Social Justice Warrior don't want to be be confused by the facts because facts are not necessary when implementing Social Justice Warrior policies and programs.This Social Justice Warrior narrative is designed to cover up the falsehood of the first and second narratives. This is the way liberals work.., serving up propaganda intended to benefit Social Justice Warrior, but which in its absurdity repels people grounded in reality
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976)
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co. No. 75-260 Argued April 20, 1976 Decided June 25, 1976 427 U.S. 273 Syllabus
Petitioners, both white employees of respondent transportation
company, were discharged for misappropriating cargo from one of the
company's shipments, but a Negro employee, who was also charged with the
same offense, was not discharged. After subsequent grievance
proceedings pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between the
company and respondent union and complaints filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) secured no relief, petitioners
brought an action against respondents, alleging that in discharging
petitioners, while retaining the Negro employee, respondent company had
discriminated against petitioners on the basis of race, and that
respondent union had acquiesced in this discrimination by failing
properly to represent one of the petitioners in the grievance
proceeding, all in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which prohibits the discharge of "any individual" because of "such
individual's race," and of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which provides that "[a]ll
persons . . . shall have the same right . . . to make and enforce
contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens. . . ." The District
Court dismissed the complaint on the pleadings, holding, inter alia,
that § 1981 is inapplicable to racial discrimination against whites,
and that the facts alleged by petitioners failed to state a claim under
Title VII. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
1. Title VII, whose terms are not limited to discrimination against
members of any particular race, prohibits racial discrimination in
private employment against white persons upon the same standards as
racial discrimination against nonwhites. Pp. 427 U. S. 278-285.
(a) Title VII has been so interpreted by the EEOC, whose
interpretations are entitled to great deference, and its conclusion
accords with uncontradicted legislative history. Pp. 427 U. S. 279-280.
(b) That petitioners' dismissal was based upon the commission of a
criminal offense does not preclude them from seeking relief under Title
VII. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Page 427 U. S. 274
Green,411 U. S. 792.
While respondent employer may decide that participation in a theft of
cargo may warrant not retaining a person in its employment, this
criterion must be "applied alike to members of all races," or Title VII
is violated. Crime or other misconduct may be a legitimate basis for
discharge, but it is not a basis for racial discrimination. Pp. 427 U. S. 281-284.
(c) Respondent union, as well as respondent company, is subject to
liability under Title VII, since the same reasons that prohibit an
employer from discriminating on the basis of race among culpable
employees apply equally to the union, regardless of whether the union,
under the circumstances, may find it necessary to compromise in securing
retention of some of the affected employees. Whatever factors such a
compromise may legitimately take into account in mitigating discipline
of some employees, under Title VII race may not be included. Pp. 427 U. S. 284-285.
2. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in private employment
against white persons as well as nonwhites, and this conclusion is
supported both by the statute's language, which explicitly applies to
"all persons," and by its legislative history. While the phrase "as is
enjoyed by white persons" would seem to lend some support to the
argument that the statute is limited to the protection of nonwhite
persons against racial discrimination, the legislative history is clear
that the addition of the phrase to the statute as finally enacted was
not intended to eliminate the prohibition of racial discrimination
against whites. Pp. 427 U. S. 285-296.
513 F.2d 90, reversed and remanded.
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER,
C.J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined,
and in Parts I and II of which WHITE and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. WHITE
and REHNQUIST, JJ., filed a separate statement, post, p. 427 U. S. 296.
Addictive
drugs provide several benefits for people who take them. They enable
the user to turn away from reality and avoid facing the real problems of
life. Drugs provide enjoyable feelings that temporarily relieve stress
but siphon off the energy to create real happiness. They also imprison
the user in a welcome but false sense of aloneness, enabling the
intoxicated to separate from others and ignore the needs of the real
people around them. The expectorant "LGBT" has become such a drug for
the people who are addicted to it.
Yapping
"LGBT," especially when combined with the meaningless term "community,"
provides all three drug effects for the addicted yapper. Using "LGBT
community" enables people who like to yammer about politics to turn away
from any recognition of political, economic, or even social realities.
Two or three LGBTs taken daily allow addicts to feel good about
themselves for no apparent reason. In fact, high-dosage LGBTs stimulate
a trip on hallucinated virtue and self-satisfaction while
simultaneously blocking off a sense of responsibility to their nation or
real community.
