LogFAQs > #928674387

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!!!
SKARDAVNELNATE 10/12/19 1:47:16 PM #90:	LinkPizza posted... SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Fam_Fam posted... religion is something that you choose and that changes over time, and yet it is protected This is the opposite of the purpose of a protected class. It's meant to criminalize discrimination over something that a person can't change. I believe thats what theyre saying... Fam_Fam was using the comparison to say it doesn't matter if being gay is a choice, since religion is a choice and is protected. But I say the comparison demonstrates that religion shouldn't be protected. An individual can identify as a race other what an observer would identify as that individual's race. An individual can identify as a sex other what an observer would identify as that individual's sex. As long as they don't act like they are in a parade it is far more difficult to be seen as gay. Likewise it is difficult to discern an individual's beliefs unless they are actively trying to make them known. The individual would have to display that aspect with behaviors such as type of clothing or openly discussing it. The trend is to protect aspects that would be evident to an observer without an effort on behalf of the individual to display it. Sexual orientation and religion don't fit this trend. Additionally, in an age when words have no meaning and anyone can personally identify as anything, why would anyone choose to identify as gay if the think they will face discrimination for it? --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:928674387] in Supreme Co... [t:78073474]...</cite> <quote>LinkPizza posted...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted...</cite> <quote>Fam_Fam posted...</cite> <quote>religion is something that you choose and that changes over time, and yet it is protected </quote> This is the opposite of the purpose of a protected class. It's meant to criminalize discrimination over something that a person can't change.</quote> I believe thats what theyre saying...</quote> Fam_Fam was using the comparison to say it doesn't matter if being gay is a choice, since religion is a choice and is protected. But I say the comparison demonstrates that religion shouldn't be protected. An individual can identify as a race other what an observer would identify as that individual's race. An individual can identify as a sex other what an observer would identify as that individual's sex. As long as they don't act like they are in a parade it is far more difficult to be seen as gay. Likewise it is difficult to discern an individual's beliefs unless they are actively trying to make them known. The individual would have to display that aspect with behaviors such as type of clothing or openly discussing it. The trend is to protect aspects that would be evident to an observer without an effort on behalf of the individual to display it. Sexual orientation and religion don't fit this trend. Additionally, in an age when words have no meaning and anyone can personally identify as anything, why would anyone choose to identify as gay if the think they will face discrimination for it? --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1