Current Events > Supreme Court rules 6-3 that it is illegal to fire someone for being gay/lesbian

(+) Yeah! (+)

Billy__Beane posted...

I agree with the ruling.

But the only problem that I foresee is someone pulling out the LGBT card when they should be fired for non-LGBT related issues. I know at work theres this trans-girl who is terrible at her job, no one likes working with her. She doesn't get along with anyone. Very abrasive. Yells at ancillary staff at the hospital including nurses, techs, etc. Calls in sick for bullshit reasons (which means the work is dumped on someone else). Just a bad human being overall. But admin is scared to do anything to her because shes trans. And she has been overheard before talking about how she "feels people treat her differently because shes trans" and how it causes her emotional stress.

Gross post.
---

Billy__Beane posted...

I agree with the ruling.

But the only problem that I foresee is someone pulling out the LGBT card when they should be fired for non-LGBT related issues. I know at work theres this trans-girl who is terrible at her job, no one likes working with her. She doesn't get along with anyone. Very abrasive. Yells at ancillary staff at the hospital including nurses, techs, etc. Calls in sick for bullshit reasons (which means the work is dumped on someone else). Just a bad human being overall. But admin is scared to do anything to her because shes trans. And she has been overheard before talking about how she "feels people treat her differently because shes trans" and how it causes her emotional stress.

none of this should stop a boss from firing someone with a demonstrated record of shit performance.

---

Billy__Beane posted...

I agree with the ruling.

But the only problem that I foresee is someone pulling out the LGBT card when they should be fired for non-LGBT related issues. I know at work theres this trans-girl who is terrible at her job, no one likes working with her. She doesn't get along with anyone. Very abrasive. Yells at ancillary staff at the hospital including nurses, techs, etc. Calls in sick for bullshit reasons (which means the work is dumped on someone else). Just a bad human being overall. But admin is scared to do anything to her because shes trans. And she has been overheard before talking about how she "feels people treat her differently because shes trans" and how it causes her emotional stress.

If they properly document her performance issues then there's nothing to be worried about

---

Billy__Beane posted...

I agree with the ruling.

But the only problem that I foresee is someone pulling out the LGBT card when they should be fired for non-LGBT related issues. I know at work theres this trans-girl who is terrible at her job, no one likes working with her. She doesn't get along with anyone. Very abrasive. Yells at ancillary staff at the hospital including nurses, techs, etc. Calls in sick for bullshit reasons (which means the work is dumped on someone else). Just a bad human being overall. But admin is scared to do anything to her because shes trans. And she has been overheard before talking about how she "feels people treat her differently because shes trans" and how it causes her emotional stress.

They still have to prove that the reason for firing is related to discrimination. No different than with anything related to sex, gender, or race.

---

Billy__Beane posted...

I agree with the ruling.

But the only problem that I foresee is someone pulling out the LGBT card when they should be fired for non-LGBT related issues. I know at work theres this trans-girl who is terrible at her job, no one likes working with her. She doesn't get along with anyone. Very abrasive. Yells at ancillary staff at the hospital including nurses, techs, etc. Calls in sick for bullshit reasons (which means the work is dumped on someone else). Just a bad human being overall. But admin is scared to do anything to her because shes trans. And she has been overheard before talking about how she "feels people treat her differently because shes trans" and how it causes her emotional stress.

^^^^ Thinly veiled transphobia

---

Supreme Butt Chugger Kavanaugh hates gay ppl

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

What executive order?

This, but I was wrong to refer to it as an executive order, it's a policy ruling or something like that. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/06/12/868073068/transgender-health-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration


---

Going to imagine the 3 votes against were for the transgender part and not the gay part.

And considering we have stuff like Jessica Yaniv openly targeting Muslim women so they would feel uncomfortable seeing her naked so that she could make lawsuits I can see that being remembered.

Billy__Beane posted...

I agree with the ruling.

But the only problem that I foresee is someone pulling out the LGBT card when they should be fired for non-LGBT related issues. I know at work theres this trans-girl who is terrible at her job, no one likes working with her. She doesn't get along with anyone. Very abrasive. Yells at ancillary staff at the hospital including nurses, techs, etc. Calls in sick for bullshit reasons (which means the work is dumped on someone else). Just a bad human being overall. But admin is scared to do anything to her because shes trans. And she has been overheard before talking about how she "feels people treat her differently because shes trans" and how it causes her emotional stress.

Ah yes, the classic republican scare tactic of using hypothetical isolated incident examples

see also we shouldnt have welfare because women will start popping out babies for the welfare money

---

Everything in America gotta be partisan.

---

The dissenting opinions published yet?

Gonna be hilarious watching those idiots try to justify.

---

Those 3 should be kicked off the Supreme Court. Not really seeing any reason to have them making any decisions for the American people.

