Poll of the Day > Supreme Court is FIERCELY DIVIDED whether EMPLOYERS can FIRE GAY PEOPLE!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Supreme Court is FIERCLY DIVIDED after hearing arguments on whether a landmark civil rights law protects LGBTQ people from job discrimination and whether it should be LEGAL to fire people for BEING GAY!!

2 of the highly anticipated causes brought by people who were fired for their sexual orientation or transgender status took centre stage in the nation's highest court where 4 liberal justices are to side with the workers as it's now up to one conservative justice to side with them

But that may prove difficult as one conservative justice, Neil Gorsuch wondered if the court should take heed of "massive social upheavel" that could follow a ruling in favour of the LGBT community

The law at issue is a key provision of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 known as Title VII which bars job discrimination based on sex, among other reasons

In recent years, lower courts have read that language to include discrimination against LGBT people and the court is tasked if the definition of "sex" under Title VII

This also touched on sex specific bathrooms, locker rooms and dress codes and even a reference to androgynous character known simply a Pat on SNL in the early 1990s

Justice Gorsuch, President Trump's apointee said there are strong arguments favouring LGBT workers but suggested maybe CONGRESS, not the courts to change the law because of the upheavel that could ensue

John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh did not indicate their views although Roberts questioned how employers with religious objections to hiring LGBT peple might be offected if they vote in favour of this law

The first 2 cases involve skydiving instructor,Donald Zarda and country government worker in Georgia, Gerald Bostock who were fired for being Gay where Bostock lost his job for Clayton County after he played in a gay recreational softball league and lost his case in federal district court. Zarda was fired after telling a woman he was preparing to take on a dive that he was gay and was and also lost his lawsuit

The second cases involves transgender people and the bathroom issue where a trans woman lost her job when the employer found out

The Trump administration and lawyers for the employers hit hard on the changes that might be required if the courts rule in favour of LGBT people as the conservative justices think lawmakers, not un-elected judges should make this issue.

Justice Samuel Alito seemed to agree that Congress in 1964 did not envision sex orientation or gender identity and Justice Clarence Thomas had nothing to say

The cases are the first on LGBT rights since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement and replacement of Kavanaugh that pushes the courts further to the right on conservative issues as a decision is expected next summer at the height of the presidental campaign season

The Trump administration have changed course from the Obama administration and now supports employers rights to fire LGBT people where Obama said civil rights include them

Congress could easily settle the matter by amending Title 7 to include LGBT people but it would not pass the Senate

Do you think people have a right to fire people for being LGBT?.

LGBT Employees Fired -









Protest -







Boogeymen -




---

Full Throttle posted...

Justice Gorsuch, President Trump's apointee said there are strong arguments favouring LGBT workers but suggested maybe CONGRESS, not the courts to change the law

This is fair, but...

Full Throttle posted...

Congress could easily settle the matter by amending Title 7 to include LGBT people but it would not pass the Senate

this is true.
---

Full Throttle posted...

whether EMPLOYERS can FIRE GAY PEOPLE!!!

I'm for treating them just like anyone else. And anyone else can be fired. They can't just decide they work someone forever and there's nothing the employer can do about it.

Full Throttle posted...

whether it should be LEGAL to fire people for BEING GAY!!

This appears to be a separate issue from the title. The same logic applies, though. I'm for treating them just like anyone else. If being gay is anything like the parades make it out to be then that is not workplace appropriate. Anyone else is prohibited from wearing bondage gear at work.They shouldn't be allowed to get away with that just because it's part of being gay.
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Full Throttle posted...

whether EMPLOYERS can FIRE GAY PEOPLE!!!

I'm for treating them just like anyone else. And anyone else can be fired. They can't just decide they work someone forever and there's nothing the employer can do about it.

Full Throttle posted...

whether it should be LEGAL to fire people for BEING GAY!!

