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 poster said "for all", that is false. I can fire you for having your hair not the length I like and that is legal. Civil rights in this regard are only for groups established by the US gov. Additionally, being non-disabled is not a protected class, I can fire you for not having a disability and hire a disabled person over you as well based upon them having a disability.
Everyone falls into those groups and thus gets equal protection from that law. Believe it or not you could end up being disabled as well.
Of course it doesn't mean you can't be fired for other reasons. But everyone is given equal protection of that law.
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.
Are religious beliefs that fragile that if they see a transgender person that their belief in a deity completely crumbles?
Is it? Or is this just another feel good thing? Employers are going to discriminate. This is just another one of those things they won't openly discriminate about, but they'll still do it. You can't legislate thought.
No its not a feel good thing. These people are now protected under civil rights laws on a federal level all over the country.
Sure people can break the law but if we have learned anything from the protests in the streets when certain groups are singled out unfairly they will one day say enough is enough. And with the SCOTUS ruling they have the law on their side if discriminated against.
I have hired hundreds if not more than 1,000 people over my lifetime. All I have ever been concerned with is that they can do the job. I don't care what race they are or sexual orientation. If people would just do that it would not have had to come to the supreme court.
If you think you are better than someone else because you are not like them, sorry you are not.
Supported employment discrimination against LGBTQ people: The Trump administration submitted amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting discrimination against LGBTQ people.
Banned transgender service members from the military: Against the expert advice of military leadership, medical authorities, budget analysts, 70% of Americans and the armed forces of allied countries, Trump and Pence banned transgender people from serving in the military.
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.
Issued rule 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.
In happy to see that Gorsuch was persuaded to go with the majority so we did not have another "controversial" 5-4 decision. Good job by Roberts.
In the book, The Brethren, by Woodward, regarding the Warren Court, it was noted that the decision on whom will write an opinion is dictated by tradition: if the Chief Justice is in the majority, he assigns a justice to write the opinion (which may be himself, of course). If the Chief Justice is not in the majority, then the senior judge in the majority makes the assignment.
Anyway, in the book it was noted that sometimes the Chief Justice (or the Senior Judge, as the case may be) would assign the opinion to a justice whose vote was 'shaky'. It was felt that by assigning that judge, it hardened their vote.
Of course, how true that is, is unknown. But Justice Roberts, being in the majority, did assign the case to Justice Gorsuch; whether to firm up a vote or not, cannot be known.
By the by: when Democrats were upset (rightfully so) over Mitch McConnell refusing to even hold a hearing for Judge Garland, but kept the seat open until President Trump could appoint Judge Gorsuch, I noted that Supreme Court justices can surprise you. President Nixon appointed two 'strict constructionist' justices, one of whom was Mr. Blackburn, who turned out to be quite a liberal justice, once he was on the highest court (he wrote, for instance, Roe v. Wade).
I have watched Justice Gorsuch's career as a Supreme Court justice, and I believe he will continue to be a good one. Some of his decisions I disagree with, but that does not mean I am right and he is wrong necessarily in those instances. I have often disagreed with various opinions of the Court (majority or dissenting), only to change my mind as the years pass and I learn more about the particular issue and law involved.
The poster said "for all", that is false. I can fire you for having your hair not the length I like and that is legal. Civil rights in this regard are only for groups established by the US gov. Additionally, being non-disabled is not a protected class, I can fire you for not having a disability and hire a disabled person over you as well based upon them having a disability.
Exactly. And what people have been doing is politically fabricating new groups.
40 years ago they politically invented that Spanish Speakers were a group deserving of civil rights protection. They just made that up! We know them today as "hispanics" or "latinos".
Now LGBTs, a broad loosely defined collection of identities that can be invented, are a victim group with these same protections.
No Civil Rights was for blacks. It was for the descendants of slaves who were legally excluded from mainstream society for 100 years.
It wasn't for Spanish speakers
It wasn't for immigrants
It wasn't for White women
It wasn't for men who like to wear dresses
It wasn't for bi-curious white males who experiment with fellatio.
They keep expanding it to include fake victim groups.
Which one is a "fake victim" group? Are you sure none on your list were ever discriminated against, and until the law changed, could do nothing about it legally?
Which groups would you prefer to see as being discriminated against? Women? Spanish speakers? Immigrants?
Liberals react only to emotions and are revulsed by logic and facts. They either empathize with someone's emotions or hope to get likes for expressing their empathy. This is why we can't speak with each other and understand the other, conservatives focus on facts and logic and liberals hate that and only react to emotions.
How about religion?
Making laws based on something there’s no proof of is what you’re saying all liberals do
In the book, The Brethren, by Woodward, regarding the Warren Court, it was noted that the decision on whom will write an opinion is dictated by tradition: if the Chief Justice is in the majority, he assigns a justice to write the opinion (which may be himself, of course). If the Chief Justice is not in the majority, then the senior judge in the majority makes the assignment.
Anyway, in the book it was noted that sometimes the Chief Justice (or the Senior Judge, as the case may be) would assign the opinion to a justice whose vote was 'shaky'. It was felt that by assigning that judge, it hardened their vote.
Of course, how true that is, is unknown. But Justice Roberts, being in the majority, did assign the case to Justice Gorsuch; whether to firm up a vote or not, cannot be known.
By the by: when Democrats were upset (rightfully so) over Mitch McConnell refusing to even hold a hearing for Judge Garland, but kept the seat open until President Trump could appoint Judge Gorsuch, I noted that Supreme Court justices can surprise you. President Nixon appointed two 'strict constructionist' justices, one of whom was Mr. Blackburn, who turned out to be quite a liberal justice, once he was on the highest court (he wrote, for instance, Roe v. Wade).
I have watched Justice Gorsuch's career as a Supreme Court justice, and I believe he will continue to be a good one. Some of his decisions I disagree with, but that does not mean I am right and he is wrong necessarily in those instances. I have often disagreed with various opinions of the Court (majority or dissenting), only to change my mind as the years pass and I learn more about the particular issue and law involved.
That is exactly how I felt about Roberts. I often disagree with him, as well as agree, but I think overall, he has done a good job of finding balance. Thomas? Not so much, ever.
I am truly happy by this ruling...I'm actually shocked that Gorsuch went along with it...Roberts doesn't surprise me as he backed LGBT rights before in a ruling (although he dissented in the Obergefell case)
Roberts tends to follow the actual law etc. and not how he feels about stuff. So whether he backs things or not can often reflect the quality of the argument and how it's brought.
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.
So whether he backs things or not can often reflect the quality of the argument and how it's brought.
