|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
So the assholes at ABC go live without her even though she had to go much farther away than the male candidates to go to the bathroom, and she's to blame for not having a genuine enough smile when she comes back?
|
On December 21 2015 14:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 13:01 Doublemint wrote:is this the point where reality has surpassed satire - again? Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump defended Russian President Vladimir Putin against accusations that he has assassinated political adversaries and journalists, responding to criticism from his rivals over his embrace of praise from the Russian leader.
"Nobody has proven that he's killed anyone. ... He's always denied it. It's never been proven that he's killed anybody,” Trump said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday. “You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, at least in our country. It has not been proven that he's killed reporters."
...
On Thursday, Putin praised Trump during a wide-ranging news conference, calling him “talented without doubt" and "brilliant." Trump has embraced the remarks, drawing fire from critics such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who facetiously called the alliance “a match made in heaven.” Trump welcomed Putin's praise, citing it as proof that a Trump administration would be able to work well with the Russians. WaPo Pretty funny, entirely Trump-esque. Both Putin and Trump are stage performers.
He's just returning the favour for Putin calling Trump a strong leader.
|
I don't like her, its hard to put my finger on it but this women creeps me out like crazy. Its all the little antics,shes playing the crowd in such on obvious way and that I don't like.
Anyway,trump seems to be loosing it.
The latest defence of putin wont fall well,he is a tough guy but he has to become a bit more smart about things if he wants to win. The latest remark about putin is outright stupid.
It also shows the big weakness of trump. Trumps biggest weakness is his ego that makes him say stupid things at times.
|
What’s the next frontier in discrimination law? For more than 40 years it’s been illegal across the country to discriminate on the basis of race and sex—and for almost as long, advocates have been trying to add one more category: sexual orientation.
Congress has consistently balked at adding protections for gays and lesbians, and the Supreme Court has never officially moved from its longstanding position that it’s acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation so long as the government shows a “rational basis” for its actions. (This year’s same-sex marriage decision was narrowly a ruling on people’s right to marry, not about discrimination per se.)
But two basketball players at Pepperdine, and a court in California, have just changed the rules.
The players, Haley Videckis and Layana White, say that their coach and other university staff suspected them of being in a lesbian relationship and systematically harassed them on that basis. According to Videckis and White, the coach on several occasions interrogated each of them about their sexual habits and told them that lesbianism would not be tolerated on the team; they also say he manipulated team rules to prevent the two of them from being able to play.
When they sued, they relied on Title IX, the section of the Civil Rights Act that guarantees women can’t be treated differently in colleges (technically, at any institution receiving federal funds) because of their sex. Title IX doesn’t mention sexual orientation, but Videckis and White argued that that doesn’t matter: discrimination against them on the basis of sexual orientation is really sex discrimination, and therefore prohibited.
Why? Here’s the thinking: If either of them had been a man, their coach would have had no trouble at all with the fact they were dating women. He only minded when women dated women. And punishing a woman for doing something that it would be acceptable for a man to do is sex discrimination, plain and simple.
On Tuesday, the federal district court in Los Angeles endorsed this theory, agreeing that their coach’s behavior would constitute sex discrimination and that Videckis and White could sue on these grounds, and the case can now proceed. Indeed, the court embraced the larger theory that all sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination.
Source
|
On December 21 2015 18:20 IgnE wrote:
It wasn't a genuine smile?
From experience, that's an american thing in general.
|
in my experience it's a code word for "I don't like someone but doesn't have a valid reason to so here is some random subjective thing no one can prove me wrong on."
|
I support Hillary, but I'll admit her smile looks a bit funky sometimes. I think sometimes she gets so wrapped up in calibrating her reactions it looks a little odd. She's an odd blend of confident frontrunner (I know some people will dispute that) and someone deathly afraid of messing up.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
just inane to be discussing hillary's smile. like come on
|
Yes, it's the combination of her hair and eyes that tells you all you need to know.
|
On December 22 2015 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
just inane to be discussing hillary's smile. like come on
I was starting to think I was going crazy. How in the world is a candidates smile something to even discuss. Slow news day?
|
On December 21 2015 22:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +What’s the next frontier in discrimination law? For more than 40 years it’s been illegal across the country to discriminate on the basis of race and sex—and for almost as long, advocates have been trying to add one more category: sexual orientation.
