• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House passes sweeping anti-discrimination bill to expand protections of LGBT people

AGENT J

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,077
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Equality Act 2019: House passes sweeping anti-discrimination bill to expand protections of LGBT people - CBS News
House passes sweeping anti-discrimination bill to expand protections of LGBT people

Democrats in the House have approved a sweeping anti-discrimination bill that would extend civil rights protections to LGBT people by prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure passed a vote of 236 yeas to 173 nays with eight Republicans joining Democrats in support of the bill. Called the Equality Act, the legislation updates existing federal nondiscrimination laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, to confirm that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is unlawful discrimination based on sex. It would extend protections to employment, housing, loan applications, education, public accommodations and other areas. The bill is a top priority of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said it will bring the nation "closer to equal liberty and justice for all." Co-sponsor of the bill, Rep. David N. Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, said the "LGBT community has waited nearly 250 years" for such legislation to pass.

"Equal treatment under the law and a commitment to fairness and equality are founding values of our country. Discrimination of any kind is wrong and no one should ever be treated as less than equal because of who they are or who they love," said Cicilline
Click to expand...
backup links:
Houses passes Equality Act to increase protections for sexual orientation and gender identity - CNNPolitics
Equality Act: House OKs Pelosi priority bill to expand gay rights
House Equality Act Extends Civil Rights Protections to Gay and Transgender People - The New York Times


Its a shame that things are so partisan that this will be shot down in the senate or by Trump himself but at least its being tried and rightfully so. Good Job!!!
Regardless full and equal civil rights protections for LGBT will happen in my life time and its an awesome thing equality is winning and bigotry is dying.

what is the equality act?
Equality Act (United States) - Wikipedia

The Equality Act is a bill in the United States Congress, that, if passed, would amend the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.[SUP][1][/SUP] As of 2019, 30 states have not outlawed LGBT discrimination, with members of the LGBT community being given very little protection at a national level[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] and two-thirds of LGBT Americans reporting facing experienced discrimination in their personal lives. The Equality Act seeks to remedy this lack of protection, applying existing state anti-LGBT discrimination laws nationwide.

The United States is currently one of the few Western nations not to outlaw anti-LGBT discrimination in employment nationally.
The Equality Act passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019. It is currently awaiting consideration by the United States Senate.[SUP][9][/SUP]
Click to expand...
 
isn't there already a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation?
 
All Trump and the republonitwits have to do is say that we cannot support a bill that allows biological males to compete with biological females.. Done, win, drop the mic. The majority of American (yes dimwits too) despise what's happening to girls athletics.. It's a none loser for the GOP, are they smart enough to read the leaves?


Tim-
 
A substantial majority of Americans support this bill.
A majority of Republicans support this bill.

Eight Republicans voted for this bill.
 
Roadvirus said:
isn't there already a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

This bill expands such coverage. (and obviously expands transgender protections)
 
Hicup said:
All Trump and the republonitwits have to do is say that we cannot support a bill that allows biological males to compete with biological females.. Done, win, drop the mic. The majority of American (yes dimwits too) despise what's happening to girls athletics.. It's a none loser for the GOP, are they smart enough to read the leaves?


Tim-
Click to expand...

I haven't read the bill's text yet like you have, can you copy the section that does this for us?
 
House approves sweeping bill to expand gay rights

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., called the legislation "grossly misnamed" and said it is "anything but equalizing."

The bill "hijacks" the 1964 Civil Rights Act to create "a brave new world of 'discrimination' based on undefined terms of sexual orientation and gender identity," Hartzler said. The legislation threatens women's sports, shelters and schools, and could silence female athletes, domestic abuse survivors and other women, she said.


Some critics also said the bill could jeopardize Title IX, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Former tennis star Martina Navratilova co-wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post urging lawmakers not to "make the unnecessary and ironic mistake of sacrificing the enormously valuable social good that is female sports in their effort to secure the rights of transgender women and girls."
 
ocean515 said:
House approves sweeping bill to expand gay rights

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., called the legislation "grossly misnamed" and said it is "anything but equalizing."

The bill "hijacks" the 1964 Civil Rights Act to create "a brave new world of 'discrimination' based on undefined terms of sexual orientation and gender identity," Hartzler said. The legislation threatens women's sports, shelters and schools, and could silence female athletes, domestic abuse survivors and other women, she said.


