With amendments not by appointing liberal justices. Also you are undermining your previous point. If the constitution was ment to be changed conservatives would be acting accordingly by stacking courts.

and taking away right yes I agree. But also the stacking the courts goes back to my anti democratic statement earlier

obama was blocked by republicans and couldn't fill the seat in the house

removing special protections for transgender people is not taking away their rights. You dont have a right to special treatment just because you claim to be the oposite gender. By removing these protections they are operating by the same rules as all other people. That doesnt sound like its so terrible.

I won't into how anti science that statement was we can go over that later.

Senate republicans dont have to confirm a justice they dont like, just as democrats wanted to block trumps nominees. Nothing wrong with that.

should we remove the rules that protect race?

yes

also they didn't even call a vote btw

they should have

they blocked the vote

exactly

but they should not have confirmed if they didnt want to

ok back on the protections of minorities should we protect remove all protected classes

the reason for blocking the vote was dumb

yes

the reason was for a right leaning justice. Obama even game them a hard centrist

and they still said no

what do you think will happen to southern states if we remove minority protections

replacing a originalist with a centrist (we probably disagree on what a centrist is), come on. When RBG dies you will probably not be fine with republicans nominating a "hard centrist"

just don't take rights away from people then I probably don't care

you dont have a right to be thought of highly by other people, you dont have a right to be employed by anyone and you dont have a right to be respected or accepted in anyones community

"what do you think will happen to southern states if we remove minority protections" - nothing, you really think people cant be racist in their hiring now?

sure, as long as that discrimination is not on the basis of the protected classes

they can be but if found out they will have a problem on their hands

no they will just find other reasons to fire someone now, if you really wanna fire someone for being black or white or whatever you can always find a legitimate reason if you just look hard enough

then why care if it in law if you believe that

And you should be able to discriminate against people for any reason you want. You dont have to associate with anyone you dislike business or private for any reason whatsoever. You dont like black people dont - fine, you dont like straight people - fine, you dont like transgender people - fine, you dont like conservatives - fine. No member of a "protected class" has the right to demand employment or acceptance in a private group. People should associate with whom they please.

""No member of a "protected class" has the right to demand employment or acceptance in a private group"" I agree unless they own a PUBLIC business or are a property owner, and I don't think the protected classes are DEMANDING jobs from people just don't say no based on their trait

"then why care if it in law if you believe that" - because it creates the precedent that the government has the power to force you to associate with people you dont like, even if they are really lousy at implementation

this seems childish the only scenario you get to decide who you associate with is by being an owner of capital. Being a worker you don't get to decide anything like who you work with or who owns your building

yes you do. If you have two job offers you can say I dont like the boss in company A because he is black or gay or a republican I rather work for company B. Nothing wrong in this scenario.

sure, but how many people get to choose from a wide variety of jobs?

and you can make a point to rather live in a building owned by someone you like. Also workers can have their own houses.

'just buy a house'

no you are just assuming no worker has their own house which seems like a stretch

I think this is a good example of where I disagree with most conservatives. This idea of absolute agency and everything bad that has happened to you or whatever spot you're in in life is your fault and always will be

and are you telling me you never got the opportunity to work another job even for less money if you really didnt want to work for the company you work for now? You accepting another job for less money because you dont like your current employer is like an employer not hiring a competent member of a protected class because they dont like them, but hiring a less competent member of a group they like. You both lose in that scenario but you can make a bad trade if you want to.

I'm not talking about me in this context I'm referring to someone living paycheck to paycheck stuck in their job

The amount of choice an owner has vs a worker in so large

depending on the worker of course