|
Gyre posted:So, it's happening. Today is the deadline the feds gave them to pass something that says the law will not be enacted or enforced. I wonder if they'll pull the trigger and yank the money.
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
Statement from the DoJ coming at 3:30
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Lynch just came out and said that the DOJ is suing the state of NC over HB2 to enjoin enforcement and that financial sanctions on the state are still on the table during the process.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I think they are leaving them on the table as a good faith bait, but the way Lynch was talking, DoJ is going to rip them a new one if they don't back down now. Yeah the DoJ is not happy at all that NC didn't even respond to them and instead just filed suit.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
I wish there was a way to combine  and 
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:It's shocking just how dramatically that's changed in recent years. My uncle's a submarine guy, and he said he'd never served on a boat where people gave a poo poo. He said subs are a place where things like that don't stay secret and in practice no one gave a gently caress. The navy has always been a different sort of place. Every sailor has known gay sailors throughout all time. Admiral Mike Mullen was part of the force that finally got rid of DADT and forced the services to be open. From the start of his time as chairman of the joint chiefs he pushed for repeal. He talked about gay sailors he served with in vietnam and that no one gave a gently caress then or should now. I knew a ton of gay sailors, both men and women. The only time it ever was an issue was because of a rank issue never anything else. No one cared. The only time it was an issue was when an chief was loving a seaman (high rank to low rank) underway pretty openly. It was on an all male ship. The rank thing was the only problem. The chief ended up losing his anchors and being forced to retire. The other guy was just transferred to a new command.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
No, submariners are loving weird. Your uncle was right on that, too. But basically no one gave a gently caress about gay people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Here's the (60 page) opinion From a purely mechanical perspective, I've enjoyed this opinion. The way the judge breaks down standing alone is great. It isn't full of flair and flourish, nor does it need to be. It's exceptionally well written, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Hobby Lobby apparently lets "tightly held" companies engage in sex discrimination, including against LGBTQ individuals. Good news is if this actually makes it back to the SCOTUS they will have the ability to flip hobby lobby.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Otteration posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Cox https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53XThNjW6pY
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
It got booted on standing not on the merits. Basically told them to go get a better plaintiff. This happens often and there are strict rules for standing that lower courts are supposed to follow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
This thread got really really bad.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Pikavangelist posted:I'm concerned that that interpretation ignores the impact that the repeal-in-all-but-name of the Voting Rights Act had on suppression of minority votes. North Carolina is a prime example. Hopefully with a democratic governor they can start to work back some of the damage McRory did.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Pikavangelist posted:Short version: there used to be a law that, among other things, required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval before they could make changes to how they managed elections; a practice that was called "preclearance". The formula used to determine what jurisdictions had to go through the preclearance process was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 2013 ruling Shelby County v. Holder, freeing states with Republican legislatures to do a lot of stuff that, although it doesn't EXPLICITLY stop PoC from voting, makes it a whole lot harder than it would have been otherwise. (North Carolina is probably the most blatant example of this practice, but they're by no means the only state to do so.) These things they do are still in violation of the VRA, but without pre-clearance the courts have to sort it out on the back end and you end up loving over a lot of voters in the process.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:American democrats never fail to depress me. This has nothing to do with the democratic party. They are in no way in control right now. The repeal failed because the repeal only would have removed the bathroom rules not the part where they overrode local anti-discrimination ordnances.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Okay, so that whole vote was just a pointless show of protest against the law. Anything useful they can do against the law instead of organizing public displays of failure? The new governor is going to certainly stop the state from defending the lawsuits against the law which will speed up it being ruled unconstitutional. Additionally he's likely to declare the law is invalid and not enforceable as it's his job to enforce the laws of the state. The vote wasn't a protest against the law at all. The vote was republicans trying to do damage control and limit the new governor's power/ability to limit their awfulness. They were trying to get public opinion in their favor by "repealing" the bathroom portion of the law but not the part that kills local anti-discrimination ordinances. This was not something done by or orchestrated by the NC democratic party in any way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:Well, then it's still a successful political op to make the opponents to their law looks like powerless idiots, all while failing to repeal it themselves. What do you mean make their opponents look like powerless idiots? This was not something that had any democratic pushing or support because it was an incomplete repeal and not a real attempt. Once the new governor is in place the law is effectively dead and will be officially dead when the courts strike it down. This was political theater by republicans for republicans at the continued expense of the north carolina taxpayers.