---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

Going to imagine the 3 votes against were for the transgender part and not the gay part.

And considering we have stuff like Jessica Yaniv openly targeting Muslim women so they would feel uncomfortable seeing her naked so that she could make lawsuits I can see that being remembered.

No idea who you are, but that one post alone seems very taggable.
---

This seems to be part of the dissenting opinion:

"Notwithstanding my concern about the Courts transgression of the Constitutions separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and gritbattling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in todays result. Under the Constitutions separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congresss role, not this Courts, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

Going to imagine the 3 votes against were for the transgender part and not the gay part.

And considering we have stuff like Jessica Yaniv openly targeting Muslim women so they would feel uncomfortable seeing her naked so that she could make lawsuits I can see that being remembered.

Ah well then it's perfectly justifiable if they just don't trust them trans people.

Guess white people should be discriminated against since some of them are assholes.

---

teepan95 posted...

This seems to be part of the dissenting opinion:

Oh FUCK OFF

Not you teepan, love you

---

DrizztLink posted...

teepan95 posted...

This seems to be part of the dissenting opinion:

Oh FUCK OFF

Not you teepan, love you

Love you too, bby
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

No idea who you are, but that one post alone seems very taggable.

Then do it.

If somebody has religious reasons not to see members of the opposite sex, I can see them not hiring someone who is a trans woman in certain situations. The same way I would be willing to give a pass against them discriminating against a man in the same way.

I don't really care what people on the internet think of me, especially when the trans people I interact with regularly are friendly with me.

The_Ivory_Man posted...

If somebody has religious reasons not to see members of the opposite sex

I'm Muslim and I don't recall the sermon where the imam said I was gonna go straight to hell just cause I accidentally looked a female cashier in the eye
---

About time.

Fuck the "people" who voted against it. Fuck anyone who thinks they shouldn't have the same rights. Fuck anyone who thinks their is even an argument to have. Trash, the lot of them.

---

"Notwithstanding my concern about the Courts transgression of the Constitutions separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and gritbattling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in todays result. Under the Constitutions separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congresss role, not this Courts, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

Honestly, I knew it would be a buck pass. I just figured it'd be back down to the state level.

It's not like it's the job of the Judicial branch to interpret the law or anything.

---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

If somebody has religious reasons not to see members of the opposite sex

well thats the whole point of this ruling

that some vague interpretation of religious doctrines is not a valid reason to discriminate in modern times

---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

If somebody has religious reasons not to see members of the opposite sex, I can see them not hiring someone who is a trans woman in certain situations. The same way I would be willing to give a pass against them discriminating against a man in the same way.

I don't really care what people on the internet think of me, especially when the trans people I interact with regularly are friendly with me.

"Religious reasons" isn't a good reason to discriminate against people. That's called forcing your beliefs on other people.

---

This topic certainly brought out some trash opinions.

---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

If somebody has religious reasons not to see members of the opposite sex, I can see them not hiring someone who is a trans woman in certain situations. The same way I would be willing to give a pass against them discriminating against a man in the same way.

No. They can practice their beliefs on their own time. Life doesn't care about your feelings. Following a popular religion of the times and it allowing you the right to discriminate can fuck right off. A bigoted atheist wouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

---

I like how you can tell he's specifically going after Islam/Muslims but then you have cases like Iran where they view being gay as being "worse" than being transgender.
---

Fun fact: the word "sex" was inserted into the Civil Rights Act by Democratic Rep. Howard Smith, a segregationist, as a poison-pill meant to derail the legislation.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/does-civil-rights-act-protect-sexual-orientation/587881/
I mention it, because it's one of history's most stupendous own-goals.

https://twitter.com/AriDrennen/status/1272542740727857152
I feel like Alito is going to regret writing that. It's worth noting Alito and Kavanaugh seem to have written separate dissents.

Good. Nip that in the bud.

---

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Fun fact: the word "sex" was inserted into the Civil Rights Act by Democratic Rep. Howard Smith, a segregationist, as a poison-pill meant to derail the legislation.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/does-civil-rights-act-protect-sexual-orientation/587881/
I mention it, because it's one of history's most stupendous own-goals.

https://twitter.com/AriDrennen/status/1272542740727857152
I feel like Alito is going to regret writing that. It's worth noting Alito and Kavanaugh seem to have written separate dissents.

It sounds like Alito regrets having to do the job of the legislature. We need to elect better people

---

The_Ivory_Man posted...

Then do it.

If somebody has religious reasons not to see members of the opposite sex, I can see them not hiring someone who is a trans woman in certain situations. The same way I would be willing to give a pass against them discriminating against a man in the same way.

I don't really care what people on the internet think of me, especially when the trans people I interact with regularly are friendly with me.

