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

Sunny said:
I wonder if "employment discrimination" also applies to discrimination in hiring, or if it only applies to firing or otherwise discriminating against people already working.

Also, what about hiring just a single person as a landscaper, maid, nanny, etc.? Does this decision apply to that kind of situation?
Click to expand...

I don't really know, but I'd bet it applies to discrimination in hiring, as well.
 

asp3 said:
Been There, do you have a link to the legislation. The only thing I found that he signed last week was the H.R. 7010: Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr7010 .

I briefly looked at the description of the law and didn't see anything mentioned about LBGTQ community.

What I heard about last week was the administration removing healthcare protections from transgendered individuals https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration .
Click to expand...

This is what I've read, too. What was done last week (I believe it was an executive order or some such) actually REMOVED protections, as you've said. I'm going to scrounge around on the net and see what I can find out -- you've piqued my curiousity.
 
Been There said:
I remember a friend of mine who also graduated from the Naval Academy and went onto being a VP of a major international corporation applied for the CEO position of another large international corporation. He was listed as one of three candidates, but had the most experience overall. When he didn’t get the job, he inquired why because he wanted to improve upon what his deficiencies were. The HR person told him that it didn’t have anything to do with his qualifications, but another candidate was a member of the same fraternity as the HR manager. So, he felt obligated to hire him as that was part of their fraternity’s creed. It was a national fraternity.
Click to expand...
Isn't that nepotism? don't know if that's illegal, but I consider it bad form.
 
Asp3, it looks to me like, from what I've read on the subject, the previous administration's rule that prevented discrimination in healthcare based on sex included protections regarding "sex" encompass those based on gender identity, which it defined as "male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female." The new HHS rule of the present administration removed those protections. (this from the article you cited from NPR).

I haven't read the whole opinion, of course, but

"Discrimination against LGBT employees, Gorsuch made clear, 'necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.'" (this from scotusblog.com - for some reason I cannot copy and paste the exact citation)

Anyway, based on the above quote from scotusblog, which evidently is a quotation from today's opinion, it seems to me a pretty sure thing that in light of this redefinition of sex discrimination, this administration's new HHS rule will be struck down or just become moot, because it seems unlikely that one definition of sex discrimination (the one by the Supremes yesterday) can stand in employment discrimination and a totally opposite one stand in HHS discimination.
 
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...
You can not fail to hire him for the reasons you stated. But this is silly because unless you were stupid enough to say I am not hiring you because you weigh “near 400
pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day”, he wouldn’t know why he wasn’t beginning hired.

If you were that stupid, then you deserve to be sued.

What is it about people on this forum that they dislike overweight people? As for people who fail to bathe and sink as a result, no job, no money, no soap, no water, no ability to wash clothes. As for farting all day, hate to break it to you but all humans and many animals fart all day. 😂
 
Aneeda72 said:
You can not fail to hire him for the reasons you stated. But this is silly because unless you were stupid enough to say I am not hiring you because you weigh “near 400
pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day”, he wouldn’t know why he wasn’t beginning hired.

If you were that stupid, then you deserve to be sued.

What is it about people on this forum that they dislike overweight people? As for people who fail to bathe and sink as a result, no job, no money, no soap, no water, no ability to wash clothes. As for farting all day, hate to break it to you but all humans and many animals fart all day. 😂
Click to expand...


Yes i see your humor but, once again a business owner should IMO be permitted to hire & or fire as he/she sees fit. 'How is Mr. stinky' ever going to learn that maybe he needs to clean up his act ? So that perhaps he will present himself in a more attractive manner the next time ?
 
rgp said:
Yes i see your humor but, once again a business owner should IMO be permitted to hire & or fire as he/she sees fit. 'How is Mr. stinky' ever going to learn that maybe he needs to clean up his act ? So that perhaps he will present himself in a more attractive manner the next time ?
Click to expand...
Let’s say you hire him or her cause their qualifications are great. This person has BO, employees complain. You ask what’s the problem? Response: I live in a car when I have enough saved I’ll get an apartment. Do you fire the employee or brainstorm for a way for them to clean up?

Response: I have no control over bodily functions. I wear a diaper, pad, whatever, due to cancer, surgery, whatever. Do you give them extra time for change their pads etc? ADA issue, btw. Anything can be worked out.

There are many reasons why people are overweight, psychological and/or medical. Same for BO. I worked for a major company in a call center with a person who “smelled” due to the above issues. She was placed at the end of a row and I volunteered to sit next to her since I had a total care son who was diapered, and smelled.

Frankly, you get used to the smell and, like any smell, after a while it’s just not as noticeable. Like working in a nursing home or group home, or, perhaps, your own house, you get used to the smell. In reverse, IMO, there is nothing worst than a man or woman who douses themselves in perfume.
 
