No, we'll probably get a single straight person protected, and the rest of the cases memory-holed, just so every leftie can point to it as an example of both how the law is being enforced fairly and how anti-gay/trans discrimination is much more common.
Theoretically, true, and we should definitely try it, but realistically, the Globalist tribe Lawyaz from Noo Yawk are only taking (mostly-make-believe) cases of discrimination against LGBTPPIAABCDE+, not against Straight White Christian Gentiles.
That's literally the exact opposite of what Gorsuch's ruling says.
He goes to great lengths to avoid the "protected class" bull and focus on how the law applies to an individual. He backs this up by pointing out that the text of the law itself speaks to an individual right, not a protected class.
If you really read his opinion I think it's pretty clear he just intentionally and very slyly decimated the whole "protected class" regulatory mindset that has perverted the original intent of the 1964 Republican-passed law. It was always supposed to be an individual right to not to be discriminated against for an enumerated list of physical characteristics one cannot change. It was never supposed to be a way for assholes to run around screaming they are part of a protected class so you can't touch them. That interpretation has always been utter bull.
Don't fall into the trap of interpreting the law the way the Uniparty executive branch has chosen to interpret it for the past 50 years. Interpret the law as it was actually written. Gorsuch firmly did that today.
I would take a slightly less jaded view. Ultimately HR's purpose is indeed to protect the company from employee lawsuits, but the proven most effective way to do that is to de-escalate and resolve early.
Unfortunately a lot of cry-bullies have been abusing the HR system based on a combination of prior bad case law and regulatory language which mis-interpreted the 1964 law as applying only to protected classes. An unfortunate number of HR personnel on both sides of this issue have pulled away from the intent of the law to various bastard interpretations of it like "Well, so and-so is <insert protected characteristic here> so we'll just have to let them win any arguments."
Gorsuch firmly grounded the law back to the law, as an individual right not to be discriminated against for a set of specifically enumerated characteristics that are impossible for a person to change. It's not a license to pick fights with your coworkers then claim discrimination.
individual right not to be discriminated against for a set of specifically enumerated characteristics that are impossible for a person to change
Yes, but that's why sexual orientations dysfunction should not be a part of that.
Sex or national origin is something that comes with the person; the person can't keep it out of the workplace because it's plainly visible.
I don't even agree that this should have additional protection, but at least I see the logic.
But whatever you do in bed should not be something that is protected because it shouldn't be known in the workplace. You should not be talking about sex in the workplace, and if you do you shouldn't have protections. Imagine I go around my colleagues boasting that I like to be pissed on and when they complain I cry discrimination.
The effect of this political decision is that now homos are even more emboldened to shove it down everybody's throat. Being part of the LGBT gang is a political statement, so Gor-suck has effectively allowed unchecked political proselytism in the workplace.
"When they go low, we kick them" is what shitstain Eric Holder says. We are better than that - we don't need to resort to violence like they do. I think it's important that we maintain at least some standard of civility, because we are better than them, but we also need to stop getting walked on.
GTF out of here with that shit. If there isn't a better way for you to make a point than to resort to Jim Crow era slander then you have lost your argument.
Change my mind on why anyone should take someone in 2020 seriously who still uses the word Negro like we're back in the 1950s. Besides the fact that your stats are wrong.
I don't care whether or not his posts make me feel good or not. This lower education viewpoint is responsible for the rest of us being treated like ignorant fools.
