I would find this funny if it passes, because it would probably have a huge backlash and a great many people would be outraged. Plus Trump would forever be known as a sexist, racist, and whatever-ist (whatever its called to hate gays) and would be the target of many campaigns and his old companies would probably never take him back.

Interesting fact, the president of America is not allowed to own a company, he can't be CEO of anything. So he is basically fired from all jobs once he became president. There might be something we could do if we could prove he is still on staff on any other jobs.

At this point, we're just fighting an endless war, the people who keep pushing for taking away rights should just be shot so we can stop the fighting. I'm quite frankly tired of it at this point. Its just getting old that we keep having to deal with this bullshit. Even worse, we keep creating new worse things now with all this "equality" crap, millennial who grow up thinking they have the right to everything without having the skills to do it. Thinking that equality means 50% of their gender in every work place. God I've seen some highly retarded millennials that give the LGBT community a bad name.

no law says cant own a business there was few presidents that owned peanut farm company and stuff if remember right. if go by emoluments clause that refers to gifts from another country so on and titles granted like knightship so on

A few points you seem to have missed:

-Trump has proven himself to be the worst person on Earth numerous times. Doesn't seem to phase him.

-He only has one company, the Trump Organization, which he is still the primary shareholder of. It's a private business, not publicly traded, so there's no board of directors or shareholders to reign him in. He left his kids temporarily in charge, but he goes back to being CEO as soon as he's out of the White House.

-The president is allowed to own companies. Precedent has been to put those companies in a blind trust while in office, but precedent isn't binding and Donald Trump didn't care, so he did whatever he pleased and nobody touched him.

-This "equality crap" as you put it is just people who want the ability to work and want to outlaw discriminatory hiring practices.

-Nobody who anyone is taking seriously believes that people should get jobs they're not qualified for. Where do you get this crap?

There was a case where Kathleen Kennedy I believe walked into one of the departments that worked on making Star Wars and was furious because they had over 80% men in the workforce and demanded that they fire some and make it 50% women. I can't find the articles about it however, its been a long time. There are also other social justice warriors I argued with in the past who agreed with this philosophy and I just ended up blocking them for being retarded.

I'm for equality, but you can't force yourself into jobs. Equal Opportunity is equality. Regardless of what gender, race, orientation, anything, you are, you should be able to apply for any job and have an equal chance of getting that job based upon your skills among-st the other candidates. You should not get a job just because you're a trans and they have no trans employees.

If the work force is 90% male, and there is one empty slot with 3 potentials that just applied, which do yo choose?
Male with all the qualifications to do the job including the required strength to lift the heavy materials and the skills to operate all the machinery?
Female with most of the qualifications to do the job, can lift moderately heavy objects and can operate most of the machinery?
Trans-Female who can't lift much, doesn't know any of the machinery, but threatens to sue for sexism if you don't hire her?

I didn't want to do a bigger example, but I've asked this question before among-st some of the SJW I've argued with and they usually chose the lesser qualified people simply because "train them on the job". They'd call bullshit if I used "Ok, so the Trans-Female got morally outraged that a man offered to lift the heavy package for her and she lifted it herself, dropped it and it rolled down the stairs and landed on the assembly line, destroying the primary machine before anyone could stop it costing the company $650,000 almost bankrupting the company." or some other similar situation that I'd come up with to explain why you can't just hire bad candidates to meet gender quotas.

I do dislike the president, he's a moron, and disagree with him trying to take away gay rights again. However this is a battle that will never end and its quite frankly getting tiring. Its also discouraging when all the campaigns to fight for gay rights beg you for money even more than those commercials who show starving nearly dead kids or animals and ask you for donations. Its just getting hard to stay motivated to fight this when it will never end. Especially when you're called a racist, sexist white male because you down vote a movie. "I don't like this movie, it treats men like shit." -You fucking racist sexist white man fuck you- *comment banned deleted and purged from the internet* (this is in reference to the fact that the people you fight for, hate you.)

Hopefully, once we are out of crazy land, we are more for meritocracy.

A company shouldn't care that you are LGBT+ It should care that you are capable of doing the job. If I found out I was hired because I filled the LGBT+ demographic checkbox, I'd take that as a deep insult. It would be absolutely demoralizing to find that it isn't due to my efforts or skill or training or abilities that I got the job, but that HR needed a certain % of LGBT+ People. Just like it is demoralizing to find that I was denied a job, not because I'm not qualified, but because I am LGBT+. Is it too much to ask to base employment decisions on merit?

Well for certain people, they want you to be included in everything whether or not you have the skills! I recall seeing a debate news thingy or something that had some morally superior women shitting on some women for working for men because they liked it. Like those women said "We like working there, they protect us and are very nice to us, we love the job." and the feminists there said something along the lines of "No woman should ever make money for men".

These kinds of people aren't rational, and they are the loudest of them all, they shout at the top of their lungs making sure everyone hears everything as if its a big problem and they proclaim that its the entire population that feels that way.

10% of the community makes 80% of the problem and all.

I hate to say this but yes LGBT+ people are protected by those laws if they are fired then that business can be sued under the Human Rights Act and any other Law/Act that can see that Company under investigation for not having a valid reason to the LGBT+ person being fired which means the person that was fired has to be re-instated as an employee of that Employer.

In other Words Trump can be sued under law along with the Courts for agreeing to that assessment from Trump, yes a sitting president can be sued under law and be impeached under the President Laws which Trump hasn't been following and thanks to the Muller Report he can be done in for a number things like lying to Congress and the People of America, for putting out false and misleading tweets/post/polls/running fake news stories that have nothing in them with facts or even a shred of a what the story is about.

