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.
The EEOC has stated the sexual orientation and gender identity are covered under title VII.
"Stated?" Just like I can "state" I'm a flying unicorn? But we both know my "saying so" doesn't make it true.
The FACT is that sexual orientation is NOT a federally protected class.
That's why federal courtUPHELD the expulsion of the FTM but still anatomically female trans student from the PA university for using men's restroom/locker room/shower room facilities.
"Stated?" Just like I can "state" I'm a flying unicorn? But we both know my "saying so" doesn't make it true.
The FACT is that sexual orientation is NOT a federally protected class.
That's why federal courtUPHELD the expulsion of the FTM but still anatomically female trans student from the PA university for using men's restroom/locker room/shower room facilities.
Quote:
The EEOC has held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is covered under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012), The Commission has also held that discrimination against an individual because of that person's sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex and therefore prohibited under Title VII. See David Baldwin v. Dep't of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 120133080 (July 15, 2015),
I don't see a Bill of Rights that permits racial discrimination. And you have yet to name the organized religion that banned/bans the social mixing of races.
You must not have been reared as a Southern Baptist.
An interesting perspective on how religious doctrine changes over the ages: PAST RELIGIOUS CONFLICTS
You've clearly not ever worked in the bakery profession. How do you think the wedding cake appears at the reception? The bride or groom picks it up that day, brings it over, and sets it up? No. By magic? No.
Bakeries/caterers/photographers/florists/rental companies... anyone contracted to provide goods/services for a wedding is in fact materially involved.
Ah, so the people who work for the bakery are going to be morally dirtied because the enter the same room some gay people will be in later that day.
Ah, so the people who work for the bakery are going to be morally dirtied because the enter the same room some gay people will be in later that day.
Wow.
Ah, point missed by those who think that business owners (or anyone else) should be required by the gubment to enter ANY room....or to enter into a contract (which ceases to be a contract when either party is coerced) for wedding planning, floral arrangements, cakes, catering etc. And you forgot to mention religious hospitals refusing to perform "transgender"-related procedures or therapists not being forced to accept patients for whom they are not trained to treat or for whom they don't want to provide treatment because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Isn't that just too bad.
These crybabies are trying to make it sound as if they can't make purchases or dine out like everyone else. The fact is that, when they smell a Christian, and decide to order a cake with two phallic symbols on it, or anti-Christian scribbling on it, they'll have to go elsewhere.
There's always WalMart. Oh...wait. They've never had to write anything a random.enployee considers to be offensive on one of their custom cakes.
This is like the never ending story in the south, don't they have better things to do than develop senseless laws. Looks like another loss for the religious right.
Quote:
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Mississippi filed a lawsuit today challenging HB 1523, a controversial piece of legislation that critics say enables religious organizations and businesses the ability to discriminate against LGBT people based upon their sexual orientation.
you can tell nobody has read the law. it only allow business to bow out of the ceremony part of a gay wedding if and only if its against their religion. but they are plenty of people that gladly take their place for the business.
only thing it does it protect the business from being sued for hurt feelings. if they are not included in the ceremony they still have to bake the cake
you can tell nobody has read the law. it only allow business to bow out of the ceremony part of a gay wedding if and only if its against their religion. but they are plenty of people that gladly take their place for the business.
only thing it does it protect the business from being sued for hurt feelings. if they are not included in the ceremony they still have to bake the cake
That's total nonsense, have you read the law?
Here let me help you:
Quote:
According to the law, Mississippi residents are permitted to decline products and services to LGBT people, and can also set standards of practice that would permit them to decide "whether or not to hire, terminate or discipline an individual whose conduct or religious beliefs are inconsistent” with their beliefs.
Last edited by Goodnight; 05-10-2016 at 05:37 PM..
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.
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.