Agreed, but this made me think of something...The issue with words like this is seldom what we think it is:
"Negro" = used to be OK, now verboten; must say BLACK (means the exact same thing, just not in the Spanish language) > the SPANISH LANGUAGE is the issue
"Colored" = used to be OK, now verboten; must say OF COLOR (means the exact same thing, in the same language—just has a preposition instead of a verbal adjective) > GRAMMAR is the issue
"Colored" 2.0 = still OK: appears in the name of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (so you can include the phrase "colored people" on a check to this organization—and on the envelope containing the check) > MONEY is the issue
"N---er" = used to be vulgar slang, now completely verboten for use by anyone, ever (except black people, for whom it is not only inoffensive, but a common standard form of address) > the SPEAKER'S IDENTITY is the issue
BTW I use the hyphens because if I'm gonna be up THEIR asses for saying the word nonstop, then I have to model not using it
They drill it into our brains with constant repetition so it can never be forgotten, because oh how awful it would be to forget our our racist past—hey let's go rip down some historical statues because they reveal Democrats' racist past
I hear you. But it was the intent in which he was using the word. As a slur. A way to refer to a member of the black community as a lesser individual. There was no nuance or potential adherence to an historical term in a positive or even neutral sense.
Since Negroid is an anthropological term, a scientific term that’s where we got the word Negro from.
But I would prefer to call a black person, a black person, because when I was growing up in the 1970s we used to say, black is beautiful and I still think it is.
Aw that's cute. Pretending that I'm a snowflake because I called you out on verbiage that is either intent on making this community as whole look bad or, sadder still, your IRL mindset.
True Trump supporters are not racists and do not actually use language that portrays us as a community full of un-ironical Archie Bunker clones. Don't attempt to lower our collective IQ by being the stereotype that liberals desperately try to paint us with.
The types of cucks on the conservative side that will ensure the fall of this country:
Corporate bootlickers who are fine with corporations giving millions to far-left organizations. They do nothing while these companies promote anti-american propaganda and bow to China. How many conservatives still have Netlfix accounts? Netflix makes a ton of anti-right wing propaganda and have Obama and Susan Rice as employees. MUH CORPARATE FREEDOM. Yeah the same corporations that censor and shit on YOU 24/7.
Morons who have this "Leftists will change once they a job", "They are misguided people", etc mentality. You do know many of them high paying jobs in big cities right?
Cucks who refuse to play by the enemies rules. "Ugh those morons are destroying statues and art. But we shouldn't destroy all the statues of commies and KKK members like Byrd because we are above it all"
Dumbasses who don't understand the importance of activism and downplay it because "we have jobs unlike lefties. No time for activism". Seriously? No time at all to fight for your own country?
Feel free to add to this list. The world keeps moving further and further to the left. I guess there are too many cucks who would rather die with their principles than do something to stop the far-left take over.
Dont forget the losers that only type up shit on the internet for Good Boy points, thinking they are superior to others. When in reality are just a douche also.
Personally, I’m not a fan of the so-called “moderate” LGBTs that supposedly don’t go along with the militant agenda. 99% of LGBTs on TV preach the leftist agenda, but ridiculously few LGBTs speak out against them. Dave Rubin and Blaire White are among the few, and even then they are milquetoast at best.
True. Rubin is a neocon J who doesn't invite anyone to the right of Binyamin Shapiro on, nor does Rubin protect free speech for Based people. He's controlled opposition/limited hangout.
I don't believe it should be legal to fire someone for being gay. That's why CONGRESS should pass a law making it illegal. The Civil Rights Act says nothing about sexual orientation. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law as written by our elected representatives, not to create new laws. Of course, that ship sailed a long time ago with Roe v. Wade.
Exactly. The problem with this ruling is not that it outlaws discrimination per say, but that it falsely equates biology with mentality and that they felt it was ok to make that conclusion outside of the interpretation of the laws as written.
The correct response should have been: “discrimination based on sex is illegal. There is no law that outlaws discrimination based on transgenderism, therefore we cannot do anything except to remind the USA that it elects congress which can write new laws”
First of all, welcome to The Donald, suspiciously new user.
Second: The job of the supreme court is NOT to ADD or SUBTRACT or MODIFY the laws as they are written. Their ONLY job is to CLARIFY the meaning of the laws, with respect to the intent of those who wrote them.