Butterfly said:
Anyway, based on the above quote from scotusblog, which evidently is a quotation from today's opinion, it seems to me a pretty sure thing that in light of this redefinition of sex discrimination, this administration's new HHS rule will be struck down or just become moot, because it seems unlikely that one definition of sex discrimination (the one by the Supremes yesterday) can stand in employment discrimination and a totally opposite one stand in HHS discimination.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply (even though I've only included a small portion here. I agree that it will be difficult to enforce the HHS rule considering the new SCOTUS ruling. However there may be a number of people harmed by the rule before it is challenged in court to the point of waiving it until a final judgement is made.
 
Reverse Discrimination is as indicated hiring non-mainstream candidates in favor of mainstream candidates
 
fuzzybuddy said:
rpg,, explain why you should fire a long time, competent, able, cooperative employee if he comes to you with a marriage license with his male partner?
Click to expand...


I never mentioned anything about this.

My only point is, the business owner should be able to hire/fire whom they choose....... period.
Aneeda72 said:
Let’s say you hire him or her cause their qualifications are great. This person has BO, employees complain. You ask what’s the problem? Response: I live in a car when I have enough saved I’ll get an apartment. Do you fire the employee or brainstorm for a way for them to clean up?

Response: I have no control over bodily functions. I wear a diaper, pad, whatever, due to cancer, surgery, whatever. Do you give them extra time for change their pads etc? ADA issue, btw. Anything can be worked out.

There are many reasons why people are overweight, psychological and/or medical. Same for BO. I worked for a major company in a call center with a person who “smelled” due to the above issues. She was placed at the end of a row and I volunteered to sit next to her since I had a total care son who was diapered, and smelled.

Frankly, you get used to the smell and, like any smell, after a while it’s just not as noticeable. Like working in a nursing home or group home, or, perhaps, your own house, you get used to the smell. In reverse, IMO, there is nothing worst than a man or woman who douses themselves in perfume.
Click to expand...


I'll word it differently ....... the business owner should be able to run his/her business, as they please.
 
asp3 said:
Thanks for your reply (even though I've only included a small portion here. I agree that it will be difficult to enforce the HHS rule considering the new SCOTUS ruling. However there may be a number of people harmed by the rule before it is challenged in court to the point of waiving it until a final judgement is made.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I've read that it doesn't take effect until August 1, so that may give time for the ACLU or whoever to get a TRO before it goes into effect.
 
I agree with RGP completely! I applaud his unwavering judgement. The rights of the individual must always be upheld! Why should anyone be able to tell a person how to run his own business?
 
This kind of discrimination goes way back in this country. In the 19th century, Irish immigrants trying to get work were met with signs saying, "No Irish need apply." And it seems that unfortunately, that mindset still exists.
 
rgp said:
I never mentioned anything about this.

My only point is, the business owner should be able to hire/fire whom they choose....... period.



I'll word it differently ....... the business owner should be able to run his/her business, as they please.
Click to expand...

quick question about this...

i agree business owners have a right to run things as they see fit, however, if they all did that and fired everyone who wanted to marry same sex partners, does that mean these folks should have to go without jobs? they don't have the right to work and take care of themselves because of who they choose to love?
 
Gaer said:
I agree with RGP completely! I applaud his unwavering judgement. The rights of the individual must always be upheld! Why should anyone be able to tell a person how to run his own business?
Click to expand...
well because for one thing what if the tables were turned? what if you wanted to work in a clothing store and when they found out you were married to a man they decided to fire you because they prefer people in same sex marriages. so now you have no job. wouldn't that make you just a little mad? especially given how difficult getting a job can be? as long as they are doing their job and doing it well, who cares who they love? when do business owners get to decide who we can or can not love? that they have no right to do.
 
MarciKS said:
well because for one thing what if the tables were turned? what if you wanted to work in a clothing store and when they found out you were married to a man they decided to fire you because they prefer people in same sex marriages. so now you have no job. wouldn't that make you just a little mad? especially given how difficult getting a job can be? as long as they are doing their job and doing it well, who cares who they love? when do business owners get to decide who we can or can not love? that they have no right to do.
Click to expand...

I don't really see how it is any of the employer's (or anybody else's) business who we love, marry or cohabit with, or even have wild and crazy one-nighters with. The employer is employing us to do a job, period.
 
MarciKS said:
well because for one thing what if the tables were turned? what if you wanted to work in a clothing store and when they found out you were married to a man they decided to fire you because they prefer people in same sex marriages. so now you have no job. wouldn't that make you just a little mad? especially given how difficult getting a job can be? as long as they are doing their job and doing it well, who cares who they love? when do business owners get to decide who we can or can not love? that they have no right to do.
Click to expand...

and also, what if that 'disapproval' of gay marriage was so common in that area that nobody wanted to hire the person solely for that reason.. 'the right' to not hire individuals employers 'disapprove' of would mean many many people without jobs.

So basically what these members are saying to anyone in categories they disapprove of: 'Sucks to be you- go live under a bridge.' :mad:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top