Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules

PopsnTuff said:
This topic might fall under "No Politics Allowed" in this forum @asp3....check with the moderators.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's politics. It's big news and a landmark decision. The Supreme Court is not a political arm. It is the third independent entity in our government structure and the justices are expected to leave their politics at the door; whether or not they do might be arguable, but the simple fact that they have made a decision certainly is not politics. It's news.

And I don't think asp3's opinion that he agrees is politics, either, any more than someone's opinion on riots or covid-19 or whatever else is political unless they say it's all the fault of those lousy [whatever party] or some such.
 
This decision confirms my long held view that such discrimination has been illegal since 1964, and that people who feel they have been discriminated against should have been filing law suits rather than protesting for the last 56 years.
 
raybar said:
This decision confirms my long held view that such discrimination has been illegal since 1964, and that people who feel they have been discriminated against should have been filing law suits rather than protesting for the last 56 years.
Click to expand...


Actually, they have been filing lawsuits left and right. That's how the issue finally got to the Supremes.
 
Janice M
The Supremes are a group of old folks dressed in black robes that make rules, which
cannot be revoked. They haven't had a hit record, but they have made a lot of folks
bang their heads.

( 1916, i think- Congress passed income tax bill,
the Supremes said NO, Unconstitutional-last good decisions they made.
Once ruled, the Supremes decision becomes the law of the land.
Congress can say 'you screwed up. were going to amend
the constitution to make folks pay income tax.' They did. with the 16 amendment)

The Supremes are bunch of crusty old rascals, they cannot sing, cannot dance, but their decisions can make you cry or cheer. They fall down a lot, catching their feet
in their long black robes.
(I wonder are they cross-dressers? )
 
Last edited:
Yeah sure .... A man or woman, works hard, finally takes the plunge to open their own business, handle the financing , raise money however they will , take all the risks , make all the sacrifices , etc & so-on.

Then along comes the USSC , strips them of all THEIR rights , just to grant rights to the transgenders & queers ............ and then tell the business owner who they can or cannot fire.

Yeah, another great day in America ...... Not (n)
 
rgp said:
I understand that, and i am old, with arthritis but ...... I still believe that an employer should have the right to hire & fire whom he/she chooses.

IMO, the only place where the Gov should have any input is in workplace safety.
Click to expand...
No, they shouldn't. They should be obligated to hire whichever person is most qualified for the job.
The illegal discrimination I personally encountered in this city is the reason I've been working online for the last 13+ years. And I'm not in the "category" the OP posted about.
 
JaniceM said:
No, they shouldn't. They should be obligated to hire whichever person is most qualified for the job.
The illegal discrimination I personally encountered in this city is the reason I've been working online for the last 13+ years. And I'm not in the "category" the OP posted about.
Click to expand...


Obligated ?! So you are saying you and others ? Should have the right to tell a business owner whom to hire / fire? Even though you have nothing invested in the business ?........

Again, that is not civil rights for all .... that is pushing aside the business owners rights, so that your rights may be granted/met ......but hey, as long as you get your way.... it's all good right ?
 
rgp said:
Obligated ?! So you are saying you and others ? Should have the right to tell a business owner whom to hire / fire? Even though you have nothing invested in the business ?........

Again, that is not civil rights for all .... that is pushing aside the business owners rights, so that your rights may be granted/met ......but hey, as long as you get your way.... it's all good right ?
Click to expand...
You must have a different definition of civil rights than everyone else. It has nothing to do with anyone "getting their own way." If a person is qualified for a job, an employer should not be able to deny the person a job simply because the prospective employee is gay, black, female, etc.
 
JaniceM said:
You must have a different definition of civil rights than everyone else. It has nothing to do with anyone "getting their own way." If a person is qualified for a job, an employer should not be able to deny the person a job simply because the prospective employee is gay, black, female, etc.
Click to expand...

