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.
Based on Equality Act of 2010, there are certain protected classes of people who cannot be discriminated against:
- age,
- disability,
- gender reassignment,
- race,
- religion or belief,
- sex,
- sexual orientation,
- marriage and civil partnership, and
- pregnancy and maternity are now to be known as 'protected characteristics'
The meaning of "sex" in the law was changed without the normal legislation that would create a law. This gives the gov power to change words as they feel fit, without going through the normal law making process.
If the gov wants the law to include the new definition of "sex", then it should amend it properly through the law making process that created the law in the first place.
This gives the gov too much power in my opinion, the ability to change a law by simply changing the meaning of terms.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the Constitutional concept of separation of powers?
Oh I'm perfectly aware of it. That's why I'm aware that the legislative function belongs to the Congress, not to the Supreme Court. They imputed a reading into the Civil Rights Act that the Congress has explicitly declined to do. This would be no different than the Congress stating "when the Supreme Court found the Constitution requires X, what they really meant is it requires Y, so that's what we're going to do instead."
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)
I don’t think people should fired for being gay but I do not agree with the decision. The law was not made to include this protection. Legally the ruling is wrong. Congress tried unsuccessfully to amend this law to include sexual orientation but failed. They obviously didn’t think it was included in the original intent of the law.
Seriously? Do Liberals lock their brains in a box?
Ok I was just looking at my facebook and one of my loony liberal "friends" posted something stupid. To keep the peace I refuse to comment on anything he posts about politics or Anti Trump rants...
He posted a link from the NYTimes that the Supreme Court has ruled that Civil Rights Law Protect Gay and Transgendered Workers. He wrote "how about today's apples? Gorsuch and Roberts go Left!"
I would call it "they go human" . Most people do not care if someone is gay or trans in the workplace unless UNLESS as a result they get preferential treatment by the boss/owner or they don't pull their weight at the job. That goes for anyone. If someone is a lousy co worker then that is another problem.
What is it with the Loon Liberals, the Lefties, that can only think inside a box that they then lock up?
Why can't some people see the bigger picture that someone can like Trump and not be a racist? Or they support the Second Amendment but they do not support deranged murderers that shoot up schools. Or how they can respect our History and Heritage without taking offense to every statue and demanding that it be removed or they will do it themselves?
What is it with the Loony Liberals that refuse to see 2 sides of an issue.
Of course justices on the Supreme Court that lean Right can see the humanity in an issue and react with common sense. In the case of protecting gays at work it is not a decision that is Left or Right.
Get your brains out of the box people. You know or maybe not who you are..
How would you know that it's a "man turned woman"? That's just silly no one does an examination of a persons genitals when they hire them, so you probably should get a grip and realize that there are trans people teaching school right now and no child has been harmed by them.
Most trans folks who have fully transitioned you can't tell that they were a different gender before hand anyways.
My best friend is a ftm trans...no one could tell he is trans when you meet him.
I don’t think people should fired for being gay but I do not agree with the decision. The law was not made to include this protection. Legally the ruling is wrong. Congress tried unsuccessfully to amend this law to include sexual orientation but failed. They obviously didn’t think it was included in the original intent of the law.
Discrimination on sex clearly includes orientation. If being with a man is only permissible as a woman, it is clearly based on sex.
And that's exactly what was mentioned in the decision.
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.
Seriously? Do Liberals lock their brains in a box?
