Supreme Court says federal law protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination

Right. If you don't fire Joe for having a relationship with Jane at work, then you can't fire Mary either, because the only difference between Mary and Joe is their SEX, discrimination based on SEX is forbidden by the 1964 civil rights act.

A DIFFERENT CASE: If you are wondering whether Justice Gorsuch’s decision that Title VII prohibits discrimination on basis of sex will also control the case concerning bathroom and shower assignment of transgender students, the answer is (believed to be) absolutely not. Amicus curiae brief

 

Every major medical and social scentific body in the western world is irrelevant because you think it is?

Nobody legislated anything. They interpreted an existing ban on sex discrimination to include Bobby (m) marrying Pete to be protected from firing if Bobby (f) marrying Pete would not have been fired for the exact same reason.

Celibate homosexuals or heterosexuals are still that even if they're not actively having sex. A straight man isn't latently gay just because he's not getting any action.

 

Conservatives say: "we should judge all workers by their skills, education, abilities. Unless they are Gay or Muslim".

 

Conservatives believe if you are not allowed to fire someone because they are Gay, you are living under an authoritarian system.

 

I agree with the dissent in principle, but support the results of the majority decision.

 

Well for instance it’s harder for me to get hired at a job if I am equally qualified as a black applicant. I have to outperform them to get hired over them since they get bonus points via affirmative action. It’s harder for white people to get into the best colleges because again, blacks get bonus points.

There is also the cultural issue where every time a black person is victimized by a white person it becomes nationwide news, often times with riots and protests. Despite the objective fact that black people kill and assault white people more often than the reverse. Yet the false narratives that black people deal with racism at astounding rates still persist.

Trump supporters are undoubtedly dwindling and getting smaller. I whole heartedly agree with you. However, its because of the false narratives misrepresentations. Social engineering is a powerful thing and dems wielded it very effectively.

 

That is your delusion, not reality.

Democrats believe if you disagree with them at all on anything whatsoever, you are a nazi.

 

Incorrect, that is your delusion.

Democrats say, “We should tolerate anyone and everyone, except those who have even the slightest difference of opinion. They should be destroyed.”

 

I am opposed to ANY anti-discrimination employment laws which are predicated upon non-biological, mutable states. I believe such laws should be limited to immutable, biological states like race, height, gender, etc. All else is mutable, and largely unfalsifiable - therefore subject to abuse and exploitation. That is not justice. It makes a mockery of the idea of justice.

 

If 500 people apply for a particular job at your company, you're refusing 499. Would you like it if they had access to exploitable laws with which to financially punish you for 'refusing' them?

 

I realise you're giving this your best shot, but you're still nowhere near the point.

Sexuality is MUTABLE. When something is mutable, it's unfalsifiable .. and therefore any laws pertaining are open to abuse and exploitation.

As for your second point .. again, you totally missed the point.

 

Let's try a different way of explaining this. Pretend a manager fired a woman for shaving her head. The manager even has some rationale for it: the woman met with clients and he thought her shaved head would upset those clients (for the sake of this example, no clients have actually complained).* However, there are numerous men in similar positions at the company who also shave their heads, and they have not been fired or even spoken to about that part of their appearance. That woman could file a sex-discrimination lawsuit and would likely win, especially if she wasn't the first woman to be fired shortly after changing her appearance in a way that is typically associated with men rather than women. In short, gender-based appearance requirements at companies tend to be easily challenged in court on anti-discrimination grounds.

Firing someone for being gay is now something someone can sue over under the same logic. The manager sees the woman kiss her girlfriend or wife and fires her, despite the fact that he wouldn't fire a man for kissing his girlfriend or wife, for instance. Make sense? The discrimination is still sex-based. I know you keep trying to make this out to be an easy solution for someone who was recently fired to just claim that they're gay, but they would have to have some causal chain in order to even start the process of filing a lawsuit. Is it not just as easy for someone to claim they changed their appearance to something that doesn't fit traditional gender norms and got fired over it?

*It should also be noted that this is similar to the reason the trans person was fired from the funeral home in the SCOTUS case.

 

What false narratives? What misrepresentations? Got anything specific, or just generalities?

Poor you, having to compete for jobs and educational opportunities with those you are certain are your inferiors. Instead of whinging about what you believe to be a negation of your inherent white privilege, perhaps you should man up, grow a set, and prove your superiority.

Women have had to do just that for decades, work twice as hard in order to be considered half as good as a man. Fortunately, that's not difficult.

 

Delete

 

It’s not just compete, I have to outperform just to be on an even playing field given the discriminatory affirmation action. There is no such thing as white privilege, that is a false narrative created to justify racist discrimination. You don’t have to like this truth but it is true nonetheless.

I never claimed they are inferior, that is a straw man you just created simply because you don’t have a good argument otherwise. In fact, it’s because I don’t think they are inferior is why I think we should be on an even playing field and not give them bonus points lol.

so past discrimination makes present discrimination ok? Thank you for that, you proved my point for me so much lol.

So take your own advice and grow a pair and recognize you are wrong and improve.

 

Well, condescension notwithstanding, maybe I'm nowhere near the point because you're not very good at explaining it, or maybe there isn't a point to explain?

For some yes, for most no. That's why I keep mentioning every medical and social scientific organization in the western world and presumably why you keep ignoring it.

That said, even if what you are saying were true, what if Pete was married to Jayne when he first got the job but miraculously turned gay eighteen months in, got a divorce and married Mike? Why should that be an acceptable reason to fire him from the job if he continues to perform it equally well?

One of the plaintiffs in this case was fired because he was discovered to be playing in a gay softball league. Ooh! Heinous, he should be on the dole for sure!

Other countries which you've lauded here for various reasons such as the UK and Australia have had sexual orientation discrimination in employment bans in place for years.

One could argue that with their vastly superior legal aid resources, if any of the nightmarish situations you conject were to happen, it would be much more likely to happen there than here where you either need stacks of cash to start a suit or rely on a pro-bono representation. Yet that does not seem to have come to pass.

Any law can be open to abuse. Why is this one any different? As cynical as I am, I think one should at least give the vast majority of innocent citizens who will welcome this ruling the benefit of the doubt, rather than curtail it for the projected imagining of a few bad apples.

You asked, I answered!

 

Wow, so you don't think you should have to outperform your competition? It's what I've had to do my whole life, regardless of whether that competition was male, female, black, white, or whatever. You want to win? Work for it, don't whine about it. Prove you're the best person for the job, or study harder and get a higher SAT score. Do you know what they call 2nd place in auto racing? First loser.

And fyi, I'm not male, so growing a pair isn't relevant. My habit, over a nearly 50 year career in high tech, was to run cirles around the competition. Know why? Because whining never did me any good.

If you truly believe that black people get free points, then show them how much higher you can score. The employment market has never been a level playing field for minorities or white women, in spite of Affirmative Action or any other non-discrimination legislation. That IS white male privilege, whether you think so or not.

 

I think me and my competition should be considered on an equal playing field prior to our qualifications. What’s happening, is prior to our qualifications being considered blacks are given bonus points. That is racist and discrimination. The fact I’ve made it as far as I have is because I work harder than others, but that doesn’t make discrimination acceptable. It’s not that I believe it, it’s that it is an objective fact. One you would know if you took a moment to research.

I don’t care what you are, makes no difference. The fact is I’ve effectively proven how discrimination is affecting white people and that seems to bother you. You seem to be ok with it since it happened to women historically. That’s nonsense.

like it or not, your creation of straw men only proves me more correct.

 

Prove sexual orientation is mutable for all gay people and we will be in agreement.

Chosen religious belief being a protected state is a joke imo.

 

You are arguing discriminatory hiring and placement partings which I agree should be illegal if not unconstitutional. This is about gay people being treated equally under the law, nothing more. You will in no shape or form be discriminated against because someone didn’t get fired because they like the same sex.

 

Not what I am arguing at all. Perhaps I got a little off topic however.

 

Trump supporters are being discriminated against due to their political beliefs, which are very reasonable. It’s wrong and occurring more often than anything gay people are dealing with. There is nothing mentally disabled about supporting Trump regardless of what the democrat sycophants claims.

 

Many people believe they are not reasonable but I will disagree that they are facing it more often than gay people have.

On what statute grounds do you believe trump supporters should be protected from being terminated? Political views are not a protected class in employment to my knowledge, are you arguing it should be?

 

Those many people are the unreasonable ones, if they think it’s unreasonable to support Trump.

I think political alignment should be protected if we are going to protect things like sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. Yes. If we aren’t going to allow businesses to largely control their own practices then I would like to see some logical consistency in the manner in which we create these protective laws.

 

Nope, you're still missing the point. You've just given an example of GENDER discrimination. I've stated very clearly that those laws are just and necessary.