• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

The Mom

Moderator
Premium Member
I'm not allowed to respond much lest it be moderated...so I will just say this long winded response of yours is a perfect example of what I meant when I mentioned you and your sensitivity. Renting space? It's a bizzaro world in here. I don't think by any means that the Right in here are a fair representation of the Right in general in America. If it was Ron Paul would be president, and the polls calling for some gun control would be show little support from Republicans. But let's just say we don't converse any further and both be happy.
You can post as much as you want - as long as you follow the "no personal attacks" guidelines.
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
I read that story. It just seems "off" to me, but time will tell.
Entirely way too early IMO.

In this day and age it’s enough to just make an accusation and people believe it wholeheartedly. Social Media amplifies it.

Like Kavanaugh, like Smolett, etc, far better to let the investigation run its course and let the facts come out.
 

Quinnmac000

Well-Known Member
WASHINGTON (AP) — A top Trump administration official said Tuesday that the famous inscription on the Statue of Liberty welcoming immigrants into the country is about “people coming from Europe” and that America is looking to receive migrants “who can stand on their own two feet.”

“This administration finally admitted what we’ve known all along: They think the Statue of Liberty only applies to white people,” tweeted former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, a Democratic presidential candidate.

The administration’s proposed policy shift comes as President Donald Trump is leaning more heavily into the restrictive immigration policies that have energized his core supporters and were central to his 2016 victory. He has also spoken disparagingly about immigration from majority black and Hispanic countries, including calling Mexican immigrants rapists and criminals when he launched his 2016 campaign. Last year, he privately branded Central American and African nations as “****hole” countries and he suggested the U.S. take in more immigrants from European countries like predominantly white Norway.

Cuccinelli said in an interview with CNN on Tuesday night that the Emma Lazarus poem emblazoned on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty referred to “people coming from Europe where they had class based societies where people were considered wretched if they weren’t in the right class.”

https://apnews.com/290fe000b4584ddca46a6eb36a74a703
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
You can post as much as you want - as long as you follow the "no personal attacks" guidelines.
Walk up to someone today and tell them you rent space in their head and see if that isn't taken as a personal insult. I would think such a statement would warrant a response that saying something like that is what a narcissist would but that is too insulting? Ok...
 

raven24

Well-Known Member
I hope you do. You won't regret it.
I hope so too.

I just came back from a month in Europe. I felt lighter there, healthier, happier. I ate a lot of carbs but actually lost weight because the food there doesn’t have all kinds of unhealthy and harmful ingredients in it. The people were very friendly and I loved walking around.

As soon as I landed back in the U.S., my legs and feet swelled, the two recent shootings occurred, and once I started eating the food here again, I began to feel sick.

I want something different. It won’t happen anytime soon, but I hope I can make it happen within the next 10 years or sooner.
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
I forgot the whole claim by Trump to eliminate the deficit in 8 years, keeping up with the lies...err broken promises is dizzying.
 

Dead2009

Well-Known Member
Entirely way too early IMO.

In this day and age it’s enough to just make an accusation and people believe it wholeheartedly. Social Media amplifies it.

Like Kavanaugh, like Smolett, etc, far better to let the investigation run its course and let the facts come out.
At the same time CNN's anchors are quick to run with the narrative that things are automatically true so I dont feel sorry for him.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
Supreme Court is going to be seeing the case of LGBT members being fired from places or work due to sexuality on October 8th. As well as the other case of a transgendered woman being fired.
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
Supreme Court is going to be seeing the case of LGBT members being fired from places or work due to sexuality on October 8th. As well as the other case of a transgendered woman being fired.
So I went and chose this Reuters article and here are my thoughts:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-companies/major-companies-call-on-u-s-supreme-court-to-rule-in-favor-of-lgbt-workers-idUSKCN1TX26A

(I know you didn't mention this but I will)

More than 200 U.S. companies, including Amazon (AMZN.O), Alphabet Inc’s Google (GOOGL.O), and Bank of America (BAC.N), on Tuesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination against gay and transgender workers. The companies filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that bias against LGBT people is a form of unlawful sex discrimination, and said a ruling otherwise would harm businesses and workers.

The above of the epitome of absurdity, and reflects the terrible politicization of the judicial system in the US. It's absolutely laughable that these companies feel as though they are in any position to instruct the court on said issues. It also suggests that they are confused as to the purview and mandate upon the court, which is simply to rule on constitutionality.

In a ruling in that case last month, the court sided with a Colorado baker who refused, citing his Christian beliefs, to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. But the court stopped short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

This one is a differently matter entirely. That aside, the court got it right.

In terms of the core issue -Title VII protections against anti-discrimination, I'm inclined to believe that these should in fact extend to homosexuals. Trans is not even the same thing IMO, and the court may struggle with matters of definition there.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
So I went and chose this Reuters article and here are my thoughts:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-companies/major-companies-call-on-u-s-supreme-court-to-rule-in-favor-of-lgbt-workers-idUSKCN1TX26A

(I know you didn't mention this but I will)

More than 200 U.S. companies, including Amazon (AMZN.O), Alphabet Inc’s Google (GOOGL.O), and Bank of America (BAC.N), on Tuesday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination against gay and transgender workers. The companies filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that bias against LGBT people is a form of unlawful sex discrimination, and said a ruling otherwise would harm businesses and workers.