Third: The law in question, as it is written, DOES NOT make the distinction between biological sex [i.e. your DNA] and your mental expression of gender identity [i.e. Attack Helicopter/unicorn, mentally unstable]
Fourth: The definition of SEX, as is widely regarded in the vast majority of scientific, cultural, and institutional circles (and frankly, up until last year, even the LGBT+ group) was that BIOLOGICAL SEX is DIFFERENT than GENDER.
Fifth: The SCOTUS INCORRECTLY applied an interpretation of the word SEX to mean something that it DOES NOT, even though the definition is clear and the intent was clear from Congress, therefore re-writing the law, and assumed the role of the Legislative branch.
Sixth: CUTTING OFF YOUR TITS DOES NOT MAKE YOU A MAN. CUTTING OFF YOUR DICK DOES NOT MAKE YOU A FEMALE. YOUR DNA DOES NOT CHANGE.
Let's do a hypothetical: Discrimination is illegal based on age. I think age is subjective and identify as a senior citizen - except in this example I would be .. say... 13. Now lets say that I try and order a boozy drink from a restaurant. I get in trouble, but my defence is "but I'm OLD, don'tcha know? You have to serve me." What do you think their response is gonna be? Answer: Fuck off, you're a kid. Now what does the SCOTUS do? They say, "well... i guess maybe we should interpret age to be more than just the number, so I guess he can be an adult and you have to serve him"
And I'll bet you didn't read anything on Kavanaugh's or Alito's dissent? The part where they make the points I'm making?
And it was a hypothetical to get you to understand the difference between clarifying and re-imagining definitions of words, which is the key point in this case.
Redefining sex to include gender identity and sticking it into the civil rights act -- that's the Democrats Equality Act that they've been trying to push through Congress. And a lot of us were thinking: "Gosh, we got to elect Republicans, got to re-elect Trump or this horrible bill becomes law!"
Then the Supreme Court just gives it to them for free, including a judge appointed by Trump.
Why should we bother? We voted for Trump to stop this from happening, and it happened anyway.
On the one hand you have Gorsuch making an argument that discrimination based on sexual orientation is by definition discrimination based on sex. He supports this claim by using a thought experiment "If the employer would have hired the person if the person's sex were different, that is sex discrimination". Basically, I refuse to hire a man because he likes other men, but if that man were a woman and still liked men, i'd hire him (in clown world). I believe it is more logically consistent to say that if the gay man were in fact a woman (in hypothetical land), he'd be a gay woman too. If gayness is not a choice, that is.
Kavanaugh's dissent was basically that there is no federal law protecting sexual orientation. Therefore it's not their job to create a new law doing so, but congress' job. This is a fact.
So now we have judges basically creating laws out of thin air because of hypothetical and logically inconsistent arguments they make up in their minds. I think Gorsuch is either a plant or really really stupid.
If the trannies were designated to inspect only the goatfuckers, I'd be willing to allow special employment for them .. imagine a muzzy "man" getting his nutz tugged by 6'4" BDoris.
. . . but the moozlums will still be allowed to pass unmolested.
If I ever have children, I cannot in good conscience allow a blatant and proud mentally ill person to teach my child. I had what I’d call decent public schooling, graduated 15 years ago. From what I’ve heard these days about school, I’d seriously have to consider home schooling or some Christian Academy (if they are allowed to exist when the time comes).
No one should lose their job because of who they are. It really sucks to go to work every day and fear you’ll be outed and lose your livelihood. Saying for a friend.
No one should lose their jobs simply because they’re “gay”; on the other hand if what they do in the position of their work negatively impacts the business, the business owner should have the right to fire them.
One great example that stands out for me was 25 years ago when I walked into a Firestone tire station in California and there was a man wearing a dress lipstick and wig... and I thought how weird it must be for these grease monkey guys to have to come to work every day and see him at the counter!! I’m sure many of the customers felt uncomfortable with him too.
At the airport? These mentally ill individuals will be teaching our children and there’s nothing you can do about bigot! SCOTUS failed decent America today.
This is a great point. If sexual orientation is now a protected class, straight discrimination opens up lawsuits (theoretically).
