Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Trump Will Keep Obama’s LGBTQ Workplace Protections

    Trump Will Keep Obama’s LGBTQ Workplace Protections

    Trump has always made it known he will protect the LGBTQ community.

    As the left loses its collective mind over immigration, President Donald Trump has decided to keep President Barack Obama’s executive order that protects the LGBTQ community in the workplace. From The New York Post:

    “President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community. President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said in a Tuesday morning statement.

    “The president is proud to have been the first ever GOP nominee to mention the LGBTQ community in his nomination acceptance speech, pledging then to protect the community from violence and oppression,” the press secretary added.

    “The executive order signed in 2014, which protects employees from anti-LGBTQ workplace discrimination while working for federal contractors, will remain intact at the direction of President Donald J. Trump,” Spicer concluded.

    Of course people had circulated rumors that Trump wanted to overturn this policy. These same people obviously ignored Trump during the campaign because he always made it known that he holds the LGBTQ community in a high esteem.

    Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin remains unconvinced. He stated that Trump “has left the key question unanswered — will he commit to opposing any executive actions that allow government employees, taxpayer-funded organizations or even companies to discriminate?”

    Again, where was Griffin during the campaign? Trump is the first president to openly support gay marriage when he took the oath of office. Look at his statement after a radical Islamic terrorist slaughtered gays at an Orlando club:

    “Our nation stands together in solidarity with the members of Orlando’s LGBT community,” Trump said. “They have been through something that nobody could ever experience. A radical Islamic terrorist targeted the nightclub, not only because he wanted to kill Americans, but because he wanted to execute gay and lesbian citizens because of their sexual orientation. It’s a strike at the heart and soul of who we are as nation. It’s an assault on the ability of free people to live their lives, love who they want and express their identity.”

    My best friend Chris Barron worked tirelessly during the campaign to prove that Trump was better for the community than Hillary Clinton. After Trump won the election, Barron penned an op-ed for Fox News reminding the gay community that Trump will support them:

    Orlando was not the beginning of Trump’s outreach to the LGBT community, indeed it is much more of a natural continuation of Trump’s long-time record of treating LGBT people with fairness and equality in the business sector.

    While Hillary Clinton was busy supporting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, Donald Trump was hiring LGBT Americans, promoting LGBT Americans and offering benefits to the partners and families of LGBT Americans.

    Here is a video of Trump waving the LGBTQ flag:

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments



     
     8 
     
     4
    Ragspierre | January 31, 2017 at 1:17 pm

    AnOTHER of those areas where faux conservatives did a 180 at the first word from T-rump.

    “Marriage” was once a known, recognized, and mostly univeral conservative value.


       
       1 
       
       10
      Tom Servo in reply to Ragspierre. | January 31, 2017 at 1:58 pm

      In actuality, small government conservatives who favor libertarian values, like me, have always wanted the government to stay out of peoples private lives. The problems only come about if they try to inject their private lives into my life and interfere with MY rights. As long as my rights aren’t trampled, I couldn’t care less what other people do in their private lives, and I think that’s grown to be a majority “conservative” value at this time.

      Also, Trump never said anything other than this throughout the campaign. The only ones who said Trump was against this were Hillary operatives trying hard to whip up the vote in a demographic they were sure that they owned. In reality, at least 2 good friends of mine are gay and support Trump wholeheartedly. Point being, anybody who’s surprised by this announcement hasn’t been paying much attention to what he’s been saying for the last year.

      Finally, for 30 years, the left has been trying to portray all “conservatives” as being full throated Jerry Falwell followers; in reality, those are just a small part of the coalition of groups that can be called the constellation of Trump supporters. Mike Huckabee is probably the most well known representative of that group, and yeah, I agree that he’s been hypocritical many times over. But if he truly spoke for all conservatives, then he’d be sitting in the oval office today rather than Trump, wouldn’t he?


         
         11 
         
         1
        Ragspierre in reply to Tom Servo. | January 31, 2017 at 2:16 pm

        “In actuality, small government conservatives who favor libertarian values, like me, have always wanted the government to stay out of peoples private lives.”

        This is, of course, the shallow and rather stupid rationale we’ve been sold for the last decades.

        The assault on marriage did not implicate anyone’s “private lives”. Many of us supported civil unions and changes in the tax code. I’ve helped queer clients with securing the same rights (down to the tax code, which I can’t change) via existing legal means.

        As predicted, and people like you stupidly assured could not happen, this crap has led inexorably to the question of bathrooms and tranny Boy Scouts.

        Way to go, “conservative”.


           
           1 
           
           3
          Tom Servo in reply to Ragspierre. | January 31, 2017 at 5:57 pm

          I should point out that the 2 gay friends of mine I mentioned are now legally married, and their marriage is far more stable and supportive than many (if not most) hetero marriages I’ve seen. And their politics are just as conservative as mine.

          Marriage was about allowing them to have the same inheritance, estate planning, and survivorship benefits that other couples are allowed under the law. What rational basis is there for denying them this? Homosexual behavior used to be against the law, as did miscegenation. When those behaviors were illegal, it followed that marriages based on such behavior should be banned. Now that those laws have been repealed, the ban no longer made any legal sense.

          I actually wish that the word “marriage” could have been left to have a purely religious meaning, as in a union blessed by a church, and that government would have concerned itself with certifying a civil union for all legal benefits. (and do that for EVERYONE) But no, we had to get religion and government all mixed up on this issue, and religious views have taken a beating like always happens when religion gets mixed up with government. Hundreds of years of religious wars in Europe, and we still struggle with figuring out why the two should be kept so far apart.


