OK Ladies ...... ERA
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Nope. Women have had equal rights almost my whole life.
If someone can tell me what women aren't allowed to have or do, I might change my mind.
If someone can tell me what women aren't allowed to have or do, I might change my mind.
And that's principally why it went down last time.
It's in the news now that Dems have taken over the VA and are slated to FINALLY Pass the ERA ... even though it expired yrs ago
It's just more crap to piddle around with so they don't have to do any work. I mean, what's it going to say that isn't already covered under law?
Ever since I was a child Democrats have been insisting that the second a Republican becomes President he's going to overturn Roe v Wade (this is what they mean when they say "women's rights" - it's a code phrase for "abortion"). So far no Republican president has ever done so, but Democrats campaign on this chit every election year because their voters are ignorant dope smokers.
Remember when Bush was running for his second term? "If you want RAPE! to be LEGAL! then vote for George Bush!!!!
" Now they're running around telling the bots that Trump is going to take away their right to kill their children, as if we don't want them to stop ****ing up the gene pool."Oh, we need equal rights because Trump wants to put us all in rape camps and not let us kill our offspring!!"
It's bullshit.
When I was a kid - like, high school kid - I thought there should be an ERA. But I'm a grown up now and able to see past the brainwashing bullshit these psychos spew.
Any second now - "Give us money so we can pass the ERA and not allow Trump to take away your rights!"
Because it really costs money for those peckers to sit their asses down and take a vote, right? Why do they panhandle for everything? Take the ****ing vote.
Because it really costs money for those peckers to sit their asses down and take a vote, right? Why do they panhandle for everything? Take the ****ing vote.
They don't have the privilege to register for Selective Service.
California Becomes 1st State To Require Women On Corporate Boards
A quarter of the 445 publicly traded companies in California don't have any women on their boards. Opponents say the law is unconstitutional and confusing for companies incorporated in other states.
www.npr.org
Does this apply only to biological women or does it include those who identify as females? It seems to me the liberals painted themselves in a corner with this one. Unintended consequences can be so amusing.
California Court To Decide On Law Requiring Women On Corporate Boards
The lawsuit, brought by Judicial Watch, will be heard in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The suit claims that the law violates the equal protection clause of the California state constitution by mandating a gender quota and that using taxpayer funds to enforce the law is illegal. The suit comes nearly three years after the law was initially signed, The Associated Press reported.
“They are creating a classification that either prefers or discriminates against one class or in preference of another,” Judicial Watch attorney Robert Patrick Sticht said, adding that California did not have a compelling interest in imposing the mandate.
Another conservative legal group, the Pacific Legal Foundation, is levying another challenge in federal court, arguing that the law violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Their lawsuit was originally dismissed in federal court, but was revived by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the AP reported.
The lawsuit, brought by Judicial Watch, will be heard in the Los Angeles Superior Court. The suit claims that the law violates the equal protection clause of the California state constitution by mandating a gender quota and that using taxpayer funds to enforce the law is illegal. The suit comes nearly three years after the law was initially signed, The Associated Press reported.
“They are creating a classification that either prefers or discriminates against one class or in preference of another,” Judicial Watch attorney Robert Patrick Sticht said, adding that California did not have a compelling interest in imposing the mandate.
Another conservative legal group, the Pacific Legal Foundation, is levying another challenge in federal court, arguing that the law violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Their lawsuit was originally dismissed in federal court, but was revived by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the AP reported.
Since men are women now, too, what does this even mean?
California Law Mandating Women On Corporate Boards Declared Unconstitutional
In a ruling from Friday, Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said California could not prove that the “use of a gender-based classification was necessary to boost California’s economy, improve opportunities for women in the workplace, and protect California taxpayers, public employees, pensions and retirees.”
The California legislature also didn’t think about changing anti-discrimination laws that were already in effect or “putting into effect a new anti-discrimination law focused on the board selection process before Senate Bill 826 was signed into law, Duffy-Lewis wrote,” per the Los Angeles Times.
The court also found that the state couldn’t put forward any proof of a certain company that discriminated against a woman and would have been under the law.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Funny how the Constitution already has an equal rights, equal protection, clause known as the 14th Amendment. If governments would just follow the Law of the Land. If people would just understand the Law of the Land.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection. Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.
Funny how the Constitution already has an equal rights, equal protection, clause known as the 14th Amendment. If governments would just follow the Law of the Land. If people would just understand the Law of the Land.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection. Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.