This appears to be a separate issue from the title. The same logic applies, though. I'm for treating them just like anyone else. If being gay is anything like the parades make it out to be then that is not workplace appropriate. Anyone else is prohibited from wearing bondage gear at work.They shouldn't be allowed to get away with just because it's part of being gay.

Remembered why you're tagged what you are.
---

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

Remembered why you're tagged what you are.

I'm tagged?
---

If protected classes are going to exist (which they probably should, in the interest of keeping certain groups from being less employable for no reason), then LGBT should be one of them. The only potential objection is a religious one, and it's not the law's job to enforce the whims of any one religion.
---

Name one way gayness affects work performance?
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

Remembered why you're tagged what you are.

I'm tagged?

Yup.
adjl posted...

If protected classes are going to exist (which they probably should, in the interest of keeping certain groups from being less employable for no reason), then LGBT should be one of them. The only potential objection is a religious one, and it's not the law's job to enforce the whims of any one religion.

This here.
---

Lokarin posted...

Name one way gayness affects work performance?

Lesbian lingerie saleswomen would have to balance their sexual attraction to customers with their professional duty. This constitutes a conflict of interest.

Of course, even if they are a protected class, there's nothing stopping a lingerie sales job from specifically excluding lesbians because they can demonstrate that the job does actually require a straight woman (by the same vein, that job wouldn't hire a straight guy, which is fine despite gender being a protected class). If it's a requirement that's inherent to the job, discrimination is perfectly fair game.
---

Employers should be able to fire people for almost any reason, only excluding things trying to get out of paying disability for a work-place injury or other things along those lines.

Lokarin posted...

Name one way gayness affects work performance?

It's legal to fire people for other things that don't necessarily work performance as well, though.
---

Aaantlion posted...

It's legal to fire people for other things that don't necessarily work performance as well, though.

Why should somebody be made less employable for reasons that don't affect work performance?
---

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

FrndNhbrHdCEman posted...

Remembered why you're tagged what you are.

I'm tagged?

Yup.

What am I tagged? I have no idea.
---

Aaantlion posted...

Employers should be able to fire people for almost any reason, only excluding things trying to get out of paying disability for a work-place injury or other things along those lines.

Makes sense. You're on unemployment after all.
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm for treating them just like anyone else. And anyone else can be fired. They can't just decide they work someone forever and there's nothing the employer can do about it.

I can't be fired for the reasons they are being fired.

if these idiots want to exclude others and foolishly segregate themselves im more than happy to let them, and watch them die off.
---

Aaantlion posted...

Employers should be able to fire people for almost any reason, only excluding things trying to get out of paying disability for a work-place injury or other things along those lines.

Lokarin posted...

Name one way gayness affects work performance?

It's legal to fire people for other things that don't necessarily work performance as well, though.

Ok, that's my position: If performance doesn't matter - then ya, you can fire whoever for whatever reason - it's your business.

But if performance does matter, you shouldn't be allowed to fire someone who is otherwise qualified for their non-performance related attributes.
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm for treating them just like anyone else. And anyone else can be fired. They can't just decide they work someone forever and there's nothing the employer can do about it.

I can't be fired for the reasons they are being fired.

The title doesn't say for what reason. Just whether they can be fired.
I was half making fun of Full Throttle being misleading.
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm for treating them just like anyone else. And anyone else can be fired. They can't just decide they work someone forever and there's nothing the employer can do about it.

I can't be fired for the reasons they are being fired.

The title doesn't say for what reason. Just whether they can be fired.

There is a bill that says I can't be fired for being me.

BlackScythe0 posted...

There is a bill that says I can't be fired for being me.

I was half making fun of Full Throttle being misleading in the title.
---

Its irrelevant. Who cares? Some people want a theocracy and should probably just stop giving their money to asshole televangelist types and use it to buy an island where they can do what they want.

Can they fire gay people that aren't performing up to the standards of every other employee, as mandated by the employer? Yes.