Congress has consistently balked at adding protections for gays and lesbians, and the Supreme Court has never officially moved from its longstanding position that it’s acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation so long as the government shows a “rational basis” for its actions. (This year’s same-sex marriage decision was narrowly a ruling on people’s right to marry, not about discrimination per se.)
But two basketball players at Pepperdine, and a court in California, have just changed the rules.
The players, Haley Videckis and Layana White, say that their coach and other university staff suspected them of being in a lesbian relationship and systematically harassed them on that basis. According to Videckis and White, the coach on several occasions interrogated each of them about their sexual habits and told them that lesbianism would not be tolerated on the team; they also say he manipulated team rules to prevent the two of them from being able to play.
When they sued, they relied on Title IX, the section of the Civil Rights Act that guarantees women can’t be treated differently in colleges (technically, at any institution receiving federal funds) because of their sex. Title IX doesn’t mention sexual orientation, but Videckis and White argued that that doesn’t matter: discrimination against them on the basis of sexual orientation is really sex discrimination, and therefore prohibited.
Why? Here’s the thinking: If either of them had been a man, their coach would have had no trouble at all with the fact they were dating women. He only minded when women dated women. And punishing a woman for doing something that it would be acceptable for a man to do is sex discrimination, plain and simple.
On Tuesday, the federal district court in Los Angeles endorsed this theory, agreeing that their coach’s behavior would constitute sex discrimination and that Videckis and White could sue on these grounds, and the case can now proceed. Indeed, the court embraced the larger theory that all sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination. Source
I doubt that this theory will fly on appeal.
|
On December 22 2015 01:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 01:32 oneofthem wrote:
just inane to be discussing hillary's smile. like come on I was starting to think I was going crazy. How in the world is a candidates smile something to even discuss. Slow news day?
There is this weird thing about women on TV and if they are not smiling, inviting and happy, people talk about it and act like it’s a big deal. This is especially true on morning TV or something that isn't a political debate.
|
On December 22 2015 01:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 22:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:What’s the next frontier in discrimination law? For more than 40 years it’s been illegal across the country to discriminate on the basis of race and sex—and for almost as long, advocates have been trying to add one more category: sexual orientation.
Congress has consistently balked at adding protections for gays and lesbians, and the Supreme Court has never officially moved from its longstanding position that it’s acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation so long as the government shows a “rational basis” for its actions. (This year’s same-sex marriage decision was narrowly a ruling on people’s right to marry, not about discrimination per se.)
But two basketball players at Pepperdine, and a court in California, have just changed the rules.
The players, Haley Videckis and Layana White, say that their coach and other university staff suspected them of being in a lesbian relationship and systematically harassed them on that basis. According to Videckis and White, the coach on several occasions interrogated each of them about their sexual habits and told them that lesbianism would not be tolerated on the team; they also say he manipulated team rules to prevent the two of them from being able to play.
When they sued, they relied on Title IX, the section of the Civil Rights Act that guarantees women can’t be treated differently in colleges (technically, at any institution receiving federal funds) because of their sex. Title IX doesn’t mention sexual orientation, but Videckis and White argued that that doesn’t matter: discrimination against them on the basis of sexual orientation is really sex discrimination, and therefore prohibited.
Why? Here’s the thinking: If either of them had been a man, their coach would have had no trouble at all with the fact they were dating women. He only minded when women dated women. And punishing a woman for doing something that it would be acceptable for a man to do is sex discrimination, plain and simple.
On Tuesday, the federal district court in Los Angeles endorsed this theory, agreeing that their coach’s behavior would constitute sex discrimination and that Videckis and White could sue on these grounds, and the case can now proceed. Indeed, the court embraced the larger theory that all sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination. Source I doubt that this theory will fly on appeal.
I rather like the theory.
|
It's a really interesting take on the gay rights issue. These rules really are saying that there are things a man can do that a woman can't.
|
On December 22 2015 02:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On December 21 2015 22:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:What’s the next frontier in discrimination law? For more than 40 years it’s been illegal across the country to discriminate on the basis of race and sex—and for almost as long, advocates have been trying to add one more category: sexual orientation.
Congress has consistently balked at adding protections for gays and lesbians, and the Supreme Court has never officially moved from its longstanding position that it’s acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation so long as the government shows a “rational basis” for its actions. (This year’s same-sex marriage decision was narrowly a ruling on people’s right to marry, not about discrimination per se.)
