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

JaniceM said:
His behavior is having a negative effect on the workplace.. entirely different situation.
Click to expand...


No difference , at all, the negative effect all depends on who is doing the talking? If the owner & a majority of the other other employees don't care for the gay-guy ?... it is the same thing.
 

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'm not familiar with your location, but you might want to check your state's laws and see what they say.

On a personal note, none of the places I went to were small businesses, privately-owned, etc.
 
rgp said:
It may be ? But it is too broad brush .... IMO
Click to expand...
I think that according to the new 175 page law that I tried to read, as a small business owner, you may hire who you wish, but once hired, then they will fall under this new part to the civil rights law. Of course, as we all know, there is always a way out if you find the loopholes and there is most always a loophole in any law.
 

JaniceM said:
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.")
Click to expand...


But in the case a business being their own. They should IMO have every right to act on it.

Should I have the right to basically destroy your business ? Just because I demand you hire me ?
 
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.
 
JaniceM said:
I'm not familiar with your location, but you might want to check your state's laws and see what they say.

On a personal note, none of the places I went to were small businesses, privately-owned, etc.
Click to expand...


I really do not & would not care, what the laws says. If I cannot run my business my way ? then i will not open it, or will close it, if already opened.
 
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...


Under your explanation , I have no problem with that. If [for example] I had a brother ... he would be my first choice.
 
rgp said:
I'll bet you couldn't fire the fat smelly guy .
Click to expand...
It’s been done, but not since the law changed today. It was done to a lady in our office with wearing perfume that arrived well before she did. Another person was allergic to the scent. She was told and given several warnings and then terminated. She sued and lost, but did collect unemployment.
 
Been There said:
It’s been done, but not since the law changed today. It was done to a lady in our office with wearing perfume that arrived well before she did. Another person was allergic to the scent. She was told and given several warnings and then terminated. She sued and lost, but did collect unemployment.
Click to expand...
See that IMO, should not be....She was a disruption to the work place period !

Again, a person wants the job ? Comply with the workplace harmony .
 
rgp said:
But in the case a business being their own. They should IMO have every right to act on it.

Should I have the right to basically destroy your business ? Just because I demand you hire me ?
Click to expand...
I think the issue is not what individuals think but what the judgment of SCOTUS determines is the law of the land. That is their function and they have determined that a civil rights law passed years ago applies to gays and transgender people as well as heterosexual men and women. The ruling brings clarity to employers and employees.
 
Warrigal said:
I think the issue is not what individuals think but what the judgment of SCOTUS determines is the law of the land. That is their function and they have determined that a civil rights law passed years ago applies to gays and transgender people as well as heterosexual men and women. The ruling brings clarity to employers and employees.
Click to expand...

Well, that may be but .... If it is my business we are talking about? Then I would close my doors.
 
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?
 
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 seriously doubt if gig workers would be included due to them not being considered employees, but independent contractors.
JMO
 
rgp said:
Well, that may be but .... If it is my business we are talking about? Then I would close my doors.
Click to expand...
You are speaking hypothetically, of course, since you don't have your own business. Neither do I.

However, I think the ruling goes beyond employment. I assume it means a person cannot be refused health services because of their sexual identification or orientation. Or education. How wide sweeping is this ruling? Does anyone know?
 
Warrigal said:
You are speaking hypothetically, of course, since you don't have your own business. Neither do I.

However, I think the ruling goes beyond employment. I assume it means a person cannot be refused health services because of their sexual identification or orientation. Or education. How wide sweeping is this ruling? Does anyone know?
Click to expand...
What I have read of the law, it’s like 175 pages, it only refers to employment, unless I missed it.
 
An employer can still hire who they want for the job, BUT they cannot state the reason as being LGBTQ (one of those). They can say “We were looking for someone more qualified.” Or, “We wanted someone that lived in the county.” Anything, except it can’t deal with the usual civil liberties of race, religion, etc. and now the new law.

Some of the language is ambiguous, but I have limited legal expertise. Working in the Pentagon for the military, I never had to deal with the DOJ.

I am going to read it again later tonight.
 
Perhaps. I woke this morning in Sydney Australia and the radio was playing with news of the SCOTUS 6 to 3 decision. I am not entirely sure what I heard and am trying to catch up from afar.

This is the decision I heard about

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06...-discrimination-against-lgbt-workers/12358502

The US Supreme Court has delivered a watershed victory for LGBT rights by ruling that a longstanding law barring workplace discrimination also protects gay and transgender employees.

The landmark 6-3 ruling represented the biggest moment for LGBT rights in the United States since the Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015.

Two conservative justices joined the court's four liberals in the decision: Neil Gorsuch, a 2017 appointee who wrote the ruling, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

The justices decided that gay and transgender people are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, colour, national origin and religion.

Workplace bias against gay and transgender employees had remained legal in much of the country, with 28 US states lacking comprehensive measures against employment discrimination.

The ruling, which involved two gay rights cases from Georgia and New York and a transgender rights case from Michigan, recognises new worker protections in federal law.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Been There said:
Maybe you are thinking of the new law that the President signed last week giving added protection to the LGBTQ community.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
rgp said:
See that IMO, should not be....She was a disruption to the work place period !

Again, a person wants the job ? Comply with the workplace harmony .
Click to expand...
What you quoted answered your question (where you said you don't follow). The person was told to not do something that was a hassle to others in the workplace, she didn't comply, and was fired. I agree that that's fair. That's an example of what a person "does."

However, what a person "is" is an entirely different subject. "Women cannot wear obnoxious perfume in the workplace" is much different from "We won't hire women."
 
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...
Furthermore, it's gotta be one of the oddest viewpoints ever to consider individuals needing to work to support themselves and/or provide for their families/households as 'getting their own way.'
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top