Supreme Court says federal law protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination

Will this make employers more or less likely to hire them?

 

The notion that someone who uses lady justice as their icon would attack this ruling on the grounds that it hurts women is really odd to me.

 

More "agenda".

Please describe this agenda.

And, your Swarthmore thing is certainly not going to fly if they fully informed you of their offer to you and then you accepted the offer.

There have been times where it's been possible to argue in court that a job offering isn't legal. But, that has to do with the legality of the job definition and compensation. It has nothing to do with persoanl characteristics of those who accepted the offer.

 

An employer who was willing to fire someone for being gay or transgendered is definitely already an employer who was unwilling to hire someone for being gay or transgendered.

 

And those countries are all mid-of-the-pack economically, mostly due to the loss of hours. Actually, forget the country. MEN by themselves lose in those countries because now they are obligated to take that time off, instead of working. And men losing financial ground has not been good for the family unit, or marriages as a whole because if men can't keep up with women, there's no reason for a woman to be with a man(where historically in past times it was financial security.)

While this has been pioneered and cheered, it will also mean that women cannot stay at home even when the pregnancy has passed. she's the new bread winner now.(This is entirely the economic/sociological consequences of the idea, however noble.)

 

I never did get any...

 

Ask the other guy, I didn't make up or bring an agenda. I simply said there isn't one. That this is largely a business sector problem that's being ignored, in light of the civil rights gains that have been achieved. We can acknowledge both things. Oh and PS, no I was not made aware of it. My HS teacher offered the idea to me and as the very naive 17 year old I was, I said sure. I didn't think I wouldn't get paid or that it was basically indentured servitude.

 

What a load, your outdated social stigma is long dead and gone.

 

This will protect them on hiring also, if they refuse to hire them because of their orientation the same outcome will occur.

Do you believe Christians or blacks are less likely to be hired because of their inclusion in employment protections?
How about women or the elderly?

Or is it only the gays?

 

I have nothing against gays, nothing. I asked my sister about when she 'decided' to be gay, and it was after a really bad long term relationship with a man ended. In her mind, she was not born gay, she is just turned off by men because of what happened to her. I never asked my cousins about it, but one look at either one of them and you can just tell what they are because they broadcast it.

What turns me off are their parades, the behavior of many of them, and worse still, the way they want to rub our noses in it. If they were all like my sister, who you wouldn't even know was gay unless she told you, then all would be ok. BLM is doing the same thing and in both cases it's human nature to resist something that's being force-fed to you. I could sit down with a black or gay person and discuss the ways of the world, but I do not want to hear how they're oppressed, I do not want naked people parading around my family, and I especially don't want to hear how it's my fault. They have their tastes and lifestyle, I have mine. I don't blame them for my problems, they shouldn't blame me for theirs. And most of all, both of those groups want special rights and recognition for what they are, I don't. And if you're going to ask what special rights, the first one is they're eligible to be victims of hate crimes, I'm not. They get check boxes, I don't. To be eligible for an Oscar they have to be in movies. Both groups claim victimhood, I can't. Do you see what I mean? If everyone just acted like a regular person and didn't inject their religion, politics, gender, race, etc, then I would be more than willing to engage in whatever discussion they want. (in this regard my mother drives me crazy. She's a Jehovah's Witness, I'm not, and she sees/injects a religious meaning in everything and it makes me nuts)

 

It's not a "social stigma", it's literally the financial situations on the ground in Europe and in the US. A woman can work two full-time jobs, and struggle to keep up with inflation and none of this is even including if the lady has kids. Further weakening men's financial status is just going to bring more ruin to the West.

 

It is against the law to ask what people's fav sex is while applying for a job.

 

I've been a single parent twice(1980's-1990's) (2000's-now) it gave me no excuse not to make money...I am,,, a man also for contextuality......

 

Kavanaugh showed he’s a liar.
Happy now?

 

We do know that the lockdowns severely crippled business.
We know that Socialists are anti-capitalists and therefore if small business closes they are happy.

So, could it be the Supreme Court just dealt yet another blow to small business on purpose?

 

If they don't want you to know they are gay, you may not always be able to tell.

 

That isn’t how laws work. Can you fire someone for their religion?

 

If they’re pregnant why wouldn’t they get maternity time off?

 

Do religious protections make it less or more likely a business will hire someone from a minority religious group?

 

...said atheist

 

And as far as employment goes, as a man for you it's simple. But if your hours get reduced, or if "flex wage" becomes predominate and you're no longer capable of full time employment, then men as a whole will suffice dramatically on the financial front. And the truth is, we cannot view finances as though one sex exists without the other.

Weakened women puts the demand on men, and weakened men puts the demand on women. However good intentions these "maternity" leave laws have, if they are applied universally what will follow is that businesses have less reason to have good wages.

In fact, that's a big reason why the situation is what it is right now: Why pay a US/Euro worker big bucks when you can pay off some Chinese servant?

We have to balance between being "woke" and being reasonable.

 

That is not possible. How can someone who was never hired be fired?

 

Can you prove that they did? Essentially, the issue is that this expands on discrimination and not just for the LBGT but for anyone claiming a sexual discrimination. It's a he said/she said with the same problems as rape cases in the US. Only now we've got businesses tangled up. That's great.

 

If a white person dyes their skin dark brown, why can't they apply as a minority and use the N word freely in public?

According to your question, what's the difference? Both would be altered and be something they were not naturally.

So then you argue that we as a a society should embrace anything and everything people come up with natural or unnatural.....regardless of the cost to society?

If you say yes, you are one of those who believes that everyone in America can be a multimillionaire.....they just need to print more money.

 

I don't get your point here at all.

In this case, the SC said employers can't fire someone for being LGBTQ.

This wasn't about how easy or hard it is to prove the reason for the firing. The three employers who were part of this case each said that they had indeed fired their respecive employees. That and any difficulties in court weren't in question.