Equality Act

Strathos said:

Actually it was on coins since the beginning.

Click to expand...

Nope. It first appeared (briefly) on coinage around the time of the Civil War. And then only became universal and codified in law in the 1950s.

essentialsaltes said:

Nope. It first appeared (briefly) on coinage around the time of the Civil War. And then only became regular in the 1950s.

Click to expand...

Right, I was confusing it with the Great Seal.

3 Republican Reps voted for the bill:

Three GOP Congressmen Voted to Pass the Democrats’ Radical “Equality Act”

tall73 said:

If there are no genders, merge the sports into one. If there are two genders then you need to take other factors into account.

Click to expand...

or perhaps a third option would be in order, the trans-gendered. Allow them to have their own competitions and treat it similarly to women's sports under Title IX

98cwitr said:

And the states...are they secular as well?

Click to expand...

Yes

Ringo84 said:

I can't say for sure if this applies in your case or not, but one of the oldest tricks in the book for those who want to discriminate against LGBTQ+ is to hide behind "But what about the children?!" and "But what about women's sports?".

I'm not saying that this is what you're doing with your daughter; I'm sure your concern for her is genuine. But complaining about women being brutalized in sports because of mean trans individuals competing with them is a common, disingenuous argument.
Ringo

Click to expand...

I think people on both sides have legit concerns to work out.
Attributing base and ignoble purposes is counter productive.
Both sides need to quit it,

Some concerns are valid, but that doesn't mean that they all are valid or even made in good faith.
Ringo

tall73 said:

Note my later post where I note that, and link to more data on the issue.

However, the issues are not unrelated either.

Click to expand...

one has to be transgender to have gender dysphoria but that doesn't mean being transgender is an "issue"

Erik Nelson said:

3 Republican Reps voted for the bill:

Three GOP Congressmen Voted to Pass the Democrats’ Radical “Equality Act”

Click to expand...

a sad commentary on the majority of republicans in the House

Ringo84 said:

Some concerns are valid, but that doesn't mean that they all are valid or even made in good faith.
Ringo

Click to expand...

So don't suggest otherwise

SilverBear said:

one has to be transgender to have gender dysphoria but that doesn't mean being transgender is an "issue"

Click to expand...

Gender dysphoria is related to the transgender issue/subject/discussion/topic because as you stated, those who have gender dysphoria are transgender.

Those who do have gender dysphoria have a mental disorder. Therefore a subset of total transgender people do have a mental disorder.

EDIT: I think it even goes to far too say that those who have gender dysphoria are transgendered. One is a diagnosis of a confluence of symptoms at a given time, the other is an identity. But they are still related topics.

Estrid said:

So don't suggest otherwise

Click to expand...

If you're not strong enough to be able to discuss this issue without making bigoted arguments, perhaps you should exit now. It shouldn't be that hard.
Ringo

tall73 said:

Gender dysphoria is related to the transgender issue/subject/discussion/topic because as you stated, those who have gender dysphoria are transgender.

Those who do have gender dysphoria have a mental disorder. Therefore a subset of total transgender people do have a mental disorder.

Click to expand...

A is a prerequisite for B. B and A are not the same thing

SilverBear said:

A is a prerequisite for B. B and A are not the same thing

Click to expand...

Nor did I say they were.

B is a subset of the larger group A.

EDIT:
I would probably say some in b are a subset of the larger group A.

I think it even goes too far to say that those who have gender dysphoria are transgendered. One is a diagnosis of a confluence of symptoms at a given time, the other is an identity. But they are still related topics.

98cwitr said:

"we are a secular [Republic]" (we're not a democracy)

Click to expand...

Actually, we are a democratic republic. A republic because governing authority is vested in institutions populated by elected representatives of the people as opposed to governing authority being directly vested in individuals, and a democratic republic because those representatives are elected through universal suffrage elections and ultimate political power is vested in the people as a whole not a narrow subset.

In common conversation, in political science literature, in government documents, in treaties, effectively everywhere that matters, the shorthand term for "democratic republic" is "democracy," because it is the democratic nature of that republic that matters, not the fact that it is a republic.

Back when our country was founded republics were rare, most nations were monarchies, wherein governing authority is vested in individuals as opposed to institutions. The counterpoint to "republic" is "monarchy."

Similarly, the counterpoint to a "democracy" in modern parlance is an "autocracy." The Soviet Union, Iran, the People's Republic of China all were or are republics, but not democratic republics, instead autocratic republics.

Living, as we do, in a world where almost every nation is a republic, the important concern is whether that nation is a democratic republic, referred to as a "democracy", or an autocratic republic, referred to as a "dictatorship."

So you can be smarmy about terminology, but the fact is that the usage you are insisting on is not how the word is used in modern colloquial English, or in the academic or professional settings that deal with these matters.

You've got a "I like to insist 'democracy' only be used as it was in the 18th Century" fetish, but the rest of us don't have to accommodate your kink.

Aldebaran said:

Lie # 12: Churches could be prevented from requiring employees to abide by their biblical beliefs about marriage and differences between men and women.

they can't do this now.

Lie #15: " asking in interviews if potential employees share core religious beliefs"
employers can't ask about your religious beliefs now.

Click to expand...

The courts seem to have carved out one exception to the above, the "ministerial exception."

I am posting a link to Wikipedia just as a summary, any particulars should be based on the actual case decisions.

Ministerial exception

tall73 said:

The courts seem to have carved out one exception to the above, the "ministerial exception."

I am posting a link to Wikipedia just as a summary, any particulars should be based on the actual case decisions.

Ministerial exception

Click to expand...

I found it interesting that the case law cited in the WIKI involves Churches acting in a rather shoddy way towards teachers that is contrary to the ADA. Rather sad that a law that could easily be seen as enforcing Christian values of fairness and compassion is something some Churches want to avoid complying with.

Equally notable is that there is not a single case involving a religious group declining to hire or firing someone in a borderline ministerial position because of not toeing the line on doctrinal issues or being outside the faith.