Trump Administration: Rights Law Doesn't Protect Gays

THE DEPARTMENT
OF
JUSTICE
ISSUED ITS OWN OPINIONS ON HIS OWN
STATEMENT, DEVON O'MALLEY A JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SPOKESMAN
SAID THE BRIEF WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S
A LONG-STANDING POSITION IN THE HOLDINGS OF 10 DIFFERENT
COURT OF APPEALS MISTER O'MALLEY ADDING THAT THE FILING
REAFFIRMS THE DEPARTMENT'S FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF THAT THE
CANNOT EXPEND A LOT BEYOND WHAT CONGRESS HAS PROVIDED.
HERE IS WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT.
TITLE VII IS A PRETTY BROAD REACHING RED STATUE THAT DOESN'T
NECESSARILY OUTLINE EVER TO HAVE A PROTECTION THAT IT AFFORDS,
SO WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS UNDER THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS
INTERPRETIVE IN ONE WAY ANOTHER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT DURING
THEIR WEIGHT AROUND SAYING WE INTERPRETED TOTALLY DIFFERENTLY,
BUT THERE IS AN ACTUALLY FEDERAL PRECEDENT THAT IS BINDING HERE.
SCOTUS HASN'T SPOKE OUT ON THIS.
WITH THAT SAID, I WANT TO KNOW POLITICAL PARTIES ASIDE,
WHOSE INTERPRETATION IS CORRECT.
PREPARE TO BE A LITTLE SURPRISED AT LEAST AND DISAPPOINTED IN ME.
I AGREE WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
I AM FAIRLY CONSERVATIVE JUDICIALLY.
DON'T GET ME WRONG, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE POLICIES AT ALL.
THE IDEA THAT YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DISCRIMINATE
AGAINST LGBT COMMUNITY IS LOATHSOME, RIDICULOUS,
POSTURES, AND UN-AMERICAN.
BUT TITLE VII SAYS THAT YOU CANNOT STAMINA BASED ON
RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.
IT DOES IS A SEXUAL IDENTITY, AND IT SHOULD.
THEY SHOULD PASS A LAW IMMEDIATELY SAYING THAT,
BUT THEY HAVEN'T.
AND AS THE CONSERVATIVE LAWYERS POINT OUT HERE, OVER AND
OVER AGAIN CONGRESS HAS HAD EVERY OPPORTUNITY IN THE
WORLD TO PASS A LOT AND HAS CHOSEN NOT TO.
THIS IS WHERE AGAIN WHAT IT MEANS TO BE CONSERVATIVE
JUDICIALLY IS NOT POLITICALLY CONSERVATIVE, BUT TO SAY
WE'RE GOING TO INTERPRET WHAT IS IN THE LAW.
OFTENTIMES, I THINK SO-CALLED CONSERVATIVE JURORS WILL TWIST
THE LAW TO GET TO THEIR OWN OPINION, BUT IF YOU DON'T DO
THAT, YOU JUST LOOK AT THE TEXT OF THIS BILL, IT DOESN'T SAY
SEXUAL IDENTITY SO I ACTUALLY THINK THEY ARE RIGHT ABOUT THIS.
AGAIN, ONE LESS THING ABOUT WHAT I DISAGREE WITH THEM ABOUT.
CHUM CLAIMED THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE A BIGGER FRONT OF THE
LB GT COMMUNITY THAN HILLARY CLINTON OR ANYONE ELSE AND
IT WAS GOING TO MAKE YOUR HEAD SPIN.
NO, I TOLD YOU HE WAS FULL OF CRAP.
OF COURSE HE IS.
HE WAS NEVER GOING TO BE A FRIEND TO THE LGBT COMMUNITY.
IF HE WAS, EVEN IF HE DID THIS ON PRINCIPLE, LAUGH ALONG
WITH ME, HE WOULD THEN PROPOSE HEY, HE WOULD GET HIS FRIENDS IN
THE SENATE TO PROPOSE A BUILD UP A SEXUAL IDENTITY IN THE BILL.
HE ALWAYS INTENDED TO DISCRIMINATE.
FIRST OF ALL, IF I EVER GO SKYDIVING, I ONLY WANT TO
GO SKYDIVING WITH A GAY MAN, SO WET THAT JUST BE CLEAR.
REST IN PEACE, SIR.
BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHEN IT COMES
TO THIS, BECAUSE YOU GUYS BOTH SAID THE SAME THING TO ME THAT
YOU TOLD ME BEFORE THE SHOW, EVERYTHING THAT OBAMA DID, THIS
ADMINISTRATION IS SO FOCUSED ON DOING, UNDOING WHAT OBAMA
DID THAT THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE.
I GUESS TO PROVE TO THE PEOPLE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO
KEEP THEIR WORD, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO UPHOLD AND PUT AN
END, ENDORSED THEIR BIGOTRY.
IT IS JUST A FRUSTRATING.
