LGBT+ Discrimination in the Workplace Now Illegal in US

[San Lumen]

Does this ruling affect if someone can be evicted for being gay or is it only employment discrimination is now banned in every state?

Technically, sexual orientation isn't covered in housing policies, though oftentimes the courts will rule that any landlord who evicts a tenant on the basis of sexual orientation is violating the FHA and it's addendums throughout the 70s and 80s.

well that's good to know

[Tombradyonia]

Technically, sexual orientation isn't covered in housing policies, though oftentimes the courts will rule that any landlord who evicts a tenant on the basis of sexual orientation is violating the FHA and it's addendums throughout the 70s and 80s.

well that's good to know

I believe mr Trump is familiar with the FHA. But then that didn't have anything to do with discrimination of LGBT+, though it did have to do with discrimination.

[Kernen]

well that's good to know

I believe mr Trump is familiar with the FHA. But then that didn't have anything to do with discrimination of LGBT+, though it did have to do with discrimination.

That is an optimistic assessment of the President's legal knowledge.

[Kernen]

Public opinion is fairly relevant when assessing 14th Amendment protections, since it weighs individual interests against the state's or the public's interest.

You keep piping up about these Constitutional issues, but you haven't really bothered to understand how these laws operate.

Well, you think sending SWAT teams to seize property from Americans and kill them if they resist, without even accusing them of a crime, is Constitutional. If you're attacking my understanding of Constitutional law I must be doing something right.

...if I, somebody familiar with constitutional jurisprudence, am correcting you, somebody who routinely demonstrates they don't have any such familiarity, that indicates...that you have no such familiarity. Its not much different than me trying to argue about car repair, and I don't even know what a catalytic converter is.

I've never made such an argument, for what its worth. You are absolutely welcome to show me where I came out in support of police executions. That you think this strawman is some kind of gotchya says far more about you than me.

[Crockerland]

Well, you think sending SWAT teams to seize property from Americans and kill them if they resist, without even accusing them of a crime, is Constitutional. If you're attacking my understanding of Constitutional law I must be doing something right.

...if I, somebody familiar with constitutional jurisprudence, am correcting you, somebody who routinely demonstrates they don't have any such familiarity, that indicates...that you have no such familiarity.

The need to constantly fall back on Rick and Morty-style credentialist tirades actually indicates the opposite of that.

The guy who discovered HIV causes AIDS, Luc Montagnier, thinks Autism is a bacterial disease - Your credentials don't make you correct when you say things that are wrong.

Its not much different than me trying to argue about car repair, and I don't even know what a catalytic converter is.

A catalytic converter is a type of hippopotamus. If you don't blindly believe this ludicrous assertion, it indicates you lack knowledge on the subject.

I've never made such an argument, for what its worth.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=472220&p=36962978#p36962978
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=472220&p=36944864#p36944864

You are absolutely welcome to show me where I came out in support of police executions. That you think this strawman is some kind of gotchya says far more about you than me.

The fact that when I say "You think [...] is Constitutional" you immediately jump to "I came out in support of" says a lot about how you view the Constitution.

Whether you support something or not has no bearing on whether it's Constitutional. I would support banning minarets, but it's not Constitutional to do so and does not fall under the government's legal authority.

[Grenartia]

I believe mr Trump is familiar with the FHA. But then that didn't have anything to do with discrimination of LGBT+, though it did have to do with discrimination.

That is an optimistic assessment of the President's legal knowledge.

I mean, as a landlord, he absolutely should know it, and follow it, but there's little evidence he knows any law, and if he's anything like his father, there's no reason to believe he follows the FHA, even if he does know it.

[Kernen]

.
The need to constantly fall back on Rick and Morty-style credentialist tirades actually indicates the opposite of that.

If this counts as a Rick and Morty style anything, justin roiland owes me a phone call about a writing gig.

The guy who discovered HIV causes AIDS, Luc Montagnier, thinks Autism is a bacterial disease - Your credentials don't make you correct when you say things that are wrong.

Except in my case, the legal case literally looks at the societal interest of the right as a counterpoint to state interest.

Its not much different than me trying to argue about car repair, and I don't even know what a catalytic converter is.

A catalytic converter is a type of hippopotamus. If you don't blindly believe this ludicrous assertion, it indicates you lack knowledge on the subject.

Which is why I dont talk about cars. Because I know better than to make assertions contrary to demonstrable evidence.

I've never made such an argument, for what its worth.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=472220&p=36962978#p36962978
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=472220&p=36944864#p36944864

Look at all that straw. Almost like supporting red flag laws is a different beast than supporting police executions.

The fact that when I say "You think [...] is Constitutional" you immediately jump to "I came out in support of" says a lot about how you view the Constitution.

Whether you support something or not has no bearing on whether it's Constitutional. I would support banning minarets, but it's not Constitutional to do so and does not fall under the government's legal authority.

Oh no. Semantics. You got me. Because I used a different phrasing with similar meaning, I am teh monster.

If anything that undercuts your point, since something can be constitutional and also not earn your support. No matter how much I think the limits of the 5th amendment protections to only testimonial evidence are shit, I accept that the limits are constitutional.