as extension of Palestinian delegate while those across world were having rough times. Nova seems to have same life as when she was a Rightwing nutjob. But new solidarity topic to keep her extremism fueled.

Not quite true - I just like growth. Growth will cure all ills. The difference between 2% growth and 3% cannot be overstated. Any hyperbole (and there's plenty) is part of my reply to nonsense like "no, Obama built that."

Maybe getting elected on the promise of deeply and openly racist policies, such as travel bans and walls which are illegal and unrealistic by turns, not to mention pandering to white supremacists without being even remotely effective?

I have no idea where this example of your Palestinian girlfriend is going but as @Nova is transgender any threat to LGBTQ rights is by definition a direct threat in the specific. She isn't someone living overseas showing solidarity to her peers, she's someone living in the US (AFAIK) and thus under a jurisdiction which is specifically eroding her rights as a transgender person, rights much more fundamental than the gun ban which is the mythical bogeyman of the right. How direct do you need?

Growth is good, sure, but it won't cure all ills and it has to be real to do any good at all.

You've produced essentially no evidence to back you claim for a "light switch" moment and I'm genuinely waiting for you to do so. Last time I asked you inexplicably produced sales figures for a company with three stores. Still trying to get my head around that one to be honest with you.

The US national debt is at an all time high and growing by the day, the credit rating which is currently only really being used to borrow against the existing debt is now under threat, you're seeing massive job losses in the key areas Trump promised to support, employment isn't actually rising any faster than it already was and now....this debacle.

I put it to you your light switch moment was either entirely imaginary or subjectively rooted in your own direct experience.

Even leaving that aside how would economic growth help the minorities being sidelined and exposed to ever increasing levels of threat and violence?

*sigh*

First, it's a false dichotomy. The German Jew who is not yet in the boxcar can still recognize the growing dehumanization of his people even when the direct specific abuse of his life has not yet happened

(no, I'm not saying that's our future, just saying "what have you suffered lately?" is a fools game)

But since you ask: I live in a state which is not just benignly negligent in allowing discrimination but actively and assertively passed a law that says "Feel free y'all!" It is, in every sense, Jim Crow for LGB/T people in Mississippi.

If I step out of my home tomorrow and go put in job applications any given businessman can look me directly in the eye and say "I don't hire your kind" and there is fuck-all i can do about it. The fact that I have not personally applied for that job lately is not relevant to that reality because that job might be the only thing that keeps me from being homeless a year from now. And don't @ me with "no one would actually do that" - they may or may not say it to my face but from 2010 to 2012 I put out literally hundreds of applications in sheer desperation and literally keeping my shit together based on charity (sometimes from some members here) and I wasn't even INTERVIEWED a single time in that stretch except at Walmart (who eventually hired me on my 4th attempt only because I caught an Asst. Manager who was atypical). I know from word of mouth that some of those were specifically encouraged by customers NOT to hire me.

So yes, I have lived with this and still do. Last week there was a news story on a local TV station about a trans woman being harassed by a security guard for using the women's room at Gold Strike casino. Despite said guard being specifically trained that trans people were to be respected according to their expressed gender identity in all respects.
There was of course a Facebook comment thread which I participated heavily in for 3 days.
You know that obsessive quote post I burdened you with upthread? Well on the second day I took a couple of hours of my time to quantify how that thread was going. Out of the first 250 replies, not counting my own, over 60% were "that's a man though" or worse, ranging to several calling her "it" or "shim"

A grand total of THREE out of 250 were supportive of her.

THAT is the world I live in and that is the culture that I obsessively try to change with education and information.
But when you live among a population that's 80$ conservatives, and your conservative state and national government OFFICIALLY communicates to these people "it is right and good for you to look down on these 2nd class people, they are weird and dangerous and we look down on them too" that helps reinforce the culture. Strengthens it. Makes it more difficult for people like me to say "can you just treat me fairly?"

I live in a world where I can go out this afternoon, be in an accident and be picked up by an EMT who is within his legal rights to refuse to treat me because Jesus and I have NO recourse. I could give you a hundred other examples. Here's one.