Can they fire gay people for being gay? No.
---

Ive said it before and Ill say it again, the law is designed currently to protect you against discrimination based upon your sex whether you are male or female not based upon your sexual orientation whether you want to date males or females. Every man cannot be discriminated against because they are a man and every woman cannot be discriminated against because they are woman. Its unchanging and makes sense. You cant change how you were born.

Sexual orientation however is constantly changing. Today you feel like dating women but in 5 years you decide you want to date men, then years later you date both, and so on, and so on... Making it illegal to discriminate based upon your preferences opens up a can of worms when your preferences are something untoward, such as animals, objects, or children.

In this case it would appear to be mostly harmless since all this does is protect against job discrimination but as the justices are pointing out it would create legal precedence that would apply in many other areas that can see individual preferences protected when they are otherwise harmful to society as a whole.

I hope what I said at least makes a little sense. Law is hard to describe in laymans terms.

This is one reason why I believe that the 2015 decision that the 14th Amendment applied to same sex marriage was a mistake, not because gays shouldnt get married since I honestly dont care who marries who, but because I could see it taking us down this rabbit hole. If you want a law to apply to something new you write a new law, not pretend it now applies to that new thing it was never written for. It creates too many problems accidentally.

If theres enough support for a new discrimination law then have the government create a new discrimination law that applies exactly how it is intended, instead of trying to usurp a current law that if applied to this can have drastically unforeseen consequences.
---

I mean, I guess it means we can fire religious people just for being religious.
---

Better start firing minorities too
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Sexual orientation however is constantly changing. Today you feel like dating women but in 5 years you decide you want to date men, then years later you date both, and so on, and so on... Making it illegal to discriminate based upon your preferences opens up a can of worms when your preferences are something untoward, such as animals, objects, or children.

In this case it would appear to be mostly harmless since all this does is protect against job discrimination but as the justices are pointing out it would create legal precedence that would apply in many other areas that can see individual preferences protected when they are otherwise harmful to society as a whole.

It's not really setting a slippery slope of legal precedent to say "gay sex is okay because it's between consenting adults." Animals and children are not consenting adults, so they're not fair game, and in fact are illegal to have sex with (in which case, you're not discriminating based on their sexual preference, but on their criminal record). Objects? It's weird, but it's not hurting anybody, so there's no reason to discriminate on that basis (unless they start ****ing random objects at work, which is unsanitary and an unauthorized use of work time and therefore a justifiable reason to fire them).

No. That's no different from firing someone for being black or female. People promoting the idea are just cowering behind the name of their religion.
---

gguirao posted...

No. That's no different from firing someone for being black or female. People promoting the idea are just cowering behind the name of their religion.

It is different. One is recognized as being legally protected under the law and the other is being argued to be recognized as being legally protected under the law. The only question at hand is is it?
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

gguirao posted...

No. That's no different from firing someone for being black or female. People promoting the idea are just cowering behind the name of their religion.

It is different. One is recognized as being legally protected under the law and the other is being argued to be recognized as being legally protected under the law. The only question at hand is is it?

Lol
---

Your sexuality shouldn't have any relevance to you being able to do your job so no.

aDirtyShisno posted...

It is different.

You would be discriminating against someone based on something that is out of their control. This includes but is not limited to race, sexual orientation and disabilities. You do understand what discrimination is right?
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

It is different. One is recognized as being legally protected under the law and the other is being argued to be recognized as being legally protected under the law. The only question at hand is is it?

I think it's important to examine why one is protected or why one would not be.

Race is protected because the individual can't change that aspect of who they are.
Oh, wait, people are now arguing that race is a social construct and people can pick which race to behave like.

Gender is protected because the individual can't change... never mind, that's a social construct too.

Where as sexual orientation is a behavior that people can choose to express or not.
What? This one they're arguing is an innate characteristic?

In summary people can be fired for issues that effect work performance such as having the wrong opinion on a political issue.
They cannot be fired over things they have no control over.
---

Depends, is the gay person getting fired for theft from the employer or because of homosexuality?
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

In summary people can be fired for issues that effect work performance such as having the wrong opinion on a political issue.

