Landmark Supreme Court decision gives civil rights protections to LGBT

[muwarrior69]

I mean, I have never asked my assistant if she identifies as female.  Or married to someone who identifies as male.  But the picture with them and her three kids on her desk kinda leads me to believe that she is a heterosexual female.

Well, if some closeted gay person had a picture with another man on his desk how would I know that is his SO. It could be his brother or frat brother  for all I know.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Well, if some closeted gay person had a picture with another man on his desk how would I know that is his SO. It could be his brother or frat brother  for all I know.

<sigh>  OK. 

[muwarrior69]

This ruling leads me to believe that "bathroom bills," like HB2 in NC a few years ago that cost the state's economy hundreds of millions of dollars in business, would not fare well if appealed up to this SCOTUS.

And of course, the irony of the bathroom bill (aka Hate Bill 2) was that it would have legally required transgender men - women who now identify as men - to use the ladies room.

So all of the hypocrites who claimed the law was necessary to "protect little girls" would have had no problem with somebody such as Chaz Bono - full beard and all - occupying the same ladies room as little girls? Talk about the unintended consequences of legalizing discrimination.

Did you miss the part in which this has yet to be decided? I said it yesterday, and Pakuni JUST said it.

Did not the court just decide employers, all employers, there were no carve outs unless I missed it, cannot discriminate against LGTBQ people regarding employment. That is the law right now so religious institutions will have to comply unless there is a court injunction exempting them until a decision is decided.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Did not the court just decide employers, all employers, there were no carve outs unless I missed it, cannot discriminate against LGTBQ people regarding employment. That is the law right now so religious institutions will have to comply unless there is a court injunction exempting them until a decision is decided.

You are the king of the extreme slippery slope argument

[Pakuni]

Did not the court just decide employers, all employers, there were no carve outs unless I missed it, cannot discriminate against LGTBQ people regarding employment. That is the law right now so religious institutions will have to comply unless there is a court injunction exempting them until a decision is decided.

I'd recommend you read the ruling to save yourself from jumping to a bunch of false conclusions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

[muwarrior69]

Right.  It CAN produce a type of behavior.  It isn't the behavior itself.

I am arrogant person, but if I don't behave arrogant how would you know I am arrogant. If I don't know you are gay how can I discriminate against you for being gay.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I am arrogant person, but if I don't behave arrogant how would you know I am arrogant. If I don't know you are gay how can I discriminate against you for being gay.

The same way you can discriminate against a woman for being or planning to become pregnant.

[muwarrior69]

The same way you can discriminate against a woman for being or planning to become pregnant.

First off is there a pending case for firing a woman for being pregnant and if there was they lose that case in a heart beat and how would I know if a woman is planning to become pregnant, read her mind?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

First off is there a pending case for firing a woman for being pregnant and if there was they lose that case in a heart beat and how would I know if a woman is planning to become pregnant, read her mind?

You are assuming that organizations are not actively trying to find things out about their employees with the overt intent to discriminate.  Lawsuits in the realm I referenced says otherwise.

[muwarrior69]

I'd recommend you read the ruling to save yourself from jumping to a bunch of false conclusions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

So where in the decision does it explicitly say this decision does not apply to religious employers. As of now it would seem so. If a religious institution as of now is sewed for wrongful termination by an LGBTQ employee  solely because that employee is a LGBTQ person that employer will  most likely lose the case because of this decision and will have to keep that person on the staff while the institution goes through all their appeals.

[Pakuni]

So where in the decision does it explicitly say this decision does not apply to religious employers. As of now it would seem so. If a religious institution as of now is sewed for wrongful termination by an LGBTQ employee  solely because that employee is a LGBTQ person that employer will  most likely lose the case because of this decision and will have to keep that person on the staff while the institution goes through all their appeals.

The opinion says that issue is unresolved. It in no way says a religious employer will most likely lose the case. Just read the opinion.

[muwarrior69]

You are assuming that organizations are not actively trying to find things out about their employees with the overt intent to discriminate.  Lawsuits in the realm I referenced says otherwise.

Like news room reporters having their Editor fired or forced to resign for publishing opinions they don't like and wasn't even his own.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Like news room reporters having their Editor fired or forced to resign for publishing opinions they don't like and wasn't even his own.

OK.  Not sure why you are bringing this up here.  It's not in any way relevant. 

EDIT:  And when your boss does something stupid, employees complain.  When they have direct access to the public, aka a louder voice, those complaints are going to be public.  The workplace is not a dictatorship. 

[LloydsLegs]

So where in the decision does it explicitly say this decision does not apply to religious employers. As of now it would seem so. If a religious institution as of now is sewed for wrongful termination by an LGBTQ employee  solely because that employee is a LGBTQ person that employer will  most likely lose the case because of this decision and will have to keep that person on the staff while the institution goes through all their appeals.

I believe that there are three more pending cases that will address these issues in the context of religious institutions, including one involving the Little Sisters of the Poor.  I believe that these cases will narrow the application of Bostock vs religious institutions.

[MU82]

Like news room reporters having their Editor fired or forced to resign for publishing opinions they don't like and wasn't even his own.

Maybe we can get to taxing religious institutions, especially the big ones that act like big businesses, with million-dollar preachers and all.

I know that has nothing to do with the subject we've been discussing, but neither did what you just posted.

[jesmu84]

Maybe we can get to taxing religious institutions, especially the big ones that act like big businesses, with million-dollar preachers and all.

I know that has nothing to do with the subject we've been discussing, but neither did what you just posted.

Too many orgs qualify as non-profit

[wadesworld]

And today the Supreme Court upholds DACA.  Twice in a week we are Making America Great by ruling against Mr. MAGA.

[MU82]

And today the Supreme Court upholds DACA.  Twice in a week we are Making America Great by ruling against Mr. MAGA.

Yeah, rough week for the emperor. Sounding like a 5th grader, he's whining that SCOTUS "doesn't like me."

No doubt, Q-Anon thinks SCOTUS is part of the Deep State now, too.

These are tough times when a president can't be cruel for the sake of cruelty to 640,000 people who have only known America as home.

[vogue65]

The trick is to be on the right side of history.   

[withoutbias]

Imagine if Joe Biden had responded to the DACA decision with “they’re coming for our guns!” What would the MAGAs say about his mental state? Funny stuff. And then there was this...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-explain-building-cost-speech-a9562026.html%3Famp

Sleepy Joe might not be the old senile man in the race after all!

[Lennys Tap]

#foxnewswasfilledwithcreepyoldwhitemenwhosexuallyharasseditsfemaleemployees

Matt Lauer worked at Fox News?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

The trick is to be on the right side of history.

"You wonder if you're going to be John Marshall or you're going to be Roger Taney," Roberts once said

"The answer is, of course, you are certainly not going to be John Marshall," Roberts said. "But you want to avoid the danger of being Roger Taney."

[vogue65]

Imagine if Joe Biden had responded to the DACA decision with “they’re coming for our guns!” What would the MAGAs say about his mental state? Funny stuff. And then there was this...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-explain-building-cost-speech-a9562026.html%3Famp

Sleepy Joe might not be the old senile man in the race after all!

The gang that couldn't shoot straight.   They need their guns for suicides.  Sorry, just a fact.

[vogue65]

"You wonder if you're going to be John Marshall or you're going to be Roger Taney," Roberts once said

"The answer is, of course, you are certainly not going to be John Marshall," Roberts said. "But you want to avoid the danger of being Roger Taney."

More monuments to come down.

[Pakuni]

Hahahahahahahaha ....

@realDonaldTrump: Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?