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:How about they try to make the main message "Republicans fail to repeal their own poo poo bathroom law in lame attempt to save discriminatory anti gay labor laws". Because it was not the message i got reading this thread. You'd get that if you read any of the articles or news, though. Also that's pretty much exactly what I've been saying in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:He's just the governor. He could stop enforcing it but he can't repeal it. He also isn't going to defend legal challenges and it'll get struck down by the courts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
I don't really see any legitimate issues that bi people have that are politically solveable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Taitale posted:Do you see any issues for gay people or are bi people in gay relationships somehow immune to those issues? Bi people in a gay relationship have gay issues, not bi issues. Sure there is social stigma and other things that bi people may feel, however there isn't a single political issue exclusive to them, and solving the problems on the G and L side of things tend to solve any bi issues.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
stone cold posted:Does it solve people thinking we don't exist? And this is a problem from a political or rights based perspective why? That's the social stigma aspect I spoke of earlier. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any political rights or issues. No one is refusing to serve someone because they're bisexual. The issue there is people in same sex relationships. There is no discrete political issue unique to anyone bisexual.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:That's not what the experiences of actual bisexuals in the US indicates quite the opposite in fact. The only thing the article really talks about is erasure as the source of bi problems and that seems to mirror the complaints here in the thread. All that does is support my assertion that there isn't a political issue that is exclusive to bi people. Like the only thing that we have to bitch about is acceptance Like they show higher incidences of poverty and bad health in their sample. The poverty and bad health though aren't linked to being bi by more than correlation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/12/14/polish-journalist-says-he-risks-being-deported-from-usa-for-being-bisexual-and-not-gay/ I dug further into it out of curiosity. He is being targetted not because he is bi, but rather because he ruffled a bunch of feathers exposing corruption and other bullshit going down at the polish consulate. Additionally marriages that are between a citizen and someone that is not and is attempting to get citizenship are heavily scrutinized. The fact that the two of them are bi does not preclude the relationship from being a sham. The government will have the burden i presume of demonstrating this in court. If their marriage is indeed legitimate, they'll easily be able to prove it in court. They aren't being scrutinized because they're bi. They're under the microscope because he is a political dissident in his home country and may be lying about his relationship as a roundabout way of achieving permanent asylum.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Maybe. He's not. The issue the state is going to push is that he's not actually bisexual and his wife isn't either. They're a lesbian and a gay man married together for convenience and as a way to subvert the standard visa process. It has nothing to do with him being bi. Any marriage where significant extra-marital sexual/romantic activity occurs is going to be by default suspicious regardless of whether it is opposite or same-sex activities. Infidelity has been historically one of the few ways to actually have cause to dissolve a marriage before no fault divorce actually existed. I don't know all the facts, but it seems like their extra-marital relationships are exclusively same-sex. This is a situation where a political dissident has been using his marriage to stay in the country after the expiration of his work visa. Both spouses have had long term significant same-sex relationships outside of their marriage. It's pretty obvious why this would raise flags at the immigration department because facially it looks like a sham marriage. The story of "oh no we're both actually bi" seems like an afterthought more than a lifestyle. I'm not saying that he's gay, straight, or anything. I'm just explaining why his marriage is considered suspect. With that in mind, the government will have to prove to some evidentiary standard (I'm honestly not sure what level it is but it's probably higher than preponderance but lower than reasonable doubt) that the marriage is a sham. The couple will have their opportunity to rebut. If their marriage is indeed legitimate, it shouldn't be difficult to sort out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Well... Aren't you just denying their identities now? What are you gonna do, show him pics of women and see if he pops a boner? It's not about denying their identities. Its the standard process for investigating into the legitimacy of any marriage. This particular marriage has all of the classic signs of an illegitimate one and will get additional scrutiny as a result. That isn't to say that the couple is lying or anything. Thalantos posted:That honestly sounds really similar to trans gate keeping. That's probably what will happen in court unless there is enough evidence that the marriage is actually a sham and the bi story is just an excuse.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:They shouldn't need to prove their marriage regardless The legal benefits of marriage (such as being able to stay in the country beyond the expiration of your work visa in quasi-political asylum, tax breaks, insurance benefits, etc.) are only conferred to legitimate couples. There is good policy reason to restrict such benefits as they would be ripe for abuse. Think of how many barracks marriages there were to get bah. The ones that were legitimate sham marriages could have very well ended up in revocation of the benefits, recoupment of unauthorized pay, and article 15 charges for the servicemember. That is not to say that a marriage without sex or with extra-marital relations is not legitimate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