Which businesses are allowed to discriminate based on sex (hiring only males/females) due to religious reasons?

teepan95 posted...

"Notwithstanding my concern about the Courts transgression of the Constitutions separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and gritbattling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in todays result. Under the Constitutions separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congresss role, not this Courts, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

I mean, it's a child's responsibility to clean up their toys when they're done playing but if they just won't do it for whatever reason then an adult has to assume responsibility for them.

---

"Under the Constitutions separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congresss role, not this Courts, to amend Title VII."

That doesn't make any sense.

ButteryMales posted...

"Under the Constitutions separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congresss role, not this Courts, to amend Title VII."

That doesn't make any sense.

I believe amendments to law are supposed to be brought up by the legislature

Their constitutionality is determined by the judiciary

then again, congress has SO many people that disagree with each other and can't ever pass anything

might as well just cram it through the courts

nothing bad will ever happen from that

Romes187 posted...

I believe amendments to law are supposed to be brought up by the legislature

Their constitutionality is determined by the judiciary

The judiciary also performs interpretations and sets precedent. Depending on whether you view this as an actual amendment versus just a precedent of it's applicability is the issue here.

In Roe vs Wade, for example, SCOTUS didn't amend the constitution, they simply determined that the 4th amendment privacy protections apply to medical procedures including abortions.

---

Romes187 posted...

then again, congress has SO many people that disagree with each other and can't ever pass anything

might as well just cram it through the courts

nothing bad will ever happen from that

Narrator: It will
---

The dissent is basically every Originalist's argument against anything ever, "We have convened with the spirits of the dead Congressmen and, uh, that's not what they meant. Pay no attention to what the actual words are, just know that's not what they meant."

It truly is like they misunderstand the entire purpose of the high court, instead of thinking they are there to inpterpret the meaning of how they law was codified and allow Congress to adjust should they not have passed what they thought they did, they instead believe in this arcane divination where the text is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is what they think they meant to have actually passed as law.

Tyranthraxus posted...

The judiciary also performs interpretations and sets precedent. Depending on whether you view this as an actual amendment versus just a precedent of it's applicability is the issue here.

In Roe vs Wade, for example, SCOTUS didn't amend the constitution, they simply determined that the 4th amendment privacy protections apply to medical procedures including abortions.

To add they didn't amend the constitution here either.

Firing someone for being gay would be sex discrimination. Firing a man for being sexually attracted to men can't be done because they'd have to fire women for being sexually attracted to men.

Kavanaugh is exactly the stooge we expected him to be, but Gorsuch has been alright
---

Gorsuch's argument is interesting because he never actually defends homosexuality or transgenderism, his argument is simply "You can't discriminate against them for being LGBTQ+ without also discriminating against them based on sex, and that's illegal, thus this has to be illegal".
---

I went onto the conservative reddit and found a commenter posting this in response to this:

Conservative white men are the most discriminated group in America. In every way, shape and form. Because we know that our opinions are often met with violence. Despite the other side saying that we are the violent ones. They're a classic case of "projection".

LMAOOOOO

---

Wetterdew posted...

I went onto the conservative reddit

Why, though
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

Why, though

I enjoy seeing them seethe whenever historic legislation is passed regarding LGBT rights

In fairness, some of them recognize that this ruling is fair.

---

I cant believe this wasnt already a thing.

Billy__Beane posted...

I agree with the ruling.

But the only problem that I foresee is someone pulling out the LGBT card when they should be fired for non-LGBT related issues. I know at work theres this trans-girl who is terrible at her job, no one likes working with her. She doesn't get along with anyone. Very abrasive. Yells at ancillary staff at the hospital including nurses, techs, etc. Calls in sick for bullshit reasons (which means the work is dumped on someone else). Just a bad human being overall. But admin is scared to do anything to her because shes trans. And she has been overheard before talking about how she "feels people treat her differently because shes trans" and how it causes her emotional stress.

Documentation has always been important when firing someone, regardless of the protected class in effect.

---

shockthemonkey posted...

That was the argument that brought these cases to the SCOTUS so that makes sense. Hes affirming that this isnt legislating through the court - this is taking legislation as it was written and applying it equally without delving in to any gray zones.

Yeah, so in the end I'd still be more comfortable with the law itself actually being amended rather than relying on this interpretation going forward.
---

CapnMuffin posted...

Documentation has always been important when firing someone, regardless of the protected class in effect.

I had to explain this to some 20-year old kid that works for the company I work for the other day. They wrote him up out of nowhere for not wearing steel-toe shoes or the over-shoe attachments while using the power/pallet jacks and the splitter, despite the fact he'd been there about 4 months already and had never worn them and they knew it.

Basically just straight up told him they're laying the groundwork to try and fire him.
---