Related Posts

‘You Are The Worst Human Being’

“True stud” Elliot Page and “heartthrob” Mae Martin reunite after both coming out

Will the Biden administration retract a Trump-era policy harming LGBTQ refugees?

37 Comments on “LGBTQ+ Community Gets HISTORIC WIN Over Trump, Supreme Court Ruling”

  2. When they sort of thing happens in the UK the ruling becomes law it doesn't matter what the intention was there is new president the reason why this is because you're asking the court to make a decision because you can't so once they made that decision you have to respect it you did ask them to make a ruling

  4. Many of the comments added to this blog come from people that want the world to be as it was in the 1950s and before….I say just go back to your granddaddy's house, driver your 1959 pickup around your property that was passed on to you by your family, and continuing sucking up to idiots like Trump if it makes you feel important….but, leave real life to people who want to include all people into society….

  8. This has been law since 1964!
    Are there really that many people in this country that are so stupid that the Supreme Court had to pass the same exact law again to remind them that you aren’t allowed to discriminate based on gender?!

  9. Trump appoints judge that writes ruling for the right of LGBTQ+ community:
    >Title of video: "LGBTQ+ Community gets HISTORIC WIN over Trump, Supreme Court Ruling"
    Yes, that makes sense lol. Facepalm

  13. While his majesty and jester vice president Penis were making life harder for transgender to get housing , medical treatment and work this happened .🤣

  14. Im confused… why would this need a ruleing?? Why would they not be included… its not like we r wondering if cays and dogs fall under the act…

  15. What you're going to see from business owners across America is a thing called the law of unintended consequences. Because if a business owner is smart, then they wouldn't hire anyone it perceives to be LGBT for fear that if they fire someone from that community that they would be sued for discrimination even if it had nothing to do with their sexual orientation or gender identity.

    In Zarda which is one of the three cases SCOTUS ruled today the gay instructor wrapped his arms around a woman breast, before the jump, which she said made her uncomfortable. To which the gay instructor told her that don't worry I'm gay.

    What does his sexual orientation has to do with her telling him that she was uncomfortable with him wrapping his arms around her breast??!??!

    That gay instructor was fired because of his conduct! So now with this SCOTUS ruling, a business owner would take a chance of being sued out of existence if it hires anyone from the LGBT.

  17. Ben Shapiro is a piece of shit. I wish people would stop paying any attention to him at all so he loses all relevance

  18. Please implement a permanent UBI now! Then we can transition to a RBE. Also support the Money Free Party and The Venus Project so we can finally go beyond politics poverty and war. That is if we wish to make it as a species.

  30. yea but 3 days eariler on the anniversary of the pulse shooting, the administration took away the protections for transgender people for non discriminatory medical coverage. They basically say insurances and practicing medical professionals can now deny coverage or care based on transgender statuses. Yall gonna cover that?

  34. I don’t agree with the fact that LGBT status itself is covered in the civil rights act. However, it’s clear when the law was written it was intended to protect people, and if it were written today, LGBT folks would be covered.

    But you’ve got to love how they argued it to work it into title VII. That was amazing advocacy, truly masterful.

    It is clear if it was someone of a different sex, they would not have a problem with it. That is technically true, the bigots wouldn’t care about the persons partner being a man, unless the person who has the male partner is male. It’s the person in questions sex that they have a problem with given their partner or choices of clothing.

    Though this doesn’t actually state gender identity is protected. The ruling actually states that you are discriminating on the basis of their sex. You don’t have a problem with women’s cloths, UNLESS it’s a MAN wearing them. That is the key, it doesn’t affirm gender identity, actually quite the opposite. They are affirming the birth sex of trans folks, but protecting their right to dress however they desire, as it would be discriminating on the basis of what people of that sex SHOULD wear.

    So, yes, it gives the same protections on the basis of gender identity, but does so by denying their gender identity. That is a twist isn’t it.

Comments are closed.