I'm in full agreement that immigration laws are hosed and whatever goes on in someone's bedroom is none of the government's or anyone else's business. I'm just trying to point out why none if this is really about him being bi.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:The GOP is going to be even worse in 2018. Like shits going to get really bad if the lead up to inauguration is any indicator. there are 33 senatorial seats up for election in 2018. It's safe to assume the house is too gerrymandered at this point to be anything other than republican controlled. Of those 33 up for re-election, 24* are democratic, 8 republican, and 1 independent. The republicans are from Arizona, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. They don't really have to do anything to get worse. Basically their stranglehold on the government is secure until 2020 at the earliest. *Bernie is listed on wikipedia as independent since that's how he was elected, but I'm including him in the democratic numbers for this post.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:The Republicans I don't think be able to get a federal bathroom bill through the votes are just not there , however they should be able to dismantle the LGBT protection s within the department of edu They don't have to do anything to dismantle them. The guidance documents that extend those protections will just be nullified in the Pence administration.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
After listening to Bernie Bros rant yesterday about how Assange & Snowden are freedom fighters, that the US intel apparatus is lying to us just like the WMDs in saudi arabia, and only Russia and Trump are telling the truth I've been in a stupor and my memory is hazy.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Im not sure where you all keep getting swarmed by these hordes of bernie bros for trump. is it facebook? stop reading facebook. Its friends and family of mine via facebook. They're good people that I know and enjoy interacting with but for any discussion that might have something to do with Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
wizard on a water slide posted:On the other hand, she's a famous whistleblower... Indiscriminantly downloading hundreds of thousands of files and dumping them off to a russian stooge does not make you a whistleblower nor does it afford you any whistleblower protections. Snowden arguably is a whistleblower. Manning just threw a fit and gave a bunch of classified docs to a rapist in a "gently caress you, dad!" moment because Manning was pissy about the job they volunteered for. Tias posted:You do not, at least not in the company of your many gay friends, who go out of their way to wistfully state how they wish they could stop loving their own sex when it becomes socially unacceptable to do so. And before you go "well, that's just like, your opinion man", I can only talk about my own life, not whatever constellations of privilege some far-removed academic type has dreamed up for me. What are you even trying to say? That you don't get treated like every other straight couple in the world because you have a few gay friends give you poo poo? What about when you and your girlfriend want to get married. Is anyone ever going to refuse to bake you a cake? Thats what they mean by access to hetero priv is that when you're in an opposite sex relationship society at large will treat you just like every other one. Getting poo poo from your gay friends because they want your dick/rear end instead of you being with someone else does not negate how the world at large treats a M/F couple compared to any other.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:She, and kindly go gently caress yourself. I edited the post before you responded because i didnt want to derail with misgendering.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:She, and kindly go gently caress yourself. Like literally everything you've posted is absolute, barely mitigated garbage, on almost every subject in this thread. You went and edited again to throw another insult at me for no real reason, so I'm responding even though you weren't a part of the conversation. I'm sorry to throw a dose of reality on you, but that's the way it is. There's nothing to do with being in or out of the closet. If someone is in an opposite sex relationship they are treated by the world at large exactly the same as every other opposite sex relationship. I don't know what is so hard to grasp about this. On the manning thing, it was accidental and I corrected it before it could even come up with an edit notice. Manning's trans status has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were throwing a temper tantrum like a child (and had been disciplined previously for such tantrums) and the mass dumping of intelligence documents, diplomatic cables, etc is not whistleblowing. It was a temper tantrum thrown by someone unhappy they were doing a job they volunteered to do.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:16 |
|
|
I was told gender neutral pronouns are always acceptable. You're focusing on the wrong part. I don't care about her status. That doesn't matter. She isn't a whistleblower.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 15:47
|
|