ITP: Opinions can be wrong and differing political leanings are fireable offenses.

Lulz wrong.
---

SunWuKung420 posted...

ITP: Opinions can be wrong and differing political leanings are fireable offenses.
Lulz wrong.

Have you heard of Google? And I'm not telling you to search for something on the internet. I'm saying Google, the company, has done this.
---

It's more getting fired for bringing your personal beliefs into the work environment and letting them effect you do your job than actually holding different opinions.
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Where as sexual orientation is a behavior that people can choose to express or not.
What? This one they're arguing is an innate characteristic?

You can choose to express or not express virtually any innate characteristic. The ability to hide something doesn't make it okay to discriminate against it.
---

adjl posted...

You can choose to express or not express virtually any innate characteristic

How does one refrain from expressing their skin color?
---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

adjl posted...

You can choose to express or not express virtually any innate characteristic

How does one refrain from expressing their skin color?

Extensive makeup, cosmetic skin pigmentation surgeries, sometimes tanning... It's certainly not common to do that, but it's far from impossible.
---

I havent read all the other post yet, but I think it should match the other laws. If you cant fire someone for race, gender, etc., then this should be included...
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Your sexuality shouldn't have any relevance to you being able to do your job so no.

aDirtyShisno posted...

It is different.

You would be discriminating against someone based on something that is out of their control. This includes but is not limited to race, sexual orientation and disabilities. You do understand what discrimination is right?

That still hasnt been settled yet as far as the law is concerned. Otherwise it would automatically apply, and yet here we are.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

That still hasnt been settled yet as far as the law is concerned. Otherwise it would automatically apply, and yet here we are.

It should automatically apply, because it's very obviously logically identical to other protected classes. It hasn't been allowed to apply automatically, however, because Christian fundies are a tenacious bunch with far too much influence in American politics.

Your argument about whether or not something should be legal really shouldn't hinge on whether or not it's already legal. That's a thoroughly tautological approach.
---

adjl posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

That still hasnt been settled yet as far as the law is concerned. Otherwise it would automatically apply, and yet here we are.

It should automatically apply, because it's very obviously logically identical to other protected classes. It hasn't been allowed to apply automatically, however, because Christian fundies are a tenacious bunch with far too much influence in American politics.

Your argument about whether or not something should be legal really shouldn't hinge on whether or not it's already legal. That's a thoroughly tautological approach.

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.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

That still hasnt been settled yet as far as the law is concerned. Otherwise it would automatically apply, and yet here we are.

Seems a open and shut case to me. Discrimination is never welcome and singling out folk due to their sexuality is discrimination no matter what law does or doesn't say.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Today you feel like dating women but in 5 years you decide you want to date men, then years later you date both, and so on, and so on...

You do realize that you don't just choose who you like? Most people can't just decide to be gay or straight. You do understand that they are born that way, correct? Because it kind of sounds like you think everyone can just pick and choose at will...
---

adjl posted...

Aaantlion posted...

It's legal to fire people for other things that don't necessarily work performance as well, though.

Why should somebody be made less employable for reasons that don't affect work performance?

But why should some reasons be protected yet not others? And why should employees be allowed to discriminate against where they choose to work but not employers against employees? Work is a voluntary social contract, putting restrictions on who you have to hire or keep violates that arrangement. As it is, employees can freely quit for any number of racist, homophobic, misogynistic/misandrist reasons, yet there are no laws protecting their bosses who are affected by this discrimination. Surely if you promote equality and fairness you'd want things to work both ways, right?

BlackScythe0 posted...

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm for treating them just like anyone else. And anyone else can be fired. They can't just decide they work someone forever and there's nothing the employer can do about it.

I can't be fired for the reasons they are being fired.

But if they're fired for any reason, they can turn around and claim it was for the reasons cited. And, more saliently, you can be fired for any number of reasons that they wouldn't be fired for. Why is one more right than the other?

wwinterj25 posted...