Logic doesn't matter to hypocrite judges.
lol. These laws are only pretext for their political commissars to do whatever they want.
Not a single straight person will be protected.
Exactly, we've seen time and time again two systems of justice.
One for us, another for them.
It's unsustainable. We need to opt out of this system, they only govern us because we consent.
Amen. If you were in Michigan the last couple of months you may have seen my car. The windows said "You govern with our consent, or not at all."
This is the attitude we all have to have.
No, we'll probably get a single straight person protected, and the rest of the cases memory-holed, just so every leftie can point to it as an example of both how the law is being enforced fairly and how anti-gay/trans discrimination is much more common.
Why would he/she be protected if she/he doesn't complain ?
That is the first requirement.
Even for assault ,
Theoretically, true, and we should definitely try it, but realistically, the Globalist tribe Lawyaz from Noo Yawk are only taking (mostly-make-believe) cases of discrimination against LGBTPPIAABCDE+, not against Straight White Christian Gentiles.
That's literally the exact opposite of what Gorsuch's ruling says.
He goes to great lengths to avoid the "protected class" bull and focus on how the law applies to an individual. He backs this up by pointing out that the text of the law itself speaks to an individual right, not a protected class.
If you really read his opinion I think it's pretty clear he just intentionally and very slyly decimated the whole "protected class" regulatory mindset that has perverted the original intent of the 1964 Republican-passed law. It was always supposed to be an individual right to not to be discriminated against for an enumerated list of physical characteristics one cannot change. It was never supposed to be a way for assholes to run around screaming they are part of a protected class so you can't touch them. That interpretation has always been utter bull.
Don't fall into the trap of interpreting the law the way the Uniparty executive branch has chosen to interpret it for the past 50 years. Interpret the law as it was actually written. Gorsuch firmly did that today.
Swamp BTFO.
I don't know about you, but I would fire an employee for lying to me for any reason.
HR is there to defend the company from you. They are not there to help you.
But yes, fight back. White males should sue for discrimination like non-whites or women do.
HR is basically a lawsuit mitigation scam.
Also a chance for companies to boost their number of women, putting them in a place where they don't do any real work
I would take a slightly less jaded view. Ultimately HR's purpose is indeed to protect the company from employee lawsuits, but the proven most effective way to do that is to de-escalate and resolve early.
Unfortunately a lot of cry-bullies have been abusing the HR system based on a combination of prior bad case law and regulatory language which mis-interpreted the 1964 law as applying only to protected classes. An unfortunate number of HR personnel on both sides of this issue have pulled away from the intent of the law to various bastard interpretations of it like "Well, so and-so is <insert protected characteristic here> so we'll just have to let them win any arguments."
Gorsuch firmly grounded the law back to the law, as an individual right not to be discriminated against for a set of specifically enumerated characteristics that are impossible for a person to change. It's not a license to pick fights with your coworkers then claim discrimination.
Yes, but that's why sexual
orientationsdysfunction should not be a part of that.Sex or national origin is something that comes with the person; the person can't keep it out of the workplace because it's plainly visible. I don't even agree that this should have additional protection, but at least I see the logic.
But whatever you do in bed should not be something that is protected because it shouldn't be known in the workplace. You should not be talking about sex in the workplace, and if you do you shouldn't have protections. Imagine I go around my colleagues boasting that I like to be pissed on and when they complain I cry discrimination.
The effect of this political decision is that now homos are even more emboldened to shove it down everybody's throat. Being part of the LGBT gang is a political statement, so Gor-suck has effectively allowed unchecked political proselytism in the workplace.
"we're better than" it's the war cry of every fucking Cuckservative and the reason we're in this shit right now.
"When they go low, we kick them" is what shitstain Eric Holder says. We are better than that - we don't need to resort to violence like they do. I think it's important that we maintain at least some standard of civility, because we are better than them, but we also need to stop getting walked on.
GTF out of here with that shit. If there isn't a better way for you to make a point than to resort to Jim Crow era slander then you have lost your argument.
