Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-12-2015, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Annandale, VA
5,094 posts, read 5,151,662 times
Reputation: 4231

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef View Post
For a second there, I thought Kansas might treat gay and transgender people like actual human beings. Thank you Governor Brownback, for trying to divert attention away from the disaster you've created with Kansas' finances by going out of your way to make gay and transgender people miserable.

They are already miserable. Why do you think they re-defined the word "gay" which means "happy" to apply to their condition?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2015, 09:27 AM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,403,441 times
Reputation: 4241
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Name me 1 Circuit Court case in which a US Federal Appeals Court has held that the Civil Rights Act provides protection on the basis of sexual orientation. Name me just 1.
Read the ****ing article genius.. It's in there.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002)
Nicholas v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001)
Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002)
Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000)
Quote:
In at least some circumstances, however, courts are increasingly finding that LGBT employees are entitled to protection under Title VII.
Protection for LGBT Employees Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act | Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities

There's not only 1 but 5. You're welcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 09:30 AM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,441,760 times
Reputation: 3141
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321 View Post
Failed fiscal and tax policies and failed social policies. That's the conservative ideology for you.
Easy to say, hard to prove.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,261 posts, read 14,119,666 times
Reputation: 9895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker View Post
Unless they are trying to pick someone up in the bathroom, there is no way to know their sexual orientation. How do you know someone is gay unless they put it out there???
Chatting at lunch about spouses? Wedding ring? Family photos on your desk? Discussing weekend plans with your family? I don't have to be propositioned at work to know that they guy sitting beside me is married to a woman and has 2 kids, I just have to look at the picture on his desk or he tells me when we discuss what our weekend plans are. "The wife and I are going to see a movie"

Things that most people chat about at some point at work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 09:50 AM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,474,580 times
Reputation: 20674
Regardless of state laws, 88% of Fortune 500 ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and 66% also ban discrimination based on gender identity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 09:55 AM
 
14,295 posts, read 9,634,544 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Two days ago, employees or potential employees of the State of Kansas could not be discriminated against in employment decisions because of their religion, race, color, gender, national origin, ancestry, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Not any more - at least if your gay or transgender. Today, Republican Governor Sam Brownback issued an executive order removing anti-discrimination protections for State employees on the basis of one's sexual orientation or gender identity. From now on, the State of Kansas can fire, refuse to hire, refuse to promote, etc, etc, etc someone simply because he or she is gay or lesbian.

Kansas governor removes protections for LGBT employees - LA Times
How can you be fired from a state employee job for being gay?

"Hey you!!! After leaving work, and going home, do you ever kiss another man on the lips?"

"Yeah, sometimes, sure."

"Ah-hah!!! You're fired!!!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 10:17 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,048,796 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
Read the ****ing article genius.. It's in there.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)
Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002)
Nicholas v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001)
Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002)
Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000)


Protection for LGBT Employees Under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act | Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities

There's not only 1 but 5. You're welcome.
I don't need to re-read your article. I'm very familiar with all these cases (except Schwenk - which I just went and read). It's clear you haven't read or understand a single one of those cases. None of them hold that the Civil Rights Act provides employment protection on the basis of sexual orientation like you claim all 5 do.


Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)

The Supreme Court simply said that "sex" encompasses the idea of sex stereotyping. (The phrase or concept of "sexual orientation" doesn't once come up in the entire opinion).


Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002)

A man sued his employer - in the 9th Circuit - for sex-based harassment (sexual harassment) as well as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The court held he could sue based on sexual harassment (sex stereotyping) but not on grounds of sexual orientation discrimination.

Here's the holding of the case: "This is a case of actionable gender stereotyping harassment."


Nicholas v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001)

A man sued - again in the 9th Circuit - claiming sex-based harassment and hostile work environment because co-workers made fun of him for being feminine. This case had nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation - (we don't even know the plaintiff's sexual orientation). The court here simply held (in accordance with Price Waterhouse) that, in the 9th Circuit, a man can sue for sexual harassment inflicted by other men.


Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002)

This is a district court case (not a circuit court) again about sex-based harassment regarding gender stereotypes - and it's not even a final opinion - it was a preliminary ruling regarding not throwing the case out on summary judgement.


Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000)

Here, a prison guard sexually harassed and then attempted to rape a transsexual inmate (a man living as woman). The court - again the 9th Circuit - simply held that a man could sue another man under the Gender Motivated Violence Act.




How does any of this mean the the Civil Rights Act protects employees from employment discrimination based on their sexual orientation??????????????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 10:29 AM
 
16,545 posts, read 13,403,441 times
Reputation: 4241
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
I don't need to re-read your article. I'm very familiar with all these cases (except Schwenk - which I just went and read). It's clear you haven't read or understand a single one of those cases. None of them hold that the Civil Rights Act provides employment protection on the basis of sexual orientation like you claim all 5 do.


•Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)

The Supreme Court simply said that "sex" encompasses the idea of sex stereotyping. (The phrase or concept of "sexual orientation" doesn't once come up in the entire opinion).


•Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002)

A man sued his employer - in the 9th Circuit - for sex-based harassment (sexual harassment) as well as discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The court held he could sue based on sexual harassment (sex stereotyping) but not on grounds of sexual orientation discrimination.

Here's the holding of the case: "This is a case of actionable gender stereotyping harassment."


•Nicholas v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001)

A man sued - again in the 9th Circuit - claiming sex-based harassment and hostile work environment because co-workers made fun of him for being feminine. This case had nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation - (we don't even know the plaintiff's sexual orientation). The court here simply held (in accordance with Price Waterhouse) that, in the 9th Circuit, a man can sue for sexual harassment inflicted by other men.


•Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002)

This is a district court case (not a circuit court) again about sex-based harassment regarding gender stereotypes - and it's not even a final opinion - it was a preliminary ruling regarding not throwing the case out on summary judgement.


•Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000)

Here, a prison guard sexually harassed and then attempted to rape a transsexual inmate (a man living as woman). The court - again the 9th Circuit - simply held that a man could sue another man under the Gender Motivated Violence Act.




How does any of this mean the the Civil Rights Act protects employees from employment discrimination based on their sexual orientation??????????????
Oh my lord..You are being obtuse because you just don't want to be wrong. Gender stereotyping IS discrimination covered under Title VII of the CRA. BTW, why doesn't your favorite POTUS of all time use his pen and phone to add the protections explicitly under the CRA? Why not?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 10:36 AM
 
34,620 posts, read 21,459,003 times
Reputation: 22231
Does Kansas have protection for people who stutter? No.

Do they need to add it? No.

Why not? Because harassment of any kind is already handled by the EEOC.

Harassment

Case closed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 10:42 AM
 
14,917 posts, read 13,048,796 times
Reputation: 4828
Quote:
Originally Posted by SourD View Post
Oh my lord..You are being obtuse because you just don't want to be wrong. Gender stereotyping IS discrimination covered under Title VII of the CRA.
Yeah, I know. I've explained that to you three times now. Gender stereotyping absolutely is covered under the heading of "sex" in Title VII (as laid down by the Supreme Court in Waterhouse) and, as I've said, the EEOC has made grounds arguing that it therefore protects the transgender from employment discrimination.

The EEOC has also tried to argue that this gender stereotyping doctrine extends these sex-based discrimination protections to people based on their sexual orientation. Courts have rejected that argument. No circuit court has agreed with this - no circuit court has held that Title VII extends to sexual orientation.

I again challenge you to show me 1 Circuit Court case in which a US Federal Appeals Court has held that the Civil Rights Act provides protection on the basis of sexual orientation. None of the 5 you listed earlier do any such thing.

Quote:
BTW, why doesn't your favorite POTUS of all time use his pen and phone to add the protections explicitly under the CRA? Why not?
Because the President can't amend a legislatively passed statute. However, Bill Clinton did for the Federal Government what the past Governor of Kansas did for Kansas and what Brownback just undid. Clinton issued an executive order requiring that the Federal Government - as an employer - not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

And Obama took it a step further (as far as his authority allowed him to). Obama issued an executive order that forbids the Federal Government from hiring any company/contractor to do work on behalf of the Federal Government if that company doesn't have an anti-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top