The above of the epitome of absurdity, and reflects the terrible politicization of the judicial system in the US. It's absolutely laughable that these companies feel as though they are in any position to instruct the court on said issues. It also suggests that they are confused as to the purview and mandate upon the court, which is simply to rule on constitutionality.

In a ruling in that case last month, the court sided with a Colorado baker who refused, citing his Christian beliefs, to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. But the court stopped short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

This one is a differently matter entirely. That aside, the court got it right.

In terms of the core issue -Title VII protections against anti-discrimination, I'm inclined to believe that these should in fact extend to homosexuals. Trans is not even the same thing IMO, and the court may struggle with matters of definition there.
I mean... I don’t think anyone should ever be fired for just being. You lose your job if you can’t do the job, or have bad work ethic/warnings, and or employee cuts. That’s it.
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
I mean... I don’t think anyone should ever be fired for just being. You lose your job if you can’t do the job, or have bad work ethic/warnings, and or employee cuts. That’s it.
I agree 100%. But what we're talking about here are legal issues/protections of the highest order (interpreting the constitution). I don't what it is in Canada but in the US, many states are "right to work" states. That means either the employee or employer can terminate the relationship "just because". Title VII protections create another dimension wherein they often redefine this employer/employee relationship by imposing the question, "was your termination because of 'X' ". Legally interpreting and applying the constitution is anything as simple
as "That’s it".
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
When my wife and her family came to the US from Italy, they and their sponsor had to sign a document that he would personally be responsible for them and they could not go on welfare. I love immigration and realize how beneficial immigrants are to society but we need the old laws. We should welcome everyone who wants to come and assimilate but not subsidize them.
 

Disney Analyst

Well-Known Member
I agree 100%. But what we're talking about here are legal issues/protections of the highest order (interpreting the constitution). I don't what it is in Canada but in the US, many states are "right to work" states. That means either the employee or employer can terminate the relationship "just because". Title VII protections create another dimension wherein they often redefine this employer/employee relationship by imposing the question, "was your termination because of 'X' ". Legally interpreting and applying the constitution is anything as simple
as "That’s it".
I do not believe there is a province that would allow any firing for any reason aside from performance.

Our worker protections are pretty hefty. Any firing of a member due to sexuality would likely go against our charter of rights and freedoms.

Legal protection
In 1996, the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to specifically include sexual orientation as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. This inclusion was a clear declaration by Parliament that gay, lesbian and bisexual Canadians are entitled to "an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives they are able and wish to have [...]" (section 2).

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is responsible for monitoring the application of the Act, gives further information about human rights and sexual orientation. Complaints, progress and other activities are all included in the Commission's annual reports.

Within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 15 states that every individual is to be considered equal regardless of religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, sex, age or physical or mental disability.

In Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513, the Supreme Court of Canada held that although "sexual orientation" is not listed as a ground for discrimination in section 15(1) of the Charter, it constitutes an equivalent ground on which claims of discrimination may be based. In Vriend v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493, the Court held that provincial human rights legislation that left out the ground of sexual orientation violated section 15(1).
 

draybook

Well-Known Member
Some should.



Nobody can ever say “problem solved.”

Problem reduced. Guaranteed.

“your proposal is to eliminate? Reduce the availability of? Further restrict? one particular weapon and claim that will substantially reduce deaths due to individuals intent on causing destruction because, well, they can't get an AR-15 or fire as many bullets in 60 seconds?”

Well, yes, the weapon(s) that are most often being used to cause the problem we are actually talking about.

When you’re done acting all incredulous, refute it.

You give criminals and psychos too much credit.

“I’m a 21 year old loser with no friends and I don’t like (insert minority here.) But I’m an amazing shot, so I don’t really need an AR-15 (I can just kick people really hard and really fast or poison their water) but I’m exercising my 2a rights.

People are more likely to try to jump me and stop me if I’m using a revolver, especially if I have to reload more often, but that’s not why I brought my Walmart AR. It doesn’t give me any advantage.”

If there’s no difference, you won’t mind banning it.

Then again, there’s been all that water poisoning in the UK and Australia. Rampant water poisoning.

You’re boring me.

Walmart hasn't sold AR-15's in 4 years. I would go out on a limb to say that most of the rifles (if not all) used in every mass shooting were NOT purchased at Walmart. The fact that you said "Well, yes, the weapon(s) that are most often being used to cause the problem we are actually talking about." shows that you're both uninformed AND only concerned with people who die in mass shootings and not in the daily ones. That's easy to determine based on the FACT(which I keep repeating) that rifles of ANY kind are used in a small portion of shootings. You also keep ignoring the fact that you don't have to "keep reloading" because handguns can get drums up to 100 rounds.

Seriously, I don't mind continuously schooling you on this subject but at some point it becomes tedious.
 
Last edited:

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
I agree 100%. But what we're talking about here are legal issues/protections of the highest order (interpreting the constitution). I don't what it is in Canada but in the US, many states are "right to work" states. That means either the employee or employer can terminate the relationship "just because". Title VII protections create another dimension wherein they often redefine this employer/employee relationship by imposing the question, "was your termination because of 'X' ". Legally interpreting and applying the constitution is anything as simple
as "That’s it".
Even in at-will employment scenarios the employer can’t fire an employee on the basis of race, sex, age, religion, disability, etc.

I mean, they can, but they can be sued for discrimination under the Civil Rights Act. However, the CRA does not mention sexuality, hence the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court isn‘t going to add sexuality to the list. The Supreme Court of Canada apparently has a broader range of interpretive power than the Supreme Court of the United States.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom