LogFAQs > #928592526

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Supreme Court is FIERCELY DIVIDED whether EMPLOYERS can FIRE GAY PEOPLE!!!
adjl 10/10/19 1:05:47 PM #62:	aDirtyShisno posted... Its not that it shouldnt be legal because its not already legal, remember that laws work in the opposite. They make things expressly illegal and then everything else is legal. This means you are attempting to declare that something that is legal now is actually not legal. Not by actively changing the laws to incorporate the item in question, but rather by just pointing at something it was not covered by before and saying that it should be covered by that too and so it will be. Laws just dont work like that. The judiciary never was meant to create or change laws, only to enforce the laws as they are written by the legislature. If you want ironclad protection for something get them to make a law, not any of this it is, it isnt back and forth thats created by the judicial process. And the argument here is "this is logically identical to the things covered by the existing laws, so the existing laws should be amended to include it and/or can already cover it without explicit amendments." Aaantlion posted... But why should some reasons be protected yet not others? Because some reasons have no bearing on job performance and are not things people can change about themselves. Additionally, protected classes are typically classes of people that have been subject to harmful discrimination on a large scale, meaning their designation is a matter of trying to prevent further such discrimination and therefore harm. There's not much motivation to protect a class that doesn't have anything to protect against. Aaantlion posted... And why should employees be allowed to discriminate against where they choose to work but not employers against employees? Because employers have more power than employees. At every level, employment regulations exist to correct that imbalance. This is no exception. Aaantlion posted... No, I mean if somebody got fired for performance or another legitimate issue, they can still claim discrimination. They can indeed, which is why documentation of legitimate issues is important (for both sides of the issue). aDirtyShisno posted... Dating preferences are dating preferences and absolutely change over time. They do indeed. Why would that make discriminating against gay people any more legitimate? --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:928592526] in Supreme Co... [t:78073474]...</cite> <quote>aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Its not that it shouldnt be legal because its not already legal, remember that laws work in the opposite. They make things expressly illegal and then everything else is legal. This means you are attempting to declare that something that is legal now is actually not legal. Not by actively changing the laws to incorporate the item in question, but rather by just pointing at something it was not covered by before and saying that it should be covered by that too and so it will be. Laws just dont work like that. The judiciary never was meant to create or change laws, only to enforce the laws as they are written by the legislature. If you want ironclad protection for something get them to make a law, not any of this it is, it isnt back and forth thats created by the judicial process.</quote> And the argument here is "this is logically identical to the things covered by the existing laws, so the existing laws should be amended to include it and/or can already cover it without explicit amendments." Aaantlion posted...</cite> <quote>But why should some reasons be protected yet not others?</quote> Because some reasons have no bearing on job performance and are not things people can change about themselves. Additionally, protected classes are typically classes of people that have been subject to harmful discrimination on a large scale, meaning their designation is a matter of trying to prevent further such discrimination and therefore harm. There's not much motivation to protect a class that doesn't have anything to protect against. Aaantlion posted...</cite> <quote>And why should employees be allowed to discriminate against where they choose to work but not employers against employees?</quote> Because employers have more power than employees. At every level, employment regulations exist to correct that imbalance. This is no exception. Aaantlion posted...</cite> <quote>No, I mean if somebody got fired for performance or another legitimate issue, they can still claim discrimination.</quote> They can indeed, which is why documentation of legitimate issues is important (for both sides of the issue). aDirtyShisno posted...</cite> <quote>Dating preferences are dating preferences and absolutely change over time.</quote> They do indeed. Why would that make discriminating against gay people any more legitimate? --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1