Some critics also said the bill could jeopardize Title IX, the law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs. Former tennis star Martina Navratilova co-wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post urging lawmakers not to "make the unnecessary and ironic mistake of sacrificing the enormously valuable social good that is female sports in their effort to secure the rights of transgender women and girls."
Click to expand...

If anyone is concerned about this, they should paste the specific provision they believe risks this.
 
I guess I am as liberal as they come, but I cannot get behind this bill as is.

It is almost as if they designed a bill to make a political point knowing full well it is probably dead on arrival in the Senate, let alone making it past the President’s desk.

Don’t get me wrong, there are aspects of the bill that make sense in terms of job protections and so forth along the lines of the Civil Rights act it attempts to amend. But Democrats may have taken it too far and that discounts the very group they claim they are trying to protect.

The whole thing may just end up a campaign stunt, and that further does a disservice to the LGBT community.
 
Deuce said:
If anyone is concerned about this, they should paste the specific provision they believe risks this.
Click to expand...

This is nothing more or less than the attempt back in the 1970's when the anti-religious haters attempted to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Had that passed back then, we would be where we are today with homosexual and transgendered confusion in society back then. Not knowing which bathroom to use or hold it until you get home. Not knowing whether to join the boys team or the girls team. Destroying the 1st Amendment of the freedom of religion and free expression of religion, as well as free speech. I agree with Martina that this just hurts people and society in general.
 
Cougarbear said:
This is nothing more or less than the attempt back in the 1970's when the anti-religious haters attempted to pass the Equal Rights Amendment. Had that passed back then, we would be where we are today with homosexual and transgendered confusion in society back then. Not knowing which bathroom to use or hold it until you get home. Not knowing whether to join the boys team or the girls team. Destroying the 1st Amendment of the freedom of religion and free expression of religion, as well as free speech. I agree with Martina that this just hurts people and society in general.
Click to expand...

So does firing people for being gay
 
OrphanSlug said:
I guess I am as liberal as they come, but I cannot get behind this bill as is.

It is almost as if they designed a bill to make a political point knowing full well it is probably dead on arrival in the Senate, let alone making it past the President’s desk.

Don’t get me wrong, there are aspects of the bill that make sense in terms of job protections and so forth along the lines of the Civil Rights act it attempts to amend. But Democrats may have taken it too far and that discounts the very group they claim they are trying to protect.

The whole thing may just end up a campaign stunt, and that further does a disservice to the LGBT community.
Click to expand...

Paste the section you would like removed.
 
Roadvirus said:
isn't there already a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation?
Click to expand...
Overview
EEOC interprets and enforces Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination as forbidding any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. These protections apply regardless of any contrary state or local laws.

Through investigation, conciliation, and litigation of charges by individuals against private sector employers, as well as hearings and appeals for federal sector workers, the Commission has taken the position that existing sex discrimination provisions in Title VII protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) applicants and employees against employment bias. The Commission has obtained approximately $6.4 million in monetary relief for individuals, as well as numerous employer policy changes, in voluntary resolutions of LGBT discrimination charges under Title VII since data collection began in 2013. A growing number of court decisions have endorsed the Commission's interpretation of Title VII.
Click to expand...
What You Should Know: EEOC and Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers

but this is based on current INTERPRETATION of the law. the present measure under discussion would definitize that protection

here is the EEOC's present coverage:
EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate in employment against a job applicant, employee, or former employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
Click to expand...
nothing there specifically covers sexual orientation or gender identification

eeoc protections - Google Search
 
vegas giants said:
So does firing people for being gay
Click to expand...

There are already laws against this. However, if the person is working for a Church, then there is the 1st Amendment that protects the Church on having to have someone gay work for them. Other than that, the laws prohibit firing someone for being gay. But, why would someone want to continue to work in that job if the boss hates you? Get a new job!
 
Cougarbear said:
There are already laws against this. However, if the person is working for a Church, then there is the 1st Amendment that protects the Church on having to have someone gay work for them. Other than that, the laws prohibit firing someone for being gay. But, why would someone want to continue to work in that job if the boss hates you? Get a new job!
Click to expand...

No they do not. And a church can not fire someone who is black for religious reasons. It is ridiculous
 
Cougarbear said:
There are already laws against this. However, if the person is working for a Church, then there is the 1st Amendment that protects the Church on having to have someone gay work for them. Other than that, the laws prohibit firing someone for being gay. But, why would someone want to continue to work in that job if the boss hates you? Get a new job!
Click to expand...

so, your last boss was gay and posed no issue regarding gender orientation
now that you are approaching retirement you have a new boss who is very retarded regarding sexual orientation
one is supposed to abandon their career and pending retirement only because the new boss is an ignorant asshole?
 
