"MrSnrub" (sv100)
10/09/2019 at 13:33 • Filed to: None
2
11|
"MrSnrub" (sv100)
10/09/2019 at 13:33 • Filed to: None | 2
| 11 |
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
Will be interesting to see if I get to keep all my civil rights! The Trump admin is arguing that I should not, so that’s nice
Highlander-Datsuns are Forever
> MrSnrub
10/09/2019 at 13:46 |
|
This case seems odd to me because as I was taught the labor code does not allow discrimination on sex, race, religion etc.. aka “protected classifications” to me that includes LGBTQ people as well without a second thought.
facw
> MrSnrub
10/09/2019 at 14:01 |
|
It’s worrying that they took this case soon after the gay marriage case given that the argument is basically the same:
If you take action against a man because they are in a relationship with a man, but not a woman who is in a relationship with a man, then you are discriminating based on sex, which is not permitted.
Admittedly the transgender portion isn’t as well explored, it’s less clear that that’s protected.
In any event revisiting so soon seems like a clear sign that they don’t like the president
that was established and I’m not optimistic about the outcome.
Seems like progressive court watchers seem to think the best realistic outcome is a narrowly tailored decision that doesn’t undermine LGBTQ rights everywhere.
WilliamsSW
> Highlander-Datsuns are Forever
10/09/2019 at 14:02 |
|
My understanding is that a lot of states have made it law to protect LGBTQ people, and a lot of companies have chosen to do so, but it’s not settled federal law. Which seems almost unbelievable to me, but here we are.
Ash78, voting early and often
> WilliamsSW
10/09/2019 at 14:09 |
|
Ditto, everywhere I’ve ever worked (mostly in AL, of all places) have been very clear about LGBT as a protected class. But that might have just been voluntary.
It could be just that this is codifying what is already a de facto law. But of course Trump will have something to say, because apparently there are still some very rampant evangelical voters who dislike gay people but have no problem with egomaniacal philanderers running a country.
For Sweden
> facw
10/09/2019 at 14:10 |
|
In my (extremely limited) understanding on how Yankees do appellate courts; the Supreme Court took the case because two circuit courts could not agree on if sexual orientation was covered under the sex discrimination ban.
TL;DR: the kids are fighting and the parent has to intervene
|
Ash78, voting early and often
> facw
10/09/2019 at 14:11 |
|
Sounds like a lot of sodomy laws, which were allegedly enacted to protect children, but were secretly enacted to criminalize homosexuality, but in practice were most often applied to heterosexual cases and the accused people were like “Wait that’s not what we meant!”
What a tangled web.
|
WilliamsSW
> Ash78, voting early and often
10/09/2019 at 14:24 |
|
Agree
-
and
mo
st
companies
don’t
really
want
to
challenge
what
may
or
may
not
be
law,
plus
the
smart
ones
have
figured
out
that
LGBTQ
acceptance
is
plain
good
business.
But then we still have people like Pence in high offices...
Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo
> MrSnrub
10/09/2019 at 15:17 |
|
I keep hoping that SCOTUS will surprise us and wind up being reasonable, fair-minded jurists. Closeted, i nsecure people...
|
Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo
> Ash78, voting early and often
10/09/2019 at 15:18 |
|
Don’t go there, English. Sure, Trump will have something (stupid, destructive, mean, hateful, stupid) to say.
|
Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo
> Ash78, voting early and often
10/09/2019 at 15:21 |
|
Unintended consequences and grownups who can’t get past the self-imposed shame of the sexual experimentation they did when they were young. Or their fantasies... Righting the wrongs of their own misspent youth.
Wrong Wheel Drive (41%)
> MrSnrub
10/09/2019 at 15:34 |
|
“Essentially, Harris Funeral Homes wants the right to fire someone if the way that person dresses is not in keeping with gender roles as Harris Funeral Homes defines them .”
That is some messed up logic, I really hope that this case does not rule in favor of the business. Regardless of the actual motivation for wanting to discriminate this way, just allowing it to happen legally is totally unacceptable. Gender “roles” should not be a thing, I dont see how gender plays any significance in a modern society. There are plenty of women out there that can kick my ass and would be way better at a “traditionally male” job than me. Anyone that puts in the effort should just be judged on their outputs rather than how they are born.