Remember when I broke my neck?
After I got out of in-patient therapy I had a prescription from my rehab doctors to take to the local wellness center to use their pol (the only public pool available in this town) for water therapy to continue to build strength. When I went there to "fill" that, i was informed I would need to use the men's locker room - to which I objected of course. After some negotiation with management I was told they would accommodate me by "allowing" me to change in the single-occupant public restroom. At the other end of the building. On the other side of the gym floor. In other words, before and after entering the pool I would be forced to take a "walk of shame" through the entire building advertising in bold colors that I wasn't acceptable to be in the company (potentially) of "normal" women. Indeed, part of the deal was I had to access the pool via the hallway that let to the men's locker room, not the women's.
Get that:
I WAS NOT EVEN WORTHY TO WALK PAST THE GODDAMN DOOR OF THE WOMEN'S LOCKER ROOM.

That's my life.
Don't fucking question me about what officially endorsed bigotry does to my life. Even if *I* haven't had these experiences, others have. People literally get KILLED for daring to be trans on the regular. There's virtually no aspect of life, from going to class to going to a clinic, to renting a home, to having visitation with your kids that trans people are not crushed under the burden of a culture that says "you don't deserve our respect." It doesn't have to be that every one of those acts of discrimination happen to every one of us for any of us to say "this is bullshit."

Just like no one gets to point to Ben Carson and Clarence Thomas and say "See? Racism isn't a thing anymore!"

You might feel differently if we were to replay the past 24 months replacing the word "trans" with "christian"

Careful with that. Some of the yobs here will take it as "being trans is a choice." Because religion is a choice. Free will and all that neat stuff. So, to borrow an expression: false dichotomy.

Not in the least. I’ve said from behind the pulpit that the church in the US has held an undeserved position of authority and influence for far to long. As a whole, we’re fat, happy, and complacent. Our doctrine may say one thing but our practice says something else.

"walls which are illegal and unrealistic by turns" - spot 261

walls which were just fine by the democrats which I'm sure you are aware of. So were those democrats white supremacists or just Trump? The left can't keep Trump out of their heads can they?
Trump doesn't need the White House once he found out how much empty space there is in the collective left's noggin!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...36fa44b80ba_story.html?utm_term=.e95842c9a91e

Indeed.

While I obviously no longer view the people I listen to the same way, there's one thing that always jumped out at me then and does so even more so now. D. James Kennedy was one of the architects of the Ne0-Pharisee cum Dominionist movement that took over evangelicalism in the last 40 years...but he also said that the church, in history, was always at it's best when it was OUT of favor and lacked power.

Always struck me as a inconsistency. Even more so now.

A comparison with Jews in pre-WWII Germany?

Exaggerate much?

let me make this simple...

When there WERE no walls (or very very few) it was possible to look and say "there are places where walls make sense (like San Diego where there's little way to police such a high population area where people can just walk across) and support the idea of adding barriers where they make sense (particularly in that walls are not just barriers but funnels directing people to places where interdiction is more possible).

Since that vote over 700 miles of barriers have been installed (and some studies suggest that it's hard to prove they much helped interdiction)

It is perfectly rational to say "we built barriers where they made sense, we didn't where they don't, and it's irrational to decide now to build them where they don't for political reasons.

And frankly it is shallow, juvenilie, simplistic reasoning - or naked partisan dishonesty - to argue that if you ever supporter any barrier any where you must always and ever support any barrier anywhere.

That's like saying if you support social security then you support a check for every citizen, or if you voted for war in Iraq you must also vote for war in Canada.

Fair enough as far as it goes, but it doesn't really answer my point. I'm not talking about a group with disproportionate power being kept in check, I'm talking about a disempowered group being even further disempowered.

THAT SAID

The vast majority of politically active white evangelicals are not as wise on this point as Elwood and spot's point is valid. If Clinton had been elected and moved against religion to the exact same degree as Trump has moved on LGBT people, the GOP would have began impeachment a year ago and turds like Tony Perkins would be marching on DC with torches and pitchforks.

My word oldfella, I'm trying hard to keep this comment in context and not let it define you with its stupidity.

Your own link doesn't make the assertion you think it's making, and in fact disproves your statement that "walls which were just fine by the democrats". Your link talks about a 700 mile border fence; Trump is talking about a wall spanning all 1,954 miles* along our southern border. You're comparing apples to fat retarded oranges.

*Trump's estimates of the length have varied wildly, but taken at face value, it's logical to assume that when he talks about a border wall he means the entire border because he really is that stupid. He literally said he wanted the wall to be 95 stories tall, too, which is a drastic difference from a puny little fence. Trump also literally said that the fence did not constitute a wall.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...trump-democrats-reverse-border-wall-position/

the platform in 2016 literally said "the entire border"