Pentagon surveys troops on DADT (again)

[classicman]

I sincerely believe you should not post that tripe.

[tw]

Originally Posted by classicman

I sincerely believe you should not post that tripe.

A little too much honesty is hurtful?

[Sundae]

Cake in this case, not tripe. 19 May 2015.
Even when laws are in place, they are still contested.

From the BBC, link for the full article and relevant credits.

A judge has ruled that a Christian-run bakery discriminated against a gay customer by refusing to make a cake with a pro-gay marriage slogan.
Ashers Baking Company, based in County Antrim, was taken to court by gay rights activist Gareth Lee.
A Belfast judge said, as a business, Ashers was not exempt from discrimination law.
The firm's general manager said they were "extremely disappointed" by the ruling and are considering an appeal.
Damages of £500 were agreed in advance by legal teams on both sides of the dispute.
A lawyer for Mr Lee said the money would be donated to charity.

[classicman]

Oh Tommy, please don't start with me. It never ends well ... for you.

[tw]

So honesty does hurt .... extremists.

[Lamplighter]

WOW ! JUNE 26th 2015

IT IS NOW THE LAW OF THE LAND - ALL 50 STATES


.

[Lamplighter]

The next (legal) battle field may involve a smaller number of individuals,
but numbers cannot the issue when it comes to Civil Rights discrimination.

Today is an important day at the federal level for transgender children...

For Transgender Americans, Legal Battles Over Restrooms
NY Times - THE EDITORIAL BOARD - JULY 27, 2015

On Monday, Judge Robert Doumar of Federal District Court in Virginia is scheduled to consider
whether the school board’s decision to prohibit Gavin from using the male restroom is unlawful discrimination.

The case addresses one of the main unresolved battles in the fight for transgender equality.

A favorable decision for the student would be the first time a federal court
has ruled that refusing transgender students access to proper restrooms is discriminatory.
Any other outcome would reinforce cruel policies that deny dignity to some
of the most vulnerable students and subject them to more bullying and stigmatization.

Here is some text from the legal Complaint of a 6th grader, which I've edited for easier reading...

Plaintiff is a transgender student who started the sixth grade at Wilson Middle School
in Wyandotte on or about December 4, 2012 ...

Plaintiff alleges that Wyandotte denied him the treatment and benefits afforded to
other male students and that he was subjected to severe and pervasive sex-based harassment
in violation of Title IX, Title IV, and the Equal Protection Clause.

In particular, Plaintiff alleges that although his mother asked the school
to allow him to use the boys’ restroom, school personnel refused,
requiring him instead to use “the staff ladies’ room” or a unisex restroom,
which was frequently closed and not accessible.

As a result, a male classmate who spotted Plaintiff leaving the women’s restroom
laughed at him, called him a “fag,” and asked, “Do you need a tampon sweetie?”
When Plaintiff’s mother complained to a school employee about this event,
the employee dismissed it as Plaintiff “being overly sensitive.”

Later, this same classmate approached Plaintiff off school grounds and threatened,
“You better run fag. Are you scared? I’ll rape you straight,” causing Plaintiff to run away
so fast he fell, fracturing his elbow and hitting his ear and face.

Plaintiff further alleges that school personnel addressed him as “Olivia,”
his name assigned at birth, and referred to him using female pronouns despite his
consistent presentation of his male gender identity and his mother’s requests
that he be addressed using his preferred name and male pronouns.

In addition, Plaintiff alleges that school personnel, including the school principal and
special education director, “outed” Plaintiff as transgender to students and parents
of students who interacted with Plaintiff by referring to him as a female.
Consequently, some of these parents refused to allow their children to interact with Plaintiff.

<snip>

[Lamplighter]

It has been a long time since I have been so disgusted with a person I don’t know, except thru news sources.
… maybe it’s the use of the phrase: “he/she sincerely believes...”

If Wikipedia is correct, this person sincerely believes marriage is between one man and one woman… at a time,
and she sincerely believes her beliefs supersede the law and/or beliefs of others,
but these beliefs apparently do not include with the concepts of “adultery” or “nepotism”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Da...ounty_clerk%29

Davis has been married four times to three different husbands.
The first three marriages ended in divorces in 1994, 2006, and 2008.
Her second and fourth husbands are the same [Joe Davis]

She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce from her first husband in 1994.
Her third husband [Thomas Dale McnIntyre Jr. ] is the biological father of her twins,
who were adopted by her second husband, Joe, who is also her fourth, and current husband.[26]

Joe supports her stance against same-sex marriage.[25]
One of her twin sons, Nathan, works in her office as a deputy clerk and has taken
the same position to deny marriage certificates to same-sex couples.[39]

I sincerely believe this Judge did the proper thing by sentencing her to jail for Contempt of Court.

Kim Davis - Kentucky Clerk of Court

[fargon]

What glatt said.

[Lamplighter]

...but she's a born again Christian...
So you're saying she's a hypocrite?

I expected someone would put forth such that thought.
and No, Glatt, I'm definitely not saying she is a hypocrite.

We do not live in a theocracy where the religion [beliefs] of officials
allows them to pick and choose how they will conduct government business,
either according to the law and/or demands of an appropriate Court,
or the whim of their current belief or to select the laws they agree with,
or are specifically to their family's benefit.

But with respect to her behavior as a "born again Christian",
one interpretation might be that with respect to refusing to issue legal marriage licenses,
she is bearing false witness against her neighbors, in her belief that they may
- in the future - commit a sin - not a crime - but what she believes is a sin.
She does not know these couples personally, and certainly does not know what they will do/not do in the future.

She has taken an oath as a government representative whose job is, among other things,
to follow KY and US laws by granting marriage licenses to those
who are legally qualified for one.
If she can not, in good conscience perform all of the duties of her job,
she should resign, transfer, take a leave of absence, run for a different elected office, etc.
There are many options open to her. Refusing to perform her duties is not one of them.

.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

No, Glatt, I'm definitely not saying she is a hypocrite.

It sure seemed that way to me. You brought up her adultery and nepotism as if they were inconsistent with what she claims to believe.

I mostly agree with you. She's a bigot who belongs in jail for as long as she refuses to follow the law or until she loses her job.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by glatt

It sure seemed that way to me. You brought up her adultery and nepotism as if they were inconsistent with what she claims to believe.

I mostly agree with you. She's a bigot who belongs in jail for as long as she refuses to follow the law or until she loses her job.

Her moral values as a government employee before and after 2011 were what I was referencing.
That is not the same thing as being a hypocrite, which (I think) involves pretense - not moral turpitude.

However, now her "bearing false witness" in failing to perform her lawful duties regarding
homosexual applicants for a marriage license might be considered the actions of a hypocrite.

[Undertoad]

Bitch brings down $80,000/year!

Of taxpayer money!

[Lamplighter]

The Judge "dismissed" the Contempt of Court charge against Ms Davis,
and she has been released from jail.

The Judge's stated reasoning was that "her" Assistant County Clerks were,
in fact, now issuing marriage licenses.

The oddest aspect of this is how Davis' supporters are so happy and are celebrating her release.
... as if it were some kind of victory... NOT

The next issue is what happens when she returns to her job.
She still has the option to again stop the issuing of marriage licenses,
and the Judge still has the option of again jailing her on Contempt of Court,
... but this time it might be a more severe judgement.