But two basketball players at Pepperdine, and a court in California, have just changed the rules.
The players, Haley Videckis and Layana White, say that their coach and other university staff suspected them of being in a lesbian relationship and systematically harassed them on that basis. According to Videckis and White, the coach on several occasions interrogated each of them about their sexual habits and told them that lesbianism would not be tolerated on the team; they also say he manipulated team rules to prevent the two of them from being able to play.
When they sued, they relied on Title IX, the section of the Civil Rights Act that guarantees women can’t be treated differently in colleges (technically, at any institution receiving federal funds) because of their sex. Title IX doesn’t mention sexual orientation, but Videckis and White argued that that doesn’t matter: discrimination against them on the basis of sexual orientation is really sex discrimination, and therefore prohibited.
Why? Here’s the thinking: If either of them had been a man, their coach would have had no trouble at all with the fact they were dating women. He only minded when women dated women. And punishing a woman for doing something that it would be acceptable for a man to do is sex discrimination, plain and simple.
On Tuesday, the federal district court in Los Angeles endorsed this theory, agreeing that their coach’s behavior would constitute sex discrimination and that Videckis and White could sue on these grounds, and the case can now proceed. Indeed, the court embraced the larger theory that all sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination. Source I doubt that this theory will fly on appeal. I rather like the theory.
The theory is sound, but I agree with xDaunt that I am not sure that Title IX is the law to address this specific issue with. From my understanding of the law, it is very focused on gender discrimination when it comes to school policies, not the actions of a specific staff member.
|
You deal with Title IX disputes?
|
No, not at all. My expertise in the legal field has nothing to do with civil rights beyond keeping landlords out of trouble for placing terrible ads for apartments.
But in general, federal regulations are not the way that specific cases are addressed. They are used to deal with systematic problems. I could be 100% wrong and it totally applies. But I think it would be used more often if it did.
|
On December 22 2015 02:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2015 01:39 xDaunt wrote:On December 21 2015 22:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:What’s the next frontier in discrimination law? For more than 40 years it’s been illegal across the country to discriminate on the basis of race and sex—and for almost as long, advocates have been trying to add one more category: sexual orientation.
Congress has consistently balked at adding protections for gays and lesbians, and the Supreme Court has never officially moved from its longstanding position that it’s acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation so long as the government shows a “rational basis” for its actions. (This year’s same-sex marriage decision was narrowly a ruling on people’s right to marry, not about discrimination per se.)
But two basketball players at Pepperdine, and a court in California, have just changed the rules.
The players, Haley Videckis and Layana White, say that their coach and other university staff suspected them of being in a lesbian relationship and systematically harassed them on that basis. According to Videckis and White, the coach on several occasions interrogated each of them about their sexual habits and told them that lesbianism would not be tolerated on the team; they also say he manipulated team rules to prevent the two of them from being able to play.
When they sued, they relied on Title IX, the section of the Civil Rights Act that guarantees women can’t be treated differently in colleges (technically, at any institution receiving federal funds) because of their sex. Title IX doesn’t mention sexual orientation, but Videckis and White argued that that doesn’t matter: discrimination against them on the basis of sexual orientation is really sex discrimination, and therefore prohibited.
Why? Here’s the thinking: If either of them had been a man, their coach would have had no trouble at all with the fact they were dating women. He only minded when women dated women. And punishing a woman for doing something that it would be acceptable for a man to do is sex discrimination, plain and simple.
On Tuesday, the federal district court in Los Angeles endorsed this theory, agreeing that their coach’s behavior would constitute sex discrimination and that Videckis and White could sue on these grounds, and the case can now proceed. Indeed, the court embraced the larger theory that all sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination. Source I doubt that this theory will fly on appeal. I rather like the theory.
I'll give them kudos for creativity, but the case law on what "sex" means in the context of the federal anti-discrimination statutes is pretty damned clear. No responsible court will give different definitions to sex under Title VII and Title IX.
|
Were the coaching staff harassing them because of lesbian relationships in general, or lesbian relationships with individuals on the team/each other?
If it's the latter their theory doesn't really pan out anyway-the coaches might also have harassed male members of the team for pursuing relationships with female members on the same team, there just aren't any male members on the team to test that with. Intrateam relationships might be the problem, not samesex.
|
If I would be american person I vote Bernie Sanders 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