AGENT J said:
Equality Act 2019: House passes sweeping anti-discrimination bill to expand protections of LGBT people - CBS News

backup links:
Houses passes Equality Act to increase protections for sexual orientation and gender identity - CNNPolitics
Equality Act: House OKs Pelosi priority bill to expand gay rights
House Equality Act Extends Civil Rights Protections to Gay and Transgender People - The New York Times


Its a shame that things are so partisan that this will be shot down in the senate or by Trump himself but at least its being tried and rightfully so. Good Job!!!
Regardless full and equal civil rights protections for LGBT will happen in my life time and its an awesome thing equality is winning and bigotry is dying.

what is the equality act?
Equality Act (United States) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

This is a horrible piece of legislation that must be defeated!

This would give men the right to enter any women's only or girl's only facility at will, as long as they use the magic words "I identify as a women". This would allow a girls junior high school basketball coach to enter the girls locker room, watch 11 and 12 year old girls shower and the school not only couldn't fire him, but would be absolutely helpless to stop him from doing this... All because he used the magic words "I identify as a woman".

This law would also give biological men the right to compete in women's sports, which I have posted a lot about the last week or so.

How can ANYONE support a bill that would legalize both the exploitation and endangerment of women like this bill would do?

.
 
AGENT J said:
Equality Act 2019: House passes sweeping anti-discrimination bill to expand protections of LGBT people - CBS News

backup links:
Houses passes Equality Act to increase protections for sexual orientation and gender identity - CNNPolitics
Equality Act: House OKs Pelosi priority bill to expand gay rights
House Equality Act Extends Civil Rights Protections to Gay and Transgender People - The New York Times


Its a shame that things are so partisan that this will be shot down in the senate or by Trump himself but at least its being tried and rightfully so. Good Job!!!
Regardless full and equal civil rights protections for LGBT will happen in my life time and its an awesome thing equality is winning and bigotry is dying.

what is the equality act?
Equality Act (United States) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Good job playing political games and engaging in worthless virtue signaling for political points in 2020.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I guess I am as liberal as they come, but I cannot get behind this bill as is.

It is almost as if they designed a bill to make a political point knowing full well it is probably dead on arrival in the Senate, let alone making it past the President’s desk.

Don’t get me wrong, there are aspects of the bill that make sense in terms of job protections and so forth along the lines of the Civil Rights act it attempts to amend. But Democrats may have taken it too far and that discounts the very group they claim they are trying to protect.

The whole thing may just end up a campaign stunt, and that further does a disservice to the LGBT community.
Click to expand...

/Thread
 
Deuce said:
Paste the section you would like removed.
Click to expand...

Not so much about a particular section, this law was aimed at amending the prior Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And that means dealing with Constructs of Law, placing Gender Identity in all of those sections as is further clouds what "accommodations" means in terms of everything from employment applications to public school sporting designations to basic restroom design.

Dealing with discrimination is one thing for Transgenders, weaponizing the unknown is very different.
 
Roadvirus said:
isn't there already a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation?
Click to expand...

nope and this bill isnt just about sexual orientation. Some of the protections for sexual orientation have been rolled back and some only apply to government.
This is about sexual orientation and gender identity being included in a civilrights manner under sex (of like sex) and religion and race etc.

This wont be the bill to do based on partisan and bigotry but it will happen in my life time.
 
Deuce said:
A substantial majority of Americans support this bill.
A majority of Republicans support this bill.

Eight Republicans voted for this bill.
Click to expand...

yep so vary sad that again partisanship gets in the way of equality
 
Deuce said:
If anyone is concerned about this, they should paste the specific provision they believe risks this.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

and the common sense thing is . . IF . . i havent seen any evidence of the extremists claims . . but if there are unforeseen or seen repercussion of this bill then you simply address it like everything else. Thats how it works, in reality theres no dooms day because of this, theres no other people losing their rights so you simply move one and fix it because civil rights is more important.

it would be like if slavery didnt end simply because somebody said "whos gonna pick the cotton" or women didnt get equal rights because somebody said "whos gonna be in the kitchen". Trying to induce irrational panic is nonsense. Its pure dishonesty and transparent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom