LGBTQ Workplace Discrimination Case Comes To The Supreme Court

You know all those people who tried to sell the gay community that Trump had no problems with gays or gay rights and would not seek to overturn Heller, but he was going to appoint justices that opposed Roe v Wade. I kept telling everyone I could find, that when he finds justices that oppose abortion rights, they will wind up ******** all over gay rights whether Trump attends a gay wedding in New York or not. Based on the same privacy right that Blackmun discussed in his majority opinion, which itself rests on Griswald, and Pierce v Society of Sisters, Lawerence v Texas rests on the foundation of Roe as well as the aforementioned.

One way or another, if you stack the court full of opponents of Roe, you will do no favors for gay rights. On the narrow issue before this court, concerning the civil rights act and whether inclusion of 'sex' must apply to sexual orientation, I am actually of two minds because how one balances ones preferred philosophy behind constitutional or statutory interpretation, with the pragmatics of modern society and the contradictions in historical or textual interpretations is pivotal to how this gets decided. I can honestly respect either view and where it takes the decision.

These kinds of cases are exactly why we need a variety of approaches to constitutional interpretation represented on the courts. Whatever the result, hopefully the concurring and dissenting opinions will provide seeds for the next generation to tussle with these competing visions.

 

I thought the thread was about discrimination. Now you appear to think it it’s only important on who is being discriminated.

Pro tip: don’t ignore discrimination in a thread about discrimination just because you approve of it.

 

Really? So as an employer, who get to hired who you want because you are not comfortable with their sexual orientation? And you think you are the one being discriminated against if you can't do so?

 

How about we just get Congress to do their job? Pass a law amending AA laws to include sexual orientation instead of using past decisions of the courts to figure out how to attempt to manipulate the courts into siding with X ideology? That is the proper way to go about this.

 

Dude, wake up, discrimination exists across the country. Google is firing conservatives. The DNC won’t hire straight white people.

How many Muslims hire LGBTQei+ EIEO people? Let me guess, you’ll find one, just one, and tell me it’s indicative of all Muslims. Hopefully that one gay guy doesn’t work in a tall building owned but Muslims.

 

Fake news.

All DNC people who work for the DNC are gay?? There are no white people working for the DNC??

Why the hell you want to compare the US to some Muslim country?? We are living in the US. Deal with the issues here.

 

That is a straw man argument. The argument is that he/she did not want to risk being sued over something trivial like telling a joke just because it offended the person who happens to be {insert whatever sexual orientation here}. It's not the sexual orientation that is uncomfortable, its being forced to be wary of every single word that you say, every single action that you take, every side glance you take etc etc just because the person is easily offended by the slightest of things. When you are around someone that gets easily offended and is sue happy its like a perpetual cloud threatening you with lightening bolts. That is an uncomfortable position for anyone to be in.

Put simply: it has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It has to do with the threat of being sued for something as trivial as a joke. And now a days people are willing to lie. "hostile work place" is a common theme that is used. And it doesn't even have to be in the work place anymore. Simply tweeting something outside of office hours and in plain clothes can cause a person that is offended easily to get a person fired.

 

1. No, it’s not fake news. Keep up,

2. Read the leaked DNC memo.

3. Oh, the friggin irony.

 

I think you just assumed that it is some manipulation to apply the actual text. It is impossible to conclude that 'sex' is deemed irrelevant when by its very nature, the sex ( gender) of one or both of the plaintiffs in a sexual orientation case is directly relevant to the nature of discrimination. You cannot easily separate sex( gender) from sexual orientation because sexual orientation is by definition gender based, so will be the resultant discrimination.

Its not 'manipulation'. Its textualism. You read the text and you apply mercilessly and you end up deciding that it is impossible to be gender blind, and discriminate based on the orientation. You prove that but for the gender of the plaintiff and his love interest, the discrimination could not have happened. If it happened, the gender of someone , was fundamental. That is discrimination based on sex ( gender)

If you decide the read the language with an understanding of what the authors meant in 1964, and it is utterly clear they did not fathom this later application when they used the word 'sex'.

Just a different way of looking at how to reach a decision.

 

It is illegal for you to ask about sexual orientation on a job application. How would you know at the time of hire what sexual orientation a person is to come to your decision not to hire because you are "uncomfortable."

 

Then show proof.

Leaked by who? some conservative trash blog??

No irony here dude. Deal the issue at hand and don't resort to some lame ass excuse that if these people live in Muslim countries, that they would be killed, so it's better for them to be discriminated against.

 

They did fire a liberal for voicing concern over the identity politics BS.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/8/2...sent-james-damore-cernekee-conservatives-bias

But go on, your other points are good.

 

I don't think that's a bridge too far with lesbians gays and bisexuals. The problem comes in trends and whatever Q means.

If you have an employee that decides to make their identity into a circus then you should be able to fire them. Especially if you're not running a circus.

So their needs to be a realm of acceptability. If you were born male that's fine, or the other way around. If you identify as a unicorn gender and demanded everyone address you and suck you have become a circus.

 

if it's about orientation it's about gay people lesbians and bisexuals and to some degree straight people .

Transgenderism is not a sexual orientation. It is a gender identity.

If you don't identify as male or female and you don't turn your work environment into a circus fine. But if you demand everybody recognize your fictitious gender, and make yourself into a sideshow especially if you're not working at a circus you should be fired.

How is someone supposed to run a dignified business if every time someone calls one of your employees sir or ma'am and they freak out? Maybe if you're that touchy about it you ought take a hiatus until you get your s*** together.

I think this is the number one reason why people are turning against the LGBT. Because it's not about equal treatment anymore. It's about ramming your personal crap down everyone's throat and if they dare object the thunder comes down upon them in the form of LGBT activism.

The people you are f****** the hardest with this kind of crap are gays lesbians bisexuals and transgenders.

 

...and if the companies customer base leaves? Maybe the owners should make the employees 49% owners, so if the bork things up they lose too.

 

well yeah that would be ideal

 

The shitty employees who think they're above working tend to go with that excuse, or some of the other more common ones.

I work for the government. You see it all the time. You cant make anyone do anything or else they'll run to the union and complain that you're racist or sexist or whatever.

That's why we have people who watch movies for 8 hours a day and nobody says ****.

 

Landing pad and big garage with sliding pole

 

And yet you make the distinction between sex (gender) and sexual orientation in your argument. Why did you do that? Because you know that they are two very different things. When you talk about someone's sexual orientation you don't just plainly say "sex", you say "sexual orientation" or "gay" or "bi-sexual, or "homosexual" or "heterosexual" etc etc etc. You know that they are different with different meanings. One is about gender. The others have to do with your sexual desires. So your argument is nothing more than sophistry in an attempt to manipulate while hoping that someone doesn't notice that you can't help but separate the two when discussing them. There is one group where current AA laws would work with. Trans people. That IS about the persons sex and not about their sexual orientation.

And there is more to the laws than just the textual. There is the Spirit of the Law also. IE: What the law was meant to cover when the law was designed. Ignore that and you start having people charged for crimes that they should not be charged for. For instance "sexting" is a common thing now a days. Are you really going to charge two 16 or 17 year olds for child pornography over their sexting? Who's the victim? Who's the perpetrator? They're both considered children. Both participated willingly. Yet if you apply the law against child pornography textually then you have to charge both kids with violating the law. Or you can apply the spirit of the law and just scold them for being stupid and let them be.

Like I said, do things the right way. Go through Congress. Get sexual orientation added to AA laws. Don't try and manipulate as there are consequences for doing such.

 

Some people are quite open about their sexual orientation. Usually they will bring it up some how...those are the ones that are likely to sue you also.

 

If having a trans employee loses the business money why should the business be forced to keep them?

Also is there a limit on number of times they can change sex because some places have specific uniforms for gender

 

I was in our local Wal mart a few weeks back and the local male cross dresser (Nice enough guy) and his female friend were in the electronic department. The Women was having some sort of total melt down (Drunk off her ass) about some off the wall reason or ten and was escorted out of the store..

From there she calls the police and of course (This town) has to dispatch at least three units so the rubbernecks have something interesting to see and talk about.. The whole time this Woman is having a fit yelling discrimination and how she was thrown out because of sexual orientation while the obvious reason she was thrown out is she was wasted, pissed off about a price and yelling her ass off..

Goes on more then people want to admit, and in todays PC environment a payday for discrimination is a very possible outcome if it makes it to a court..

 

Yup, that just what happen except it was the Gay Women making the scene..

 

There have been several instances with someone being fired because of a wedding photo or because they have introduced someone to their spouse and it has spread around the workplace.

Most of the lawsuits I have seen have not been over someone being a distraction at work rather them just trying to live their lives.
Which conservatives for some reason take deep issue with.

If an employer can show the employee was creating an undue issue at work then they should be allowed to fire them, firing them because they are gay should not be allowed — that said we need it gay rights protections codified into national law, I hope the SCOTUS rejects this so that the next time Democrats hold a majority they will be forced to act on a congressional level.