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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:51 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
14,891 posts, read 12,049,150 times
Reputation: 24682

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
Take that, Trump! (lawyers for the Trump admin had argued against the rights of the gay people)
Documentation, please. And not just trying to pass off unfounded accusations as fact. Or trying to pass off the world's evils as attributable to your "Boogeyman".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:52 AM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
20,460 posts, read 26,278,891 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
point being relationships shouldn't be coerced. There are no exceptions unless you're simply unprincipled and logically inconsistent.
What's coerced?
NO ONE is being FORCED to hire ANYONE.
All the ruling does is say that's a person's sexual orientation is NONE OF A COMPANY's BUSINESS.
If you disagree with that, kindly tell us WHY it should be a company's business.
If a person's sexual orientation should be a company's business, why shouldn't their marriage status? Why shouldn't their sex? Why shouldn't their age? Why shouldn't their skin color? Why shouldn't their national origin? Why shouldn't their religion?
Seems to me your position is that companies have a right to hire/fire people based on something that has NOTHING to do with their job qualifications and EVERYTHING to do with the person's PERSONAL BUSINESS.
It's no company's damned business what my sexual orientation is, what my marriage status is, what my sex is, what my age is, what my skin color is, what my national origin is, what my religion is, or anything else that has NOTHING to do with how well I can do a job.
Again, if you disagree with that, kindly tell us WHY it should be a company's business.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:53 AM
 
10,800 posts, read 3,574,784 times
Reputation: 5951
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
Some will, yes.

Most won't.

Most will seek to maximize profits, and exposing themselves to costly lawsuits is going to be far more detrimental than their petty rejection of talent because of orientation or transgenderism ever was.

More to the point, your suggestion - that such a law will have no effect and so is not worthy or irrelevant - is nonsense.

People speed. Espionage happens. People steal. Rape happens. People murder. You're aware that all of those things are illegal, right? I wonder if you fail to grasp the concept of deterrence, or if you're just reaching for some spin to dismiss a just and decent ruling that makes you unhappy.
You are correct. One will see some regressive, probably bible belt State, local school board or county be the first to try and ignore this, just like they try and sneak religion into schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,783 posts, read 26,085,747 times
Reputation: 33927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
In order to win protection under this ruling, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that they were fired "because they are gay" by a 'preponderance of the evidence'. It is not up to the defense to disprove that allegation, but by showing that they fired the person for some other reason or cause, that will go a long way towards undermining any such case by the plaintiff.

In any case, who wants to fire someone "because they are gay"? Is that a thing? Really? I do not think it is. Now there may be some odd person out there who might want to do this, or might want to do anything for that manner, regardless of how extremely strange or bizarre that behavior might be.

This reminds me of the claim that Christian merchants broadly are opposed to providing goods and services to people, "because they are gay". That is just not true and it cannot be shown to be true, because it is in fact a lie. Likewise, in secular companies, many of which are owned, operated and staffed by Christians from top to bottom, they do not want to fire people 'because they are gay'. It just is not so.

I do not think this ruling has very much practical effect.
It was pretty easy for the man who brought this case to prove discrimination because of his sexual orientation. There were no complaints about his job performance until a co-worker reported that he belonged to a 'gay softball team' and that is when his employer decided to fire him
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:54 AM
 
10,800 posts, read 3,574,784 times
Reputation: 5951
Quote:
Originally Posted by vkhmini View Post
But the left despises churches and people who have faith! They'll do anything they can get away with to prove their hatred of believers!
Your faith should allow you to discriminate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:54 AM
 
78,016 posts, read 60,221,209 times
Reputation: 49410
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
WE agree -- it shouldn't be a big deal. But it could have been if the Surpreme Court had decided a company could fire someone for being gay.

That's the thing -- most 'equal rights' aren't a BIG deal - or SHOULDN'T be......but the fact some individuals have to take the matter to the Supreme Court for a decision suggests that it still is for some.
Sure it's still a big deal. The co-president of BLM in KC just resigned citing the trans and homophobia directed at them from within.

Despite convenient narratives there are a whole bunch of racists and homophobes etc. out there that aren't a white male christian guy named Jethro.

People just are not grasping that key point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:54 AM
 
Location: Palm Coast FL
2,394 posts, read 2,967,636 times
Reputation: 2805
HOORAY!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by vkhmini View Post
But the left despises churches and people who have faith! They'll do anything they can get away with to prove their hatred of believers!
No, the Christian Left believes in equal rights for everyone. Jesus never fired anyone for being gay and never withheld medical care from trans people. This is a win for Christianity!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:54 AM
 
787 posts, read 1,410,456 times
Reputation: 747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartacus713 View Post
No.
You might learn about discrimination on the basis of sex.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:56 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
14,891 posts, read 12,049,150 times
Reputation: 24682
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO View Post
One place that comes to mind that has the right to deny a person a job because they choose to be transgender, might be a church that by this person displaying their choice to be that way - and many religious people believe it is a choice - and it goes against their religious convictions/beleifs, that person might not be able to work there, if their lifestyle choices are against the moral standards of the church. Since the church has to employ people who follow their religious beliefs, then that person might just be naturally not right for the job.


is this discrimination or is it that the transgender is refusing to follow the moral code of the church, maybe the church would have to say to all future employees - a list of regulations that they must adhere to in order to be employed. if transgenerism is not allowed, then this would state they cant be an employee.


so in other words, when a company has a duty to display certain moral practices and beliefs, then they are going to have a problem with people they consider immoral to work there. there might be other institutions like Christian colleges with the same concerns. And rightly so.


For example, a church cannot let a practicing prostitute work there if they are going to continue their sex work. Or maybe the institution would not allow other kinds of people involved in morally objectionable lifestyles/habits/etc work there.
I guess in the event a gay/transgender person wanted to work in such places (and I can't imagine why they would-I know I wouldn't want to work in a place where the employers/coworkers were antagonistic about my beliefs), he/she could fight it out, and win, in court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2020, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,783 posts, read 26,085,747 times
Reputation: 33927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Travelassie View Post
Documentation, please. And not just trying to pass off unfounded accusations as fact. Or trying to pass off the world's evils as attributable to your "Boogeyman".
It's pretty darned easy to prove, you could have found this yourself had you looked:

Quote:
On May 14, 2019 Trump announced his opposition to the Equality Act -- crucial federal legislation that would finally guarantee explicit protections for LGBTQ people under our nation's existing civil rights laws. Since then, he has continued to use the levers of his administration to continue to oppose LGBTQ equality in the workplace.

Here are some of his attacks on LGBTQ equality in the workplace:

1. Supported employment discrimination against LGBTQ people: The Trump administration submitted amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting discrimination against LGBTQ people.

2. Rolled back Obama-era non-discrimination protections: Trump’s Department of Justice upended previous DOJ interpretations of the Civil Rights Act that protect transgender and non-binary workers from employment discrimination and ceased enforcing non-discrimination protections as well as taking a hostile stance to LGBTQ workers in court.

3. Planned new rules to license discrimination: Trump’s Department of Labor issued a regulation designed to allow federal contractors to claim a religious exemption to fire LGBTQ workers because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

4. Created a hostile work environment for LGBTQ federal employees: According to Politico: “[The Trump administration] fostered a climate where six staffers who are LGBT described removing their wedding rings before coming to work in the morning, taking down photos of their partners and families or ultimately finding new jobs further away from certain political appointees. They did not want to be identified; two said they feared being reassigned for being gay.”
https://www.hrc.org/blog/1-year-ago-...e-equality-act
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:49 PM.

© 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