IT IS LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THERE
ARE APPLES IN THE WHITE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE WHEN OBAMA
WAS PRESIDENT THROW THEM ALL OUT AND HAVE ONLY ORANGES.
IT'S LIKE CONSTANTLY LET'S GET RID OF THAT NAME.
EVEN PEOPLE AT RISK OF LOSING THEIR HEALTH CARE BECAUSE
THE NAME IS ATTACHED, BUT IT'S OBVIOUS AND ANNOYING.
BUT WHAT I THINK ABOUT THESE CONSERVATIVES THAT ARE
ALWAYS CLAIMING TO UPHOLD MORALITY, THEIR MORALITY IS
ALWAYS AT THE EXPENSE OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S HUMANITY
AND THAT IS WHAT IS SO FRUSTRATING THAT WE TO THIS
DAY, THE SHIRT THAT I SAW AT THE MARCH, THIS OLDER WHITE WOMAN.
SHE WAS MAYBE 70.
SHE WAS LIKE I CAN'T BELIEVE I STILL HAVE TO MARCH FOR THE SHIT.
THAT WE ARE STILL HAVING DEBATES ABOUT THE PEOPLE BEING ABLE
TO HAVE RIGHTS AND NOT BEING HARASSED AND DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST THAT WORKED OUT
CAN I BUILD UP THAT WILL QUICKENING GRACE, I'M SUPER
CURIOUS LIKE YOUR OPINION ON THIS.
DEMOCRATS, WHY DON'T YOU PROPOSE A BILL THAT PUTS SEXUAL
IDENTITY AND TITLE VII AND PUT THE REPUBLICANS ON THE
SPOT, BECAUSE HISTORY IS ON YOUR SIDE.
BEST OF ALL, THE PRESENT IS ON YOUR SIDE.
NOW A SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT LGBT
PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY HUMANS.
WHAT?
I KNOW, RIGHT?
AND SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYBODY ELSE.
YOU WOULD WIN TODAY AND THEN LATER, WHEN THAT NUMBER
MOVES TO WHATEVER IT IS TODAY,
57 WHATEVER IT IS TONIGHT 77 AND 97, YOU'LL HAVE THEM ON THE
RECORD AS THE PEOPLE WHO NEVER BELIEVED IN THE QUALITY AND
YOU NEVER BELIEVED IN AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
CENK UYGUR, THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE I STAND ON THIS.
I THINK THAT I WANT TO SEE ACTION FROM PEOPLE WHO
ASSERT THAT THEY ARE ALLIES FOR THE LGBT COMMUNITY TO
PROPOSE SOMETHING SO WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS SORT OF LEGAL
LOOPHOLE WHICH AGAIN, I HAD TO WRITE MY THOUGHTS DOWN BECAUSE
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY AN ISSUE I AM VERY CLOSE TO, AND IS NOTING
DIRECT THE DOJ IS NOT DEAD WRONG IN THEIR INTERPRETATION BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST BINDING PRIOR COURT DECISIONS.
WHAT IS GOING TO COME DOWN TO THE PROCLIVITIES OF THE
SECOND CIRCUIT WHICH FORTUNATELY IS A FAIRLY LIBERAL CIRCUIT
WITHOUT A TRUMP APPOINTEE BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST KIND
OF CROSSING OUR FINGERS THAT THEY WILL HAVE A LIBERAL
AND PROGRESSIVE INTERPRETATION OF TITLE 7.
WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO HOPE FOR THAT ANYMORE IN 2017.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE INTRODUCTION OF A BILL THAT
PEOPLE CAN VOTE ON SO THAT PEOPLE WILL GO ON THE
RECORD, ARE YOU AN ALLEY OR NOT?
IT WOULD BE SUCH AS CLEAR-CUT ISSUE.
YOU BELIEVE I SHOULD BE FIRED FOR BEING GAY?
I REALLY THINK THAT THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT BECAUSE IT
IS DISHEARTENING TO LOOK AT THIS AND THINK WELL, YEAH,
ACTUALLY UNFORTUNATELY THERE ISN'T A BINDING FEDERAL
PRECEDENT HERE AND THERE IS NO MENTION OF SEXUAL
ORIENTATION IN TITLE VII SO THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
WAS LENIENT ON THEIR INTERPRETATION AND
2014 2015 SAW SOME ADMINISTRATION MEMOS AND
ISSUES THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT TITLE VII IS TO PROTECT ON
THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION BUT NOTHING IN WRITING.
LET'S GET SOMETHING IN WRITING AND TAKE ACTION.
I'M NOT SATISFIED WITH JUST TRUSTING AND ADMINISTRATION
OF HER BEST INTEREST AT HEART BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT
WHAT THEY'RE DOING UNDER GENERAL SESSIONS.
THEY DON'T CARE.
IN FACT, THEY ARE ACTING
SPECIFICALLY, ALTHOUGH THEY DID ISSUE THIS AMICUS BRIEF,
THEY DIDN'T NEED TO.