             
             0 
             
             0
            Ragspierre in reply to Tom Servo. | January 31, 2017 at 7:13 pm

            “Marriage was about allowing them to have the same inheritance, estate planning, and survivorship benefits that other couples are allowed under the law. What rational basis is there for denying them this?”

            None.

            And they weren’t, liar. Like I said above, I’ve provided this for queer clients. Everything but the Federal tax benefits, which are pretty dubious anyhow.

            Marriage was…still is, really…the union of the opposite sexes. All through both time and space. There was never a culture or religion that recognized “gay marriage”. Ever. Not even the Greeks, for whom homosexual relations between men were vaunted.

            As I noted, this bullshit opened the door for all kinds of social aberration, and it will get worse with time.

            There are reasons for social norms, and you aren’t smart enough to even begin to get them. Plus, you believe lies, as noted above.


         
         6 
         
         1
        Ragspierre in reply to Tom Servo. | January 31, 2017 at 3:48 pm

        Just to be clear, you support the Supremes in deciding that “marriage” is what-ever-the-fluck.

        Right…???


           
           1 
           
           3
          Tom Servo in reply to Ragspierre. | January 31, 2017 at 6:04 pm

          I wish it would have been left to be a state by state position; on the grounds of federalism I think the SCOTUS causes a great deal of trouble for our system when they try to dictate social change from the top down. It was too heavy handed an approach to an issue that should have been settled legislatively by the 50 states.


     
     0 
     
     8
    buckeyeminuteman | January 31, 2017 at 1:18 pm

    Violence and oppression are always wrong, no matter what. Government should probably not discriminate against who they hire, as long as they are hiring the best, most qualified people. However, a private company has every right and should have every right to hire or not hire who they will based on any criteria they set for themselves.


       
       0 
       
       8
      Granny in reply to buckeyeminuteman. | January 31, 2017 at 1:54 pm

      Yes and no. I grew up in a time when private companies could and did discriminate against women. To apply for a job you had to provide not only your own information, but also your husband’s – along with his employer. Getting a job as an Army wife was no easy task, let me tell you.

      Do I think that employers should be able to set a certain standard like expecting their employees to wear a particular uniform or not having visible tatoos? Absolutely. On the other hand, they have no right to veer into the land of outright discrimination.

      Let me give you just one example. Here in the US we’ve heard more than one flap over a Muslim woman who gets herself a job as a cashier at a supermarket and then refuses to ring up booze, pork or bacon. The JOB is ringing up whatever your customer chooses to buy. Should the company be able to fire her? Absolutely because that cashier accepted the job under false pretenses.

      Oddly enough, when visiting my daughter in the UK I made several trips to the grocery store. One of the young women ringing register was clearly a Muslim, but she didn’t bat a single eye-lash at booze, bacon – of which the Brits eat quite some little bit – or pork chops. Which leads me to believe that those incidents here are really political theater preplanned before the job was ever acquired.


         
         0 
         
         6
        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Granny. | January 31, 2017 at 2:09 pm

        100% accurate on your statement – it’s all done in the U.S. for “political theater” and to score points over the opponent.

        RE: “Which leads me to believe that those incidents here are really political theater preplanned before the job was ever acquired.”


     
     0 
     
     4
    Oregon Mike | January 31, 2017 at 1:48 pm

    But, but, but ….

    The rainbow flag was upside down! Obviously, he’s lying!

    /sarc


     
     2 
     
     3
    tom swift | January 31, 2017 at 2:18 pm

    Trump is the first president to openly support gay marriage when he took the oath of office. Look at his statement after a radical Islamic terrorist slaughtered gays at an Orlando club:

    A desire and intent to prevent homicidal Muslims from murdering Americans is hardly tantamount to support for “gay marriage”.

    Gay activists have fostered the fraud that calling whatever-it-is should be called “marriage”, and that such an assault on the English language is equivalent to the rights which they obviously have simply by being members of the civic body—protection of the law from the standard crimes, enforcement of contracts, property rights, etc.

    But this is a lie, and it’s a bad precedent to pretend otherwise.

    Another crime we can lay at the feet of that particular activist “community” is the concept of “hate crimes”—a horrible perversion of the basic American concepts of law and order.

    Capricious debasement of the English language, and trivialization of law, are both serious trends which will only get worse with time.

    But they hardly seem amenable to attack via EO. A President could fight them from the “bully pulpit” rather than by trying to do so through law or EO. As I recall, a very useful term for a previously unarticulated concept—”Political Correctness”—got its initial high-profile exposure in a speech by the first President Bush.

    But I suppose it’s up to Trump to pick his fights.


     
     0 
     
     1
    rabidfox | January 31, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    But does he support the idea that a man can use a ladies room by just claiming that he feels like a woman.


       
       0 
       
       2
      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to rabidfox. | January 31, 2017 at 3:23 pm

      Does he support “Leaving the seat up,” or “Leaving the seat down?”

      That is the issue Leftists should be obsessed with!

      LOL

      Bye Bye Bye Leftists!


       
       0 
       
       0
      healthguyfsu in reply to rabidfox. | January 31, 2017 at 11:49 pm

      In essence, yes he does. I think there are important considerations that he should consider, particularly with regards to minors, but he has said “let them use whatever restroom they want”.


       
       0 
       
       0
      clintack in reply to rabidfox. | February 1, 2017 at 12:16 am

      I believe Peter Thiel delivered Trump’s answer to that question at the RNC: “When I was a kid, the great debate was about how to defeat the Soviet Union, and we won. Now we are told that the great debate is about who gets to use which bathroom. This is a distraction from our real problems. Who cares?”


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend