Anonymous ID: 5c138e June 15, 2020, 6:18 p.m. No.9627264   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7296 >>7308 >>7431

>>9627165

POTUS said it's a powerful decision. Of course, these issues are used as wedges to divide us. But if you try to step outside of that knee-jerk reaction, I don't see a problem with the decision. I haven't read the decision. And I can only imagine how the left would like to use this kind of law to further abrogate our freedoms…but on the face of it, why should it be legal to fire someone "ONLY FOR BEING GAY." That's all it says, according to this story. Now when POTUS says it's a "powerful decision," I wonder if there's something else hidden within the language of the decision. But I ain't relying on the left or the right to tell me how to feel about this one.

Anonymous ID: 5c138e June 15, 2020, 6:24 p.m. No.9627332   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7347 >>7358 >>7421 >>7469

>>9627296

I still don't have a problem with that. Why should it be ok to fire someone "ONLY BECAUSE HE'S TRANS"? Unless you believe you should be able to fire anyone, for any reason, at any time, un-related to their job performance. Like I should be able to fire you because I hate your shoes. Or don't like your cologne. Or because you looked at me funny in a board meeting. Maybe we should allow for that kind of world, I don't know. But if we don't allow for that sort of capricious firing in our country, why should you be able to fire anyone "JUST BECAUSE HE'S TRANS"? Surely there has to be more basis for a firing than that?

 

My bigger concern is what else is hidden in the language. The Cabal always uses rational fairness on the face of it to hide a lot more insidious intentions. Good people don't like the idea of people being fired just for being gay, and they're correct in that feeling, but then they overlook the more insidious implications when such laws are extended beyond this basic tenet of fairness.

Anonymous ID: 5c138e June 15, 2020, 6:26 p.m. No.9627359   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>9627308

That might be true. That goes to complicated questions of the power of a court vs legislature, and I would have to hear it explained why this isn't within the court's purview to interpret the law. Maybe it's over-reach.

Anonymous ID: 5c138e June 15, 2020, 6:29 p.m. No.9627401   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>9627347

Sounds like the decision is just trying to get people worked up into more division arguments. Us vs them. Gay vs straight. What perfect timing too, right int he midst of race riots. Feels manufactured. Again, a perfectly reasonable decision (maybe) but the timing feels like it's stoking more division between left and right over something that is not really that pressing. I mean, is anyone really just fired for being gay these days and that's it? How would you even prove that anyhow? We all know people get fired every day just because the boss doesn't like you, and they just find a reason. Very hard to argue. Feels like division tactics to me, and if Gorsuch is playing that game, well then he is a satanist.