There
is a fourth purpose of the verbal knee-jerk "LGBT community." It is a
cover for people who are not intelligent or mentally clear enough to
think about complex issues. That was on display during Tucker Carlson's
pitiful "interview" with Braitlyn Jenner. After a rambling answer, in
which Jenner said the Olympic Committee is the best arbiter for high
schools in Texas, where testosterone-drenched muscles are pounding
undrugged girls into the mats, Carlson dropped any attempt to ask
serious questions. To do so would have seemed like elder abuse against a
mildly cognitively impaired person, and Tucker just let Jenner
perseverate about "my community." Braitlyn fashions himself as the
courageous leader of this imaginary community and is allowed to maintain
that delusion by an addled media craving their next LGBT fix. In
truth, the claptrap "LGBT" exploits the identities of individuals as
heterogeneous as any other group of humans, and who would never choose
Braitlyn Jenner as their leader.
Braitlyn
was at the most confident defining the difference between sexuality and
gender. Wrong again. Gender is for pronouns; sex is for people. It
doesn't matter that the whole world uses the wrong word; it is still
wrong. Simone de Beauvoir did not pen The Second Gender.
Binary
sex structure is the set-up for mammals, birds, reptiles. But not
flatworms – let's give them flatworms. Because Braitlyn Jenner
monetizes himself as the face of trangenderism, he is under pressure to
convince people he was always really a woman. He says, "I've always
dealt with this." Everyone deals with something. Any clouded feelings
Bruce Jenner may have had about his sex, he dealt with his body about as
well as Albert Einstein dealt with physics. Looking at this man who
once had a handsome face and physical abilities the gods would envy, and
who is no longer a man, but not really a woman, underscores how harmful
it is when LGBT pushers try to instill doubt and confusion in children
about their sex.
LGBT
dopers are meeting with increasing resistance and even resentment from
the non-addicts. Sexuality minorities are free in law and in custom to
live how they choose, but not to force their views on others. LGBT
addicts, desperate for another fix of political power that is not
coming, have taken to falsifying the reason people with h and b and t
(homo, bi, transsexual) elements of mind are at heightened risk to harm
themselves. Clue: It's not because of other people's phobia.
Now
to Tucker. Here's the question. Tucker Carlson is gifted at poking
holes in what he believes to be false, but he has not demonstrated
talent for forcefully articulating what he believes to be true. The
major political opinionators (predominantly conservative) relish opening
their sets with what they take to be brilliant discourses (e.g., "The
Memo"). That is their natural proclivity. Not so for Carlson. Tucker
Carlson's well bred quizzicality is an enjoyable antidote to O'Reilly's
street level, brash assurances. The challenge for Carlson to carry The Factor is that it is not in his nature to be a factor himself.
This as we know, He Not a real women, But A Male Cross Dress, How Does Putting Female Body Part On Him, Make A Real Women?
A prominent Toronto psychiatrist has severely criticized the
assumptions underlying what has been dubbed by critics as the Canadian
federal government's "bathroom bill," that is, Bill C-279, a private
member’s bill that would afford special protection to so-called
"transgender" men and women.
Dr. Joseph Berger has issued a statement saying that from a medical
and scientific perspective there is no such thing as a "transgendered"
person, and that terms such as “gender expression” and “gender identity"
used in the bill are at the very least ambiguous, and are more an
emotional appeal than a statement of scientific fact.
Berger, who is a consulting psychiatrist in Toronto and whose list of
credentials establishes him as an expert in the field of mental
illness, stated that people who identify themselves as "transgendered"
are mentally ill or simply unhappy, and pointed out that hormone therapy
and surgery are not appropriate treatments for psychosis or
unhappiness.
From a scientific perspective, let me clarify what ‘transgendered’
actually means," Dr. Berger said, adding, "I am speaking now about the
scientific perspective – and not any political lobbying position that
may be proposed by any group, medical or non-medical."
"‘Transgendered’ are people who claim that they really are or wish to
be people of the sex opposite to which they were born, or to which
their chromosomal configuration attests," Dr. Berger stated.
"Some times, some of these people have claimed that they are ‘a woman
trapped in a man’s body’ or alternatively ‘a man trapped in a woman’s
body’."
"The medical treatment of delusions, psychosis or emotional happiness is not surgery," Dr. Berger stated.
"On the other hand," Dr. Berger continued, "if these people are asked
to clarify exactly what they believe, that is to say do they truly
believe whichever of those above propositions applies to them and they
say ‘no’, then they know that such a proposition is not true, but that
they ‘feel’ it, then what we are talking about scientifically, is just
unhappiness, and that unhappiness is being accompanied by a wish – that
leads some people into taking hormones that predominate in the other
sex, and even having cosmetic surgery designed to make them ‘appear’ as
if they are a person of the opposite sex."
He explained that cosmetic surgery will not change the chromosomes of
a human being in that it will not make a man become a woman, capable of
menstruating, ovulating, and having children, nor will it make a woman
into a man, capable of generating sperm that can unite with an egg or
ovum from a woman and fertilize that egg to produce a human child.
