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 principle that people should be treated equally regardless of who they choose to sleep with. That's none of the employer's business.
And, perhaps contrary to your understanding, most gay people do not make their sexuality an issue in the workplace.
IME most people who complain about "making it an issue" in the workplace it merely means not hiding it. So if a guy tells you about his boyfriend/husband and the great dinner they had last night, that's "making an issue of it" to most of these people.
If one discriminates against ugly men and ugly women both, it may not be right but it's not on the basis of being male or female, but on the basis of being ugly and is not against the law. That you can't discriminate against an ugly person because they by necessity have a sex and are a protected classmember of one of the sexes is not a valid argument.
That is specious reasoning. The important difference here is that one’s sex is not inherent to the subjective definition of ugly. One’s sex is, however, essential and inherent to the definition of one’s sexual orientation.
To help you better understand this distinction:
A and B work for the same employer, and the employer fires A for being “ugly”. Stupid but ok.
A and B are both “ugly”, and employer fires A for being a woman. Not ok.
A and B both have wives, and employer fires A for being a woman. Not ok.
Last edited by hellopity; 06-20-2020 at 11:17 AM..
Reason: providing mtl with an example
No, they cannot. You’re just reiterating discrimination on the basis of being a man and being a woman in your example.
An employer cannot meaningfully distinguish between a homosexual and a heterosexual employee without taking the employee’s sex into consideration.
Gorsuch outlined the reasoning very succinctly: If A and B are both attracted to the same sex, firing A but not B based on sexual orientation necessarily means the termination took into account the sex of A.
But a homosexual or heterosexual can be either sex so their sex male or female is not the basis. You're allowed to recognize someone is male or female. You're allowed to discriminate against sexual activity and lifestyles, not to say whether you should and you don't have to.
That is specious reasoning. The important difference here is that one’s sex is not inherent to the subjective definition of ugly. One’s sex is, however, essential and inherent to the definition of one’s sexual orientation.
You're essentially arguing only homosexuals of one sex exist or that discrimination against only one sex of homosexuals exists.
You are conflating sex, male and female, with sexual orientation or activity. You are also chopping the logical argument off short to prove your point in a logical trick.
You're essentially arguing only homosexuals of one sex exist or that discrimination against only one sex of homosexuals exists.
You are conflating sex, male and female, with sexual orientation or activity. You are also chopping the logical argument off short to prove your point in a logical trick.
Such logical tricks are in fact possible under textualism though, which places no weight in the intent of the legislator.
But a homosexual or heterosexual can be either sex so their sex male or female is not the basis. You're allowed to recognize someone is male or female. You're allowed to discriminate against sexual activity and lifestyles, not to say whether you should and you don't have to.
You are, of course, allowed to to recognize someone’s sex. That isn’t the question.
The question is whether employment action on the basis of sex, whether male or female, is permitted under federal law. The answer is clearly no. Inherent and essential to the words homoSEXual and heteroSEXual is sex.
You're essentially arguing only homosexuals of one sex exist or that discrimination against only one sex of homosexuals exists.
You are conflating sex, male and female, with sexual orientation or activity. You are also chopping the logical argument off short to prove your point in a logical trick.
I am not. Please see the example of A and B I provided you in the post to which you replied.
A and B both have wives, and employer fires A for being a woman. Not ok.
But A was not fired for being a woman, A was fired because A is being homosexual. If A didn't have a "wife" A would still be a woman but would not be fired.
Everyone keeps missing the fact that the new gay laws are designed to discriminate against straight people. It is actually there to remove straight people from the workforce.
Everybody took their bait: hook line and sinker. Nobody is out there to protect gays, they are out there to eliminate straight people. This was a very sneaky ruling.
But A was not fired for being a woman, A was fired because A was homosexual. If A didn't have a "wife" she would still be a woman but would not be fired.
In this example, the distinguishing characteristic between A and B is their sex, not their marital status. The only reason A is fired under your reasoning (homosexuality) is that A has a different sex than B. That is prohibited under federal law. There is no need to speculate what would have happened if A weren’t married, weren’t dating, weren’t this or weren’t that.
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.