Your trying to tar him with the Jim Crow brush doesn't help.
Change my mind on why anyone should take someone in 2020 seriously who still uses the word Negro like we're back in the 1950s. Besides the fact that your stats are wrong.
If his nomenclature doesn't make you feel good, perhaps you should get the gang to give him the business.
I don't care whether or not his posts make me feel good or not. This lower education viewpoint is responsible for the rest of us being treated like ignorant fools.
Ha ha
Agreed, but this made me think of something...The issue with words like this is seldom what we think it is:
"Negro" = used to be OK, now verboten; must say BLACK (means the exact same thing, just not in the Spanish language) > the SPANISH LANGUAGE is the issue
"Colored" = used to be OK, now verboten; must say OF COLOR (means the exact same thing, in the same language—just has a preposition instead of a verbal adjective) > GRAMMAR is the issue
"Colored" 2.0 = still OK: appears in the name of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (so you can include the phrase "colored people" on a check to this organization—and on the envelope containing the check) > MONEY is the issue
"N---er" = used to be vulgar slang, now completely verboten for use by anyone, ever (except black people, for whom it is not only inoffensive, but a common standard form of address) > the SPEAKER'S IDENTITY is the issue
BTW I use the hyphens because if I'm gonna be up THEIR asses for saying the word nonstop, then I have to model not using it
They drill it into our brains with constant repetition so it can never be forgotten, because oh how awful it would be to forget our our racist past—hey let's go rip down some historical statues because they reveal Democrats' racist past
I hear you. But it was the intent in which he was using the word. As a slur. A way to refer to a member of the black community as a lesser individual. There was no nuance or potential adherence to an historical term in a positive or even neutral sense.
Since Negroid is an anthropological term, a scientific term that’s where we got the word Negro from.
But I would prefer to call a black person, a black person, because when I was growing up in the 1970s we used to say, black is beautiful and I still think it is.
Aw that's cute. Pretending that I'm a snowflake because I called you out on verbiage that is either intent on making this community as whole look bad or, sadder still, your IRL mindset.
True Trump supporters are not racists and do not actually use language that portrays us as a community full of un-ironical Archie Bunker clones. Don't attempt to lower our collective IQ by being the stereotype that liberals desperately try to paint us with.
13% commit 53% of the violent crime.
That’s 87% not committing violent crime, a vast majority
The 87% is Non Blacks in the US. 13% is the black population in the US.
In reality, of those 13%, old women, old men and very young children aren't committing the crimes. 13-49 year old black men are.
So that's closer to 4-6% of the population committing 50% of the violent crime in this country.
Do you even understand what you type? The douche bag above refers to the black population, you refer to all of us.
In reality, 8% of the US population, black males age 18-49 commit the majority of violent crime in America.
8% of the population ruins it for everyone, Matthews law in action
I'll take the fail, thats on me.
I see a troll here making us look bad and I reacted without thinking.
Lol shill alert. Over the wall with ya
That's a good question.
Dude if you think like that, you're part of the problem.
The types of cucks on the conservative side that will ensure the fall of this country:
Corporate bootlickers who are fine with corporations giving millions to far-left organizations. They do nothing while these companies promote anti-american propaganda and bow to China. How many conservatives still have Netlfix accounts? Netflix makes a ton of anti-right wing propaganda and have Obama and Susan Rice as employees. MUH CORPARATE FREEDOM. Yeah the same corporations that censor and shit on YOU 24/7.
Morons who have this "Leftists will change once they a job", "They are misguided people", etc mentality. You do know many of them high paying jobs in big cities right?
Cucks who refuse to play by the enemies rules. "Ugh those morons are destroying statues and art. But we shouldn't destroy all the statues of commies and KKK members like Byrd because we are above it all"
Dumbasses who don't understand the importance of activism and downplay it because "we have jobs unlike lefties. No time for activism". Seriously? No time at all to fight for your own country?
Feel free to add to this list. The world keeps moving further and further to the left. I guess there are too many cucks who would rather die with their principles than do something to stop the far-left take over.
Dont forget the losers that only type up shit on the internet for Good Boy points, thinking they are superior to others. When in reality are just a douche also.
Personally, I’m not a fan of the so-called “moderate” LGBTs that supposedly don’t go along with the militant agenda. 99% of LGBTs on TV preach the leftist agenda, but ridiculously few LGBTs speak out against them. Dave Rubin and Blaire White are among the few, and even then they are milquetoast at best.
Conservative gay voices get run the fuck out. Remember Milo? He’s one based faggot
Poor Milo. What they did to him was so unfair.
True. Rubin is a neocon J who doesn't invite anyone to the right of Binyamin Shapiro on, nor does Rubin protect free speech for Based people. He's controlled opposition/limited hangout.
There are only 2 genders and you cannot change which one you are
I don't believe it should be legal to fire someone for being gay. That's why CONGRESS should pass a law making it illegal. The Civil Rights Act says nothing about sexual orientation. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law as written by our elected representatives, not to create new laws. Of course, that ship sailed a long time ago with Roe v. Wade.
YES! this !
Exactly. Congress sleeping on the job as usual.
Exactly. The problem with this ruling is not that it outlaws discrimination per say, but that it falsely equates biology with mentality and that they felt it was ok to make that conclusion outside of the interpretation of the laws as written.
The correct response should have been: “discrimination based on sex is illegal. There is no law that outlaws discrimination based on transgenderism, therefore we cannot do anything except to remind the USA that it elects congress which can write new laws”
First of all, welcome to The Donald, suspiciously new user.
Second: The job of the supreme court is NOT to ADD or SUBTRACT or MODIFY the laws as they are written. Their ONLY job is to CLARIFY the meaning of the laws, with respect to the intent of those who wrote them.
Third: The law in question, as it is written, DOES NOT make the distinction between biological sex [i.e. your DNA] and your mental expression of gender identity [i.e. Attack Helicopter/unicorn, mentally unstable]
Fourth: The definition of SEX, as is widely regarded in the vast majority of scientific, cultural, and institutional circles (and frankly, up until last year, even the LGBT+ group) was that BIOLOGICAL SEX is DIFFERENT than GENDER.
Fifth: The SCOTUS INCORRECTLY applied an interpretation of the word SEX to mean something that it DOES NOT, even though the definition is clear and the intent was clear from Congress, therefore re-writing the law, and assumed the role of the Legislative branch.
Sixth: CUTTING OFF YOUR TITS DOES NOT MAKE YOU A MAN. CUTTING OFF YOUR DICK DOES NOT MAKE YOU A FEMALE. YOUR DNA DOES NOT CHANGE.
Let's do a hypothetical: Discrimination is illegal based on age. I think age is subjective and identify as a senior citizen - except in this example I would be .. say... 13. Now lets say that I try and order a boozy drink from a restaurant. I get in trouble, but my defence is "but I'm OLD, don'tcha know? You have to serve me." What do you think their response is gonna be? Answer: Fuck off, you're a kid. Now what does the SCOTUS do? They say, "well... i guess maybe we should interpret age to be more than just the number, so I guess he can be an adult and you have to serve him"
That's fucked. and we all know it.
And I'll bet you didn't read anything on Kavanaugh's or Alito's dissent? The part where they make the points I'm making?
And it was a hypothetical to get you to understand the difference between clarifying and re-imagining definitions of words, which is the key point in this case.
Go back to reddit, shill.
That's what Obergefell brought us. We can no longer acknowledge differences between men and women.
Guess your strip club has to hire men as well as women, right?
Seems to me that's what they're doing already.
Redefining sex to include gender identity and sticking it into the civil rights act -- that's the Democrats Equality Act that they've been trying to push through Congress. And a lot of us were thinking: "Gosh, we got to elect Republicans, got to re-elect Trump or this horrible bill becomes law!"
Then the Supreme Court just gives it to them for free, including a judge appointed by Trump.
