LogFAQs > #928621677

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!!!
Aaantlion 10/11/19 3:05:53 AM #75:	SunWuKung420 posted... Lol, I can't believe he is really trying to argue that being gay is a preference that might change over time. That's some 1950's, "we can pray the gay away" shit right there. To be fair, there are numerous cases of a previously-gay individual getting into straight relationships. Bill de Blasio's wife was a lesbian, for instance; in fact, she went so far as to publish an essay literally titled "I am a Lesbian" in 1979 before meeting and marrying BdB in 1991. \ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirlane_McCray adjl posted... Because some reasons have no bearing on job performance and are not things people can change about themselves. ...and why should some of those things be protected but not others? adjl posted... 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. Height and weight discrimination have both been widely practiced throughout history (albeit with weight you can at least partly argue that it can be changed, even though people naturally have certain body types) yet, last I checked, neither one is being pushed as a protected class. Hell, even gingers -- whose discrimination was ironically further cemented by South Park's attempts to mock ginger discrimination -- likely wouldn't even be protected under current or proposed revisions. adjl posted... Because employers have more power than employees. At every level, employment regulations exist to correct that imbalance. This is no exception. Considering that employees are free to find employment wherever because countless employers exist, it seems quite the opposite. wwinterj25 posted... So you're agreeing with me while questioning if I know what discrimination is? Good post Zeus. So you're ignoring the actual point being made while simultaneously failing to address your misperceptions involving discrimination? Awesome post, winter. Fam_Fam posted... religion is something that you choose and that changes over time, and yet it is protected And, like many things that are protected, it probably shouldn't be. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| Scientists are finally waking up to what pyramids have known all along. <cite>Aaantlion posted [p:928621677] in Supreme Co... [t:78073474]...</cite> <quote>SunWuKung420 posted...</cite> <quote>Lol, I can't believe he is really trying to argue that being gay is a preference that might change over time. That's some 1950's, "we can pray the gay away" shit right there.</quote> To be fair, there are numerous cases of a previously-gay individual getting into straight relationships. Bill de Blasio's wife was a lesbian, for instance; in fact, she went so far as to publish an essay literally titled "I am a Lesbian" in 1979 before meeting and marrying BdB in 1991. \ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirlane_McCray adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Because some reasons have no bearing on job performance and are not things people can change about themselves. </quote> ...and why should some of those things be protected but not others? adjl posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Height and weight discrimination have both been widely practiced throughout history (albeit with weight you can at least partly argue that it can be changed, even though people naturally have certain body types) yet, last I checked, neither one is being pushed as a protected class. Hell, even gingers -- whose discrimination was ironically further cemented by South Park's attempts to mock ginger discrimination -- likely wouldn't even be protected under current or proposed revisions. adjl posted...</cite> <quote>Because employers have more power than employees. At every level, employment regulations exist to correct that imbalance. This is no exception. </quote> Considering that employees are free to find employment wherever because countless employers exist, it seems quite the opposite. wwinterj25 posted...</cite> <quote>So you're agreeing with me while questioning if I know what discrimination is? Good post Zeus.</quote> So you're ignoring the actual point being made while simultaneously failing to address your misperceptions involving discrimination? Awesome post, winter. Fam_Fam posted...</cite> <quote>religion is something that you choose and that changes over time, and yet it is protected</quote> And, like many things that are protected, it probably shouldn't be. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| Scientists are finally waking up to what pyramids have known all along.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1