Incorrect. The courts are responsible for the interpretation of the law, and the Supreme Court is the final say. If the Supreme Court says that the Civil Rights Act doesn't cover LGBT+ people, then that's the law. The only way to get around it is for Congress to pass a law specifically protecting LGBT+ people, like I said above.

Right now, the wording of the Civil Rights Act has left the question of whether LGBT+ people are covered up in the air, so some states treated it as if it did and some states treated it as if it didn't. People from states where there were no protections DID sue, which is where this court case came from. Hate to say it, but if the Supreme Court rules against them, we're up a creek.

Civil Rights Act which was amended in 1960 to also deal with discriminatory laws and again in 1964 which the LBGT+ community comes under which can be read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_....._United_States and if Donald Trump wants to say other wise then he can be sued by the whole LBGTQ community along with any judge that doesn't read what I linked you too

You didn't listen to what I said. The LGBT+ community DID sue the government to stop the discrimination. It's about to be heard in the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court decides to interpret the law as not protecting the LGBT+ community, then the discrimination becomes legal. That is how the Supreme Court and their power of judicial review works.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jud....._United_States

*holds a hand up* I did listen and then I quoted some facts cause the dates in the link I shared with you shows the court upholding the ruling on sexual Discrimination where company's had to pay out 100K in them losing that case and which State/County Courts upheld the Civil Rights Act. What Donald Trump is trying to do is take over America to make America his "own" Empire where he is the ruler and everyone has to bow down to him, Trump is nothing more then an idiot trying to get his name to mean something again so that he can get out of every court case against him including Tax Corruption for using his own Foundation as his own piggy bank and lying to a number of Overseas banks on how much he is worth when in truth he isn't even worth what he says he is. The LGBTQ Community is protected by Civil Right Act under Title VII from the amendment of 1964 this interpretation in essence bars employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in accordance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cause the African/American's were also targeted but where protected by Civil Right Act Title VII from 1964.

At the start of 2010, the Obama administration included gender identity among the classes protected against discrimination under the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). It was Obamas' wish to further attend to LGBT civil rights not only through legislation, but also the executive branch. In 2012 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow gender identity-based employment discrimination because it is a form of sex discrimination. In 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission concluded that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow sexual orientation discrimination in employment because it is a form of sex discrimination. <- this is in the link I shared which means Trump and the Supreme Court can't do anything without challenging the EEOC which will shut Donald Trump down in court cause the Supreme Court has to uphold Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Obama's inclusion was an executive order, one which Trump removed almost as soon as he got in office. The EEOC is a commission, so they have the right to interpret things only where the courts have not weighed in. Right now, LGBT+ protections under the Civil Rights Act is like same-sex marriage before 2015: some district courts have weighed in, some haven't, so it's applied in some states, but not applied in others.

Now, however, the Supreme Court is finally going to make a decision on the matter, and their decision will become the policy nation-wide. At that point, if they rule against LGBT+ people, it will be up to each individual state to pass laws protecting our rights. Some will, of course, do so immediately if they haven't already done so. Others, on the other hand, will refuse, leaving LGBT+ citizens there high and dry with no protections.

The problem is that the Supreme Court is very conservative right now, with 5 of the 9 justices being appointed by Trump or one of the two Bushes. That pretty much guarantees that they'll rule against LGBT+ inclusion in the Civil Rights Act. If that happens, and I really hate to say this, there is NOTHING WE CAN DO short of Congress drafting another law specifically to protect LGBT+ workers. A Supreme Court decision goes over the head of the EEOC and their policies and can't be circumvented by an executive order. We can try suing, but since this is a Supreme Court decision, it can only be overturned in the Supreme Court, and they tend to not hear the same cases twice without a good, long period in between. Years at least.

As much as you may want to believe that the EEOC or the lower court decisions have some play here, they really and truly don't. The only slim hope is that Roberts, the Chief Justice (currently the closest thing we have to a swing vote) decides to flip, which is highly unlikely.

lets hope the Supreme Court rules against Donald Trump

I don't think any group of people should have special rights. I also believe people should have freedom of association, I don't think the government should have any hand in enforcing otherwise.

It's not special rights, it's equal rights. Do you believe women should be allowed to be fired because they're women or men because they're men? Should someone be allowed to fire all non-whites that work for them just because they don't like them? What about an SJW business owner who wants to fire all straight and white people? That should be allowed?

That's a very long, very steep, and very slippery slope you're dancing on, and I'm sure your tune would change if those beliefs had you living under a bridge, eating from a dumpster because nobody would give you work just because of who and what you are.

As long as it is 'everyone gets special rights' or 'nobody gets special rights' I'm totally okay with it, so long as no group or demographic is left out, no matter how big or small. Reminds me of the Baker's cake vs gay couple thing a while back. The government decided not to use its power under threat of violence (not paying fines --> thrown in prison etc) to compel him go against his own religious or moral values and forced to bake the cake for a couple he didn't wish to. I'd much rather take the approach of 'shop somewhere else and recommend people don't shop there' as opposed to giving people special protections which may tread on other peoples' freedom of association.

Basically, I think people should be equal and only equal, which means no separate group or groups should be able to use the government as a weapon to beat others with to get their way. If a business is turning away too many customers or even employees based on something like sexual orientation (like chick-fil-a), then the community if they overwhelmingly disagree with them doing that, they can boycott the business and get them to leave eventually (this kind of thing does happen). I'm just not a fan of using the government to compel people to do or not do what you want, particularly when it revolves around social behaviour. That's just my opinion though : )

This is exactly that. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically provides protection for people on the basis of race, sex, and religion. The ONLY people who are not protected are LGBT+. That's what this is all about. The LGBT+ community just wants the exact same protection that's afforded to every single other demographic in this country.