Why should we bother? We voted for Trump to stop this from happening, and it happened anyway.
And then we'll need a 7 seat majority. Then 8. Then 9.
And then they'll still go against us.
We're not allowed to win, folks. This game is rigged.
I think it should be legal to fire someone because you feel like it.
So if sexual orientation is a protected class - then that makes heterosexuality a protected class - right?
Every time a gay gets promoted in front of you file a suit for discrimination.
The door swings both ways.
And so do far too many people. 🤡🌎🤣
Baritone beast 😂
SCOTUS just came down with a ruling protecting trannies from being fired for tranny fluid leaking on the job
But refused to rule on 2A infringement cases.
I thought we were supposed to use "gender neutral shift juice" now
Sounds like a tranny working with the TSA
On the one hand you have Gorsuch making an argument that discrimination based on sexual orientation is by definition discrimination based on sex. He supports this claim by using a thought experiment "If the employer would have hired the person if the person's sex were different, that is sex discrimination". Basically, I refuse to hire a man because he likes other men, but if that man were a woman and still liked men, i'd hire him (in clown world). I believe it is more logically consistent to say that if the gay man were in fact a woman (in hypothetical land), he'd be a gay woman too. If gayness is not a choice, that is.
Kavanaugh's dissent was basically that there is no federal law protecting sexual orientation. Therefore it's not their job to create a new law doing so, but congress' job. This is a fact.
So now we have judges basically creating laws out of thin air because of hypothetical and logically inconsistent arguments they make up in their minds. I think Gorsuch is either a plant or really really stupid.
Brett making us proud, at least!
WUT?
Is Gorsuch a moron, or Deep State? Interesting that there was no pushback during his confirmation like we saw with Kavanaugh.
My grandma calls them “Handsome Woman”. Lol
gotta git dem hajis! Now pull down those pants!
If the trannies were designated to inspect only the goatfuckers, I'd be willing to allow special employment for them .. imagine a muzzy "man" getting his nutz tugged by 6'4"
BDoris.. . . but the moozlums will still be allowed to pass unmolested.
Funny how their 'woman' experience must involve drugs and some viewing or contact with an actual woman or child.
Do you have the right as a customer to say you're not comfortable with a specific person searching you? Totally agree it opens up a can of worms.
No, you don’t anymore. BIGOT! /s
And all the 'women' celebrated by having their balls waxed.
If I ever have children, I cannot in good conscience allow a blatant and proud mentally ill person to teach my child. I had what I’d call decent public schooling, graduated 15 years ago. From what I’ve heard these days about school, I’d seriously have to consider home schooling or some Christian Academy (if they are allowed to exist when the time comes).
It was at that moment your grandchild understood what a 'faggot' was.
Simpson's did it.
Well it’s two stories really, first involves the government and 9/11.
And the other involves reeeeing psychopaths
That’s how we got here :(
The government and 9/11 and reeeeeing psychopaths are the same thing.
It's only one story here
TSA...more inclusive than ever...
No one should lose their job because of who they are. It really sucks to go to work every day and fear you’ll be outed and lose your livelihood. Saying for a friend.
No one should lose their jobs simply because they’re “gay”; on the other hand if what they do in the position of their work negatively impacts the business, the business owner should have the right to fire them.
One great example that stands out for me was 25 years ago when I walked into a Firestone tire station in California and there was a man wearing a dress lipstick and wig... and I thought how weird it must be for these grease monkey guys to have to come to work every day and see him at the counter!! I’m sure many of the customers felt uncomfortable with him too.
People lose their job everyday for who they are.
Wait... what's the difference with current TSA?
Sheesh. There should be policy exceptions when PHYSICAL CONTACT is required
At the airport? These mentally ill individuals will be teaching our children and there’s nothing you can do about bigot! SCOTUS failed decent America today.
Michael works at an airport now?
Nope...aint gonna happen..."EVER"
Someone fill me in.
Can I have all your stuff?
Fuck off cunt
Previously wrongthink