You would be discriminating against someone based on something that is out of their control. This includes but is not limited to race, sexual orientation and disabilities. You do understand what discrimination is right?

Do you understand what discrimination is? Because it can be for any number of reasons, some of which are also largely out of a person's control yet aren't protected.
---

Aaantlion posted...

But if they're fired for any reason, they can turn around and claim it was for the reasons cited. And, more saliently, you can be fired for any number of reasons that they wouldn't be fired for. Why is one more right than the other?

They usually settle that in court. It's easier if you have evidence of some sort, though. For example, if you're fired someone who had an accident in a vehicle that has a camera on it, then you can use the video evidence to show that. Or if you fired them for losing something important that they signed out and never returned, there should be evidence to show that. And in those cases, you can prove you fired them for the reasons you gave instead of something like sexual orientation...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Aaantlion posted...

But if they're fired for any reason, they can turn around and claim it was for the reasons cited. And, more saliently, you can be fired for any number of reasons that they wouldn't be fired for. Why is one more right than the other?

They usually settle that in court. It's easier if you have evidence of some sort, though. For example, if you're fired someone who had an accident in a vehicle that has a camera on it, then you can use the video evidence to show that. Or if you fired them for losing something important that they signed out and never returned, there should be evidence to show that. And in those cases, you can prove you fired them for the reasons you gave instead of something like sexual orientation...

No, I mean if somebody got fired for performance or another legitimate issue, they can still claim discrimination.
---

Aaantlion posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Aaantlion posted...

But if they're fired for any reason, they can turn around and claim it was for the reasons cited. And, more saliently, you can be fired for any number of reasons that they wouldn't be fired for. Why is one more right than the other?

They usually settle that in court. It's easier if you have evidence of some sort, though. For example, if you're fired someone who had an accident in a vehicle that has a camera on it, then you can use the video evidence to show that. Or if you fired them for losing something important that they signed out and never returned, there should be evidence to show that. And in those cases, you can prove you fired them for the reasons you gave instead of something like sexual orientation...

No, I mean if somebody got fired for performance or another legitimate issue, they can still claim discrimination.

Yes. That's why I said it easier to fire them for whatever they fired them for if they have evidence. For performance issues, you could show paperwork that their performance was down. Whether it's a chart showing they were doing worse then co-workers or worse than they were before. Or paperwork showing that you had talked to them multiple times before...
---

wwinterj25 posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

That still hasnt been settled yet as far as the law is concerned. Otherwise it would automatically apply, and yet here we are.

Seems a open and shut case to me. Discrimination is never welcome and singling out folk due to their sexuality is discrimination no matter what law does or doesn't say.

Seems an open and shut case. Discrimination is never welcome and singling out pedophiles / beastiality enthusiasts / polygamists due to their sexuality is discrimination no matter what law does or doesnt say.

Do you see why including a topic that is literally not in the law to begin with can cause a cascade of unintended consequences? If you want a specific item to be protected then by all means make a law that protects it, but dont try to suggest that a law that is not open ended is suddenly more broad than it was written to be just because you feel it is too difficult a battle to get passed through the legislature.
---

LinkPizza posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

Today you feel like dating women but in 5 years you decide you want to date men, then years later you date both, and so on, and so on...

You do realize that you don't just choose who you like? Most people can't just decide to be gay or straight. You do understand that they are born that way, correct? Because it kind of sounds like you think everyone can just pick and choose at will...

Dating preferences are dating preferences and absolutely change over time. Someone may grow up loving nothing but white women, years later be absolutely in love with black women, and years after that only dating Asian women. The same is true of people who come out as gay late in life yet were dating exclusively women early in life. Their preferences went from women to men over time. They werent simply born hating women even if they choose to date men early in life. Preferences absolutely exist and are not the same for everyone. Some peoples preferences change rapidly and some remain the same their whole lives, but preferences absolutely exit.
---

I'm You guys know he's wrong, so why even bother,mm?
---