Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2402
Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The landmark ruling will extend protections to millions of workers nationwide and is a defeat for the Trump administration, which argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination based on sex did not extend to claims of gender identity and sexual orientation.

The 6-3 opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices.

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," Gorsuch wrote.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics … index.html

What a beautiful start to the week. I am so proud of my country and the SCOTUS for this ruling. LGBT people needed the protection that other minorities have had for so long. I welcome this step towards equality and fairness for all.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|4680

SuperJail Warden wrote:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-employment-case/index.html

What a beautiful start to the week. I am so proud of my country and the SCOTUS for this ruling. LGBT people needed the protection that other minorities have had for so long. I welcome this step towards equality and fairness for all.
Disagree.  None of the parties arguing disagreed that the law, as it was passed, did not include this protection.  So either the law has been changed, the law has always contained this provision, or it still doesn't.  Congress didn't change the law.  All parties agree that this provision wasn't there when the law was passed (this is further supported by the multiple attempts by multiple Congresspeople over multiple Congresses to add this protection).  Which, by process of elimination, means the law still doesn't have the provision.  Except now it does because the Supreme Court decided it should do what Congress hasn't.  And that's not their role.

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2020-06-20 11:52:53)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2402

HollisHurlbut wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-employment-case/index.html

What a beautiful start to the week. I am so proud of my country and the SCOTUS for this ruling. LGBT people needed the protection that other minorities have had for so long. I welcome this step towards equality and fairness for all.
Disagree.  None of the parties arguing disagreed that the law, as it was passed, did not include this protection.  So either the law has been changed, the law has always contained this provision, or it still doesn't.  Congress didn't change the law.  All parties agree that this provision wasn't there when the law was passed (this is further supported by the multiple attempts by multiple Congresspeople over multiple Congresses to add this protection).  Which, by process of elimination, means the law still doesn't have the provision.  Except now it does because the Supreme Court decided it should do what Congress hasn't.  And that's not their role.
Why do you want to fire gay people?
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|4680

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Why do you want to fire gay people?
I never said I did.  I don't know why you're making things up.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2402
Why would you be so against extending protections to them if you didn't want to be able to fire them for being gay?
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|4680

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Why would you be so against extending protections to them if you didn't want to be able to fire them for being gay?
I don't employ anyone.  I have no one I can fire, gay, straight, or other.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2402

HollisHurlbut wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Why would you be so against extending protections to them if you didn't want to be able to fire them for being gay?
I don't employ anyone.  I have no one I can fire, gay, straight, or other.
Okay, so why are you against the ruling protecting gay workers?
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|4680

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Okay, so why are you against the ruling protecting gay workers?
Because:

HollisHurlbut wrote:

None of the parties arguing disagreed that the law, as it was passed, did not include this protection.  So either the law has been changed, the law has always contained this provision, or it still doesn't.  Congress didn't change the law.  All parties agree that this provision wasn't there when the law was passed (this is further supported by the multiple attempts by multiple Congresspeople over multiple Congresses to add this protection).  Which, by process of elimination, means the law still doesn't have the provision.  Except now it does because the Supreme Court decided it should do what Congress hasn't.  And that's not their role.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2402
All process arguments are insincere.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|4680

SuperJail Warden wrote:

All process arguments are insincere.
[citation needed]
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2402

HollisHurlbut wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

All process arguments are insincere.
[citation needed]
Somewhat obscure conservative axiom
#related#Arguments over the rules inspired one of my Rules of Life: “All process arguments are insincere, including this one.” Losers’ real gripe is not with the process but with the result.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/ … l-founded/
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|4680

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Somewhat obscure conservative axiom
#related#Arguments over the rules inspired one of my Rules of Life: “All process arguments are insincere, including this one.” Losers’ real gripe is not with the process but with the result.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/04/ … l-founded/
Obscure or famous, it provides no evidence to support its categorical claim and is bullshit nonetheless.  I've explained my opposition to the opinion.

Last edited by HollisHurlbut (2020-06-20 15:06:47)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2402
Do you think it is okay to fire people for being gay?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4789|eXtreme to the maX
Identity politics have been a disaster at every level, if gays didn't bore people with their gayness they probably wouldn't get fired.

Now any company will have to lay off normal people ahead of gays and blacks.

Thanks Obama.
Epstein didn't kill himself
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|4680

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Do you think it is okay to fire people for being gay?
I do not approve, personally, of that criteria being used as a reason to terminate employment.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2402

HollisHurlbut wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Do you think it is okay to fire people for being gay?
I do not approve, personally, of that criteria being used as a reason to terminate employment.
But you think employers should still have the ability to fire people for being gay.
HollisHurlbut
Member
+51|4680

SuperJail Warden wrote:

But you think employers should still have the ability to fire people for being gay.
I think the Supreme Court overstepped the bounds of their authority on this opinion by taking it upon themselves to do what Congress has repeatedly declined to do.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,002|4041|London, England
I think the outcome is correct, but the process is wrong. The Civil Rights Act should have been amended by Congress instead of this outcome, which is legislating from the bench.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4789|eXtreme to the maX
On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the language of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which provides employment protections against discrimination on the basis of sex, also applies to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Should have been done by govt, not by a court stretching definitions to cover mental illness.

If I decide I identify as an alien from the planet Joopleberry does that mean my company will have to fire my colleague before me?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-06-20 18:56:09)

Epstein didn't kill himself
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,812|5455|USA

Speaking of stretching definitions, you should probably brush up on the latest DSM.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4789|eXtreme to the maX
DSM Went full retard (and thats probably in the DSM now) quite a while ago.
Epstein didn't kill himself
uziq
Member
+298|2135
Dilbert Knows Best

guy can run a lathe! why would he want to read foucault? his engineering degree has taught him everything he needs to know about fags!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2402
How did the LGBT community go from this
https://i.imgur.com/NxWPSie.jpg
to this?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,812|5455|USA

So Macbeth once again opens a thread out of faux support or concern, let's it run for awhile, then drops a predictable punchline.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2402
I don't think you understand my views. I don't think the serial killer from Silence of the Lambs should be fired for being gay. I'm sticking by that.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard