Current Events Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
BCSooners said:
You compared their rights with felons & child molesters.
Click to expand...

Nope. I showed how his state was wrong with felons and child molestors. He literally said this "Nobody should discriminate against anyone else for any reason. A persons actions and behavior should determine their employment. "

That is patently false. I never compared child molesters to homosexuals. Never even hinted at it
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
Nope. I showed how his state was wrong with felons and child molestors. He literally said this "Nobody should discriminate against anyone else for any reason. A persons actions and behavior should determine their employment. "

That is patently false. I never compared child molesters to homosexuals. Never even hinted at it
Click to expand...

Those people lost some of their rights when they broke the law. Being gay isn’t breaking the law. Not even close to the conversation that was happening.
 
BCSooners said:
Those people lost some of their rights when they broke the law. Being gay isn’t breaking the law. Not even close to the conversation that was happening.
Click to expand...

Again, I was referring to his statement. It was wrong. If he didn't mean what he said, he can edit it and offer clarification
 
Taking a step away from my personal feelings, and regardless of how you guys personally feel on the topic, do you guys not see an issue with the supreme court redefining a term in a ~60 year old statute?
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
Taking a step away from my personal feelings, and regardless of how you guys personally feel on the topic, do you guys not see an issue with the supreme court redefining a term in a ~60 year old statute?
Click to expand...

Why does the age of the statute matter? Slavery was the law of the land for over 100 years, should we have left that alone too?
 
steverocks35 said:
Why does the age of the statute matter? Slavery was the law of the land for over 100 years, should we have left that alone too?
Click to expand...

Because it is pretty obvious what the word sex meant in the past. Again, taking my opinion out of it, the definitions of words change over time. That is pretty much what the SCOTUS has said with this ruling. So when a law is put into place at a certain point of time, it should be interpreted with the timeframe in mind of when it was put in place.
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
Because it is pretty obvious what the word sex meant in the past. Again, taking my opinion out of it, the definitions of words change over time. That is pretty much what the SCOTUS has said with this ruling. So when a law is put into place at a certain point of time, it should be interpreted with the timeframe in mind of when it was put in place.
Click to expand...

Actually no that's exactly backwards. If the letter of the law is written in stone then what you end up with is a legal code that doesn't fit the times at all.

I mean, I'm no lawyer but that's my opinion. Others here are lawyers and I welcome their corrections if I'm wrong.
 
Bounce is entitled to his opinion, I just have a question if that's ok.

Bounce, is your problem with this:

A.) That you don't like the ruling based on the text of the original law? Meaning, you think the court updated the law based on modern social values instead of sending it back to Congress to add the proper text to it?

or.

B.) Let's say Congress changed the text of the law, you just don't agree with the sentiment of the law? Meaning, you think employers should be able to discriminate against gay people for religious or other reasons?
 
Anyone see this spat between Chuba Hubbard and Mike Gundy? Hubbard saying he won't participate in anything at OSU because Gundy was pictured wearing a One America News shirt? I guess they have made up for now, but same damage has been done to Gundy on this.
 
thebigabd said:
Anyone see this spat between Chuba Hubbard and Mike Gundy? Hubbard saying he won't participate in anything at OSU because Gundy was pictured wearing a One America News shirt? I guess they have made up for now, but same damage has been done to Gundy on this.
Click to expand...

I saw that. Gundy already had to apologize for his off-the-rails comments a couple of months ago about Covid-19 and how it was all just a media conspiracy. Hubbard tweeted a few hours ago that he still has his foot on the gas and it's not over so we will see what happens.
 
Also, reading the original statute, it defines sex in the statute...so I'm not sure what authority a court has to literally change a definition of law.

The terms "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex" include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions;
Click to expand...

I understand it says "but are not limited to" but it still seems like a massive stretch that this definition covers sexual orientation and identity. I could see identity more than orientation though
 
Does bounce disagree with the legal language or semantics of the SCOTUS decision? Or does he believe it’s an employers right to discriminate against those they don’t like or agree with?

Good question.
 
thebigabd said:
Bounce is entitled to his opinion, I just have a question if that's ok.

Bounce, is your problem with this:

A.) That you don't like the ruling based on the text of the original law? Meaning, you think the court updated the law based on modern social values instead of sending it back to Congress to add the proper text to it?

or.

B.) Let's say Congress changed the text of the law, you just don't agree with the sentiment of the law? Meaning, you think employers should be able to discriminate against gay people for religious or other reasons?
Click to expand...


I mean it is a little of both. We already see lawsuites where a Catholic school is getting sued for not renewing teaching contracts because of a persons sexual orientation. Now, the outcome of this lawsuit won't even be in question. Maybe I'm wrong, but I now see that the Catholic School would be in violation of federal law for firing someone that is gay.

But I do have a fundamental issue with what the SC did. I would have a lot less issues if this came from Congress even if I still don't personally agree with it.

Personally, I do think employers should be able to hire who they want. Once hired, I think they should be treated fairly and on an even playing field. But putting myself in someone else's shoes, if I go apply for a job and the owner doesn't want white people working for them, big deal. I'll go look somewhere else.
 
[TWEET]https://twitter.com/SportsCenter/status/1272678405453086727?s=20[/TWEET]

Here's Gundy and Chuba making nice lol.

I saw another person tweet that they knew Gundy at OSU in the 80s and he was a racist POS. (take with a grain of salt, anyone can say anything on twitter).
 
mict085 said:
Does bounce disagree with the legal language or semantics of the SCOTUS decision? Or does he believe it’s an employers right to discriminate against those they don’t like or agree with?

Good question.
Click to expand...

Definitely the first. And partially the second.
 
SoonerBounce13 said:
I mean it is a little of both. We already see lawsuites where a Catholic school is getting sued for not renewing teaching contracts because of a persons sexual orientation. Now, the outcome of this lawsuit won't even be in question. Maybe I'm wrong, but I now see that the Catholic School would be in violation of federal law for firing someone that is gay.

But I do have a fundamental issue with what the SC did. I would have a lot less issues if this came from Congress even if I still don't personally agree with it.

Personally, I do think employers should be able to hire who they want. Once hired, I think they should be treated fairly and on an even playing field. But putting myself in someone else's shoes, if I go apply for a job and the owner doesn't want white people working for them, big deal. I'll go look somewhere else.
Click to expand...

So by that logic, you're okay with someone not hiring a person because they are African-American? Wow, that's... wow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Boomah
Tramel on if the Thunder had landed Blake
Replies
4
Views
2K
coolm
coolm
Back
Top