Moreover, Dr. Berger stated that
the arguments put forward by those advocating for special rights for
gender confused people have no scientific value and are subjective and
emotional appeals with no objective scientific basis.
"I have read the brief put forward by those advocating special
rights, and I find nothing of scientific value in it," Dr. Berger said
in his statement. "Words and phrases, such as 'the inner space,' are
used that have no objective scientific basis."
"These are the scientific facts," Dr. Berger said. "There seems to me
to be no medical or scientific reason to grant any special rights or
considerations to people who are unhappy with the sex they were born
into, or to people who wish to dress in the clothes of the opposite
sex."
"The so-called ‘confusion’ about their sexuality that a teenager or
adult has is purely psychological. As a psychiatrist, I see no reason
for people who identify themselves in these ways to have any rights or
privileges different from everyone else in Canada," he concluded.
REAL Women of Canada asked Dr. Berger for a statement on the issues
surrounding Bill C-279 after the organization appeared before the review
committee hearings on the bill.
Gwen
Landolt of REAL Women told LifeSiteNews that after being initially
refused permission to present their perspective on the bill to the
review committee, the group was accepted, but found that all other
groups and individuals who had been accepted to appear before the
committee were supporters of Bill C-279.
"It can scarcely be an impartial review of any bill if only the
witnesses supporting the bill are invited to speak to it," Landolt said.
Landolt explained that after passing second reading on June 6, 2012, Bill C-279 went to the Justice and Human Rights Committee for review.
At the review committee hearings, REAL Women of Canada presented a 12
page brief setting out the harms created by the bill, and pointing out
that the terms “gender expression” and “gender identity," as written in
Bill C-279, were so broad that they could be used to protect pedophilia
along with other sexual perversions, if passed into law.
REAL Women provided the committee with evidence that post-operative
trans-gendered individuals suffer substantially higher morbidity and
mortality than the general population, placing the so-called “sex
reassignment” surgery and hormone treatment under continued scrutiny.
They pointed out that a pioneer in such treatment, Dr. Paul McHugh,
distinguished professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School
of Medicine and psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital,
stopped the procedures because he found that patients were no better
adjusted or satisfied after receiving such treatment.
McHugh wrote
in 2004 that “Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental
illness” by catering to the desires of people who wanted surgery to
change their biological sex.
“We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on
trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia,” he stated, adding
that “to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate
people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat
it.”
Landolt noted that the committee hearings ended in confusion over the
terminology presented in the bill, and that even the bill's sponsor,
NDP MP Randall Garrison (Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca), was not clear as to
who is included and who is excluded in these terms.
"The definition for 'gender identity' proposed by Mr. Garrison is a
subjective one that he defined as a 'deeply felt internal and individual
experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex that
the individual was assigned at birth'," Landolt said, adding that "The
committee engaged in extensive discussions on the meaning of “gender
identity” and “gender expression” without much clarification."
"As a result, instead of a smooth, orderly dispatch of this bill
through the Committee orchestrated by Garrison, Conservative MP Shelly
Glover (St. Boniface, Manitoba) and Conservative MP
Kerry-Lynne Findlay
(Delta-Richmond-East, BC), the committee hearings broke down in
confusion at the final hearing on December 10th. The result is that the
bill will be reported to the House of Commons as originally written
without amendments," Landolt stated.
Following this state of confusion over terms at the review committee,
REAL Women sought out an expert in order to provide the scientific and
medical evidence relating to "transgenderism" and the other terms used
in the bill.
Gwen Landolt told LifeSiteNews that REAL Women of Canada will be
including Dr. Berger's statement in an information package to be sent to
MPs before the bill comes to final vote.
"It is crucial that MPs know that this legislation is harmful, not
only to those who think themselves transgendered but also to society,
and should not be passed into law," Landolt said. "We must therefore
write to our MP’s to request that they speak against this troubling
bill."
Dr. Berger is certified as a specialist in Psychiatry by the Royal
College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and by the American Board
of Psychiatry and Neurology, and is an elected Distinguished Life Fellow
of the American Psychiatric Association. He is also a past Chairman of
the Toronto district of the Ontario Medical Association and past
President of the Ontario branch of the American Psychiatric Association.
Berger has been an Examiner in Psychiatry for the American Board of
Psychiatry and Neurology for twenty five years, has taught as Assistant
Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, and is the author
of many published papers on different aspects of Diagnosis and
Independent Psychiatric Assessments, as well as author of the book “The
Independent Medical Examination in Psychiatry” published by Butterworth/Lexis-Nexis.