If the hiring employer sees those issues as a negative ? or in his / her mind disqualifies a person for a job ? Then that is all that should matter. Are you saying you and others should be permitted to now think for an employer ? Or decide how he / she should think ?
 
rgp said:
If the hiring employer sees those issues as a negative ? or in his / her mind disqualifies a person for a job ? Then that is all that should matter. Are you saying you and others should be permitted to now think for an employer ? Or decide how he / she should think ?
Click to expand...

"If the hiring employer sees those issues as negative," then there's something wrong with his thinking.
If individuals with your viewpoint were still running the show, we'd still be seeing signs "No Coloreds," "No Irish Need Apply," etc. And in the United States of America, that's not o.k.
 
OK , my turn for a ridiculous [but possible] scenario.......

You own an office type business, say 3-6 people. Along comes a guy that weighs near 400 pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day....But he is qualified for the job.

Should you not be permitted to decline hiring him, or dismiss him after ..... say a weeks trial ?
 
If I have a small business going, like an insurance office and I have 3 or 4 people working in my office, I am entitled to hire who I wish. No ifs, ands or buts. However, if one of the people that I hired comes out of the closet or tells me that he wants to become a she, I can’t fire them just because of that reason.

This is what I think the law is meant to protect.
 
JaniceM said:
"If the hiring employer sees those issues as negative," then there's something wrong with his thinking.
If individuals with your viewpoint were still running the show, we'd still be seeing signs "No Coloreds," "No Irish Need Apply," etc. And in the United States of America, that's not o.k.
Click to expand...


But is not 'permitted' to think as he pleases? And again are you now doing the thinking for him ? Even though you have no skin in the game, that is his/her business ?

If you see such an un-justice ? Go open your own business, and operate it your way. Or is that too much hard work ? Just eaiser to tell someone else what to do / what they should do ?
 
Been There said:
If I have a small business going, like an insurance office and I have 3 or 4 people working in my office, I am entitled to hire who I wish. No ifs, ands or buts. However, if one of the people that I hired comes out of the closet or tells me that he wants to become a she, I can’t fire them just because of that reason.

This is what I think the law is meant to protect.
Click to expand...


It may be ? But it is too broad brush .... IMO
 
rgp said:
OK , my turn for a ridiculous [but possible] scenario.......

You own an office type business, say 3-6 people. Along comes a guy that weighs near 400 pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day....But he is qualified for the job.

Should you not be permitted to decline hiring him, or dismiss him after ..... say a weeks trial ?
Click to expand...
His behavior is having a negative effect on the workplace.. entirely different situation.
 
rgp said:
OK , my turn for a ridiculous [but possible] scenario.......

You own an office type business, say 3-6 people. Along comes a guy that weighs near 400 pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day....But he is qualified for the job.

Should you not be permitted to decline hiring him, or dismiss him after ..... say a weeks trial ?
Click to expand...
There is a process that you must follow here in Virginia. You must have given that person a verbal warning, then a written warning, then time off without pay, probation and then termination, if that person never made any attempt to improve his hygiene situation I think he can be terminated. If he is a member of a union, then that changes the landscape.
 
Last edited:
Been There said:
If I have a small business going, like an insurance office and I have 3 or 4 people working in my office, I am entitled to hire who I wish. No ifs, ands or buts. However, if one of the people that I hired comes out of the closet or tells me that he wants to become a she, I can’t fire them just because of that reason.

This is what I think the law is meant to protect.
Click to expand...


I'll bet you couldn't fire the fat smelly guy .
 
rgp said:
But is not 'permitted' to think as he pleases? And again are you now doing the thinking for him ? Even though you have no skin in the game, that is his/her business ?

If you see such an un-justice ? Go open your own business, and operate it your way. Or is that too much hard work ? Just eaiser to tell someone else what to do / what they should do ?
Click to expand...

Sure, any person has the right to think as he or she chooses. Doesn't always mean they're entitled to act on it, though.

(I'm self-employed. That is "hard work.")
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top