Trump's Argument Against Discrimination

The history of LGBTQ+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. LGBTQ+ identities that are accepted by people outside that community change with time, as some identities establish themselves as commonplace while others are just being introduced to non-LGBTQ+ people. However, rights and acceptance for the LGBTQ+ community are nearly always tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQ+ rights issues are controversial, everyone deserves to be equally protected under law regardless of sexual orientation. Likewise, the Fourteenth Amendment’s

Transgendered people in America have made many great strides since the 1990s. They have encountered violence, lack of health care, and the loss of homes, jobs, family and friends. There have been many phases of the struggle of being transgendered in America over the years. The current phase we must be in now is equal rights. There are many variations of discrimination against the transgendered community. In our society we simply do not like what we do not understand. It is easier to discriminate than to try and understand. We are all created different and we should appreciate our differences. The change must come by addressing the views of the public. There is much justification in the unequal rights of transgendered peoples. The Human

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court removed the ban on same-sex marriage nationwide. On July 15, 2015, Kenneth Jost published an article named “Will there be more gains after marriage ruling?” In this article, Jost discusses the viewpoints of the general public and argues that there may still be a struggle to gain full rights and respect for lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. The article covers the reaction of the public on June 26, along with politicians stand-points on the subject, and the Caitlyn Jenner controversy. Jost’s main argument is that LGBT people are not being protected by the government, even though they have gained the right to marry.

The LGBT community in the United States has always had massive difficulty fitting into our society. For many years they put up with constant mistreatment and other forms of abuse coming from the those who do not agree with their lifestyle. They have for long advocated for the acceptance of their existence and punishment for crimes committed against them. One of the hardest battles the community has had to face was the right to marry in a society that still holds the values of a traditional relationship which is between a male and female. The struggle was quite harsh but it all paid off by 2015 when the supreme court granted gay couples the right to marry. This historical decision did not go without outcry and criticisms. Most of the dissatisfaction came from those who hold very religious values and beliefs that claims homosexuality is a sin. Religion has always been a part of the American way of life since the nation's founding and with that homosexuality has been demonized throughout our society. Now that gay couple possess the legal rights to have a marriage license, religious companies and/or stores are now denying service to LGBT couples as they believe it sinful on their behalf to even take part. Many people gay or straight who fought for gay rights believe these is pure discrimination and that stores should not have the right to deny service for any customer for any reason. However, this belief is unconstitutional and goes

This decision has affected people’s behavior as individuals and public institutions such as family, young, elderly, disabled, LGTB and those with pre-existing conditions. For example, Kates & Ranji (2014) report that health care access and coverage for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGTB) community in the U.S. face opportunities and challenges when getting access to care. The authors report that LGBT individuals experience some discrimination because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, due to ongoing discrimination, access to health care have been limited to these people (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2014). LGBT individuals not only face discrimination when trying to receive care, but also face difficulties that limit them such as “barriers in obtaining insurance coverage, gaps in coverage, cost-related hurdles, and poor treatment by health care providers” (Kates & Ranji, 2014).

The history of LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. The identities within the LGBTQIA+ community that are accepted have shifted over the years as the majority of the population comes to understand some identities to be commonplace and struggles to understand others. However, the gaining of rights and acceptance by the LGBTQIA+ community has nearly always been tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQIA+ rights issues are controversial, the statute that convicted John Lawrence and Tyson Garner for having private, consensual gay sex as well as the means of conviction are clearly unconstitutional on several grounds,

Mississippi lawmakers on Tuesday called for the repeal of a controversial new law that allows businesses to refuse service to gay people based on religious objection. Ellen DeGeneres called it "the definition of discrimination," while singer Bryan Adams canceled his upcoming show in the state to show his opposition to the law.” (Reilly, 2016). Misguided people are being driven by the nose by tricky "Christian" pioneers and legislators who have a personal stake in the matter of ensuring that their assemblies and their constituents remain profoundly and honestly perplexed of the myth of the "gay person plan." Know this: If the LGBTQ people group has any sort of motivation of all, it is achieving the same essential human rights that other people appreciates. That is all. That is the plan. Try not to fall for some other clarification of it. Gay people are not after your children. They are not attempting to change over you or change you. They are not worried with being comprehended as much as they are worried with being dealt with like some other person has the privilege to be dealt with. On the off chance that you trust that any gathering

In the last several years the United States of America has shown progression towards equality for LGBT. With whole states being the frontrunners of support for LGBT rights it has become apparent that change is happening. In 2012 gay marriage was legalized in all fifty states, allowing many couples the ability to wed. Close friends of my mom were able to wed because of the law. Not only has there been steps taken for sexuallitys but, also for those who are transgender. In the last couple years the Transgender Community has seen discussion after discussion about the use of bathrooms. It has shown that there’s many who support trans bathroom rights and that the country is willing to move forward. Also on the chopping block of the transgender

Grimm argues that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the law that bars sex discrimination in the nation’s schools, prohibits discrimination based on his gender identity. Grimm’s case is the first case devoted entirely to transgender rights the justices have agreed to hear – meaning there are few clues to how they might rule. But there are many cases posing similar questions about federal law and gender identity waiting in the wings. In one such lawsuit, a Michigan corporation has asserted the right to discriminate against a transgender employee based on the company owner’s religious

In light of the recent election putting a man with questionable morality in the powerful seat of President, many in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community are fearful of the repercussions this will cause. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “867 cases of hateful harassment or intimidation [were reported] in the United States in the 10 days after the November 8 election”, and swastikas adorned people’s cars and homes in angry graffiti, accompanying words such as “white power” and “fag”, “he she” and “die” (Yan). While the American legal system has come a long way in granting the homosexual community their natural rights, the present climate gives many a fear that things will go back to the way they were before, with homosexuals being oppressed and persecuted for simply loving who they love.

The past week we have seen Donald Trump reach out and try to make his case to the African America voters and instead of saying "Lets see his plan" or "I like what I am hearing but he needs to prove it to us" Blacks and Main Street Media cried "How dare he say that about black communities"

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice

The LGBT community has faced greater acceptance, both publicly and governmentally. In 2015, there was a landmark Supreme Court case granting same-sex couples the right to marry in all fifty states, something thought to be impossible during the nineties. In today’s age, while there are those who face extreme discrimination, there is less of a stigma attached to being LGBT. While there has been heightened visibility and acceptance, there are still those who deal with dangerous situations daily, prompting a need for a further fight for

Professor Johnson’s lecture sparked conversation about whether or not the Supreme Court ruling accomplished enough for the LGBT community. At the time, I was unaware of how the ruling could be something that wasn’t an all-around win for the community, but after being introduced to queer politics