If anyone has any doubt on how the new US Supreme Court will protect LGBT rights, your first clue came today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-trump-restrictions-on-transgender-troops-in-military-to-go-into-effect-as-legal-battle-continues/2019/01/22/e68a7284-1763-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.8c29e4463ae9

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. (Martin Niemöller )

 

Hang in there RBG!

Edited January 22, 20197 yr by Lucky

Carving exceptions against gay rights is just beginning under Trump:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miracle-hill-south-carolina-foster-care_us_5c49d498e4b0287e5b88b91d

This one shocks! Not just transgenders, but women!

"

President Trump met last week with a delegation of hard-right activists led by Ginni Thomas, the wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, listening quietly as members of the group denounced transgender people and women serving in the military, according to three people with direct knowledge of the events.

For 60 minutes Mr. Trump sat, saying little but appearing taken aback, the three people said, as the group also accused White House aides of blocking Trump supporters from getting jobs in the administration.

It is unusual for the spouse of a sitting Supreme Court justice to have such a meeting with a president, and some close to Mr. Trump said it was inappropriate for Ms. Thomas to have asked to meet with the head of a different branch of government.

A vocal conservative, Ms. Thomas has long been close to what had been the Republican Party’s fringes, and extremely outspoken against Democrats. Her activism has raised concerns of conflicts of interest for her husband, who is perhaps the most conservative member of the Supreme Court."

NY Times

 

 

 

On 1/22/2019 at 7:10 PM, Lucky said:

If anyone has any doubt on how the new US Supreme Court will protect LGBT rights, your first clue came today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-allows-trump-restrictions-on-transgender-troops-in-military-to-go-into-effect-as-legal-battle-continues/2019/01/22/e68a7284-1763-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.8c29e4463ae9

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. (Martin Niemöller )

 

Hang in there RBG!

That is a great quote. Thanks for posting it.

Forgive me for asking (i'm in the UK), but why should anyone have an objection to anyone joining the Army? If you're willing to give your life for your country then it shouldn't matter your race, gender, religion. 

As for the Supreme Court, is anyone really surprised? It's a very republican leaning line.

7 hours ago, alesso1289 said:

why should anyone have an objection to anyone joining the Army?

I think the general idea is that decent young American lads shouldn't be forced to tolerate depraved perverts creeping on them in the shower.

They are coming for the transgenders in Brazil. A brutal murder is just one of many:

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/jan/28/we-are-afraid-brazilian-women-recoil-jair-bolsonaro-relaxation-gun-laws-domestic-violence

Edited January 28, 20197 yr by Lucky