THIS DIDN'T CONCERN THEM REALLY.
THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL FILING.
THEY JUST WANTED TO THROW THEIR WEIGHT AROUND JUST TO SAY,
JUST YOU KNOW, WE'RE THE NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN RIGHT NOW
SO DON'T GET TOO COMFORTABLE.
BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE IS THAT THEY TRY FEAR
LAMBDA LEGAL WILL COME OUT ISSUE ANOTHER THIRD-PARTY OPINION
AND THAT WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE THERE
IS A CORE ANALYSIS.
GAYS FOR TRUMP, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HASHTAG THERE ARE SO
MANY GAY PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR TRUMP.
I LAUGH AT THEM LIKE I LAUGH AT THE LATINAS FOR TRUMP, BUT
THERE ARE SO MANY GAY PEOPLE, AND THE PEOPLE WHO FOLLOW BELOW,
THE DEVIL GUY, THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE BEHIND THIS
AND THIS IS WITH EVERY GROUP THAT WAS SUPPORTING TRUMP.
IT IS YOUR TURN THIS TIME.
I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE I GET
HARASSED BY GAYS FOR TRUMP ON TWITTER.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK, BECAUSE I SPEAK OUT AGAINST TRUMP
AND THEYíRE LIKE, HEíS PROGRESSIVE.
BUT THEY ARE LIKE WE DONíT WANT
TO BE ATTACHED TO PEOPLE THAT NEED AND DON'T WANT TO PULL
THEMSELVES UP BY THE BOOTSTRAPS.
THAT APPLIES TO EVERY GROUP.
THERE ARE A LOT OF GAY ELITISTS OUT THERE WHO VOTED FOR
TRUMP AND NOW HERE IT IS.
YOU CAN BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AND HARASSED AT YOUR JOB
AND IT IS NOT AGAINST THE LAW.
NOW WHAT I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.
YOU WANT TO TWEET AT ME, TWEET ME ABOUT THAT.
LAST COUPLE OF THINGS ON THIS.
ONE IS, I KNOW THAT IT IS OPEN TO INTERPRETATION, BUT I
THINK YOU ARE REALLY STRETCHING INTERPRETIVELY TO SAY THAT
SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS IN THERE WHEN IT IS NOT.
I KNOW YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT ABOUT HEY, THESE ARE
GENERALLY PROTECTING RIGHTS.
I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT.
GOTTA BE HONEST, I DON'T AGREE WITH IT, THAT IS WHY ONE OF
BILL AND NOT JUST IN INTERPRETATION, BUT DON'T
THINK THEY'RE ACTING ON A PRINCIPAL.
HE DID THIS ON THE DAY THAT HE WAS GETTING TREMENDOUS HEAT
FOR THE RUSSIAN CONNECTIONS AND FIRING OF MOELLER.
HE DID THE TRAINS BEEN IN THE MILITARY AND THE SAME DAY.
IT IS REDMEAT FOR HIS BASE.
IT IS A VERY MINOR ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE LEGAL PRECEDENT
THAT IS BEING SET.
IT IS IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF CIVIL
RIGHTS, BUT THEY DIDN'T DO OUT OF PRINCIPLE RANDOMLY ON THIS
DAY.
ITíS THE REASON THE GAYS FOR TRUMP AND ALL
THOSE GUYS SAY THEY ARE PAPER, THEY WILL SAY THEY ARE IN
FAVOR OF THIS.
ALL THEY WANT IS ATTENTION.
HE DOESN'T ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT PROTECTING HIS BASE.
YOU CARE ABOUT ANYBODY BUT HIMSELF.
HERE, THIS IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SELF
AGGRANDIZE AND I WILL GET EVEN MORE ATTENTION FOR SAYING
I'M AGAINST GAYS WHEN I AM GAY.
YES, MY CAREER AT THE EXPENSE OF EVERYONE ELSE AND FINALLY,
EXACTLY RIGHT, ALL OF THE SUPPORTERS INCLUDING PETER
THIEL WHO IS A VERY WEALTHY SILICON VALLEY INVESTOR WHO
DID THAT SPEECH AT THE CONVENTION FOR DONALD TRUMP.
HE HAPPENS TO BE GAY.
HE IS LIKE TRUMP WILL BE FINE, I WANT MY
TAX CUTS.
WHAT NOW?
YOU WERE WRONG ABOUT THAT.
MAYBE YOU THINK I DON'T CARE, I WILL THROW THE REST OF MY
COMMUNITY UNDER THE BUS BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN
EXTRA BUCK BUT AT LEAST BE HONEST ABOUT IT BECAUSE
THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
BOOTSTRAPS, WELL, IF YOU WORK SUPER HARD AND YOU GOT A GREAT
JOB AND YOU PULLED YOURSELF UP BY THE BOOTSTRAPS, NOW THEY
CAN JUST FIRE YOU FOR BEING GAY, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DID.

Trump Administration: Rights Law Doesn't Protect Gays

Latest Posts