Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[Agarntrop]

US Law is not based on Religion. Never has been and never will be.

On the contrary a great deal of American law, especially in the 1800's and early 1900's was pretty much just Christian Moralism.

Not compared to most countries laws at the time, though.

[Mingulay Isle]

US Law is not based on Religion. Never has been and never will be.

On the contrary a great deal of American law, especially in the 1800's and early 1900's was pretty much just Christian Moralism.

Abolition to name one

[Sethtekia]

Regardless what you may think. I say owners should be allowed to discriminate against Gays. And it should be a religious right to not have to hire them in your company.

[The New California Republic]

Regardless what you may think. I say owners should be allowed to discriminate against Gays. And it should be a religious right to not have to hire them in your company.

So you are basically ignoring what people are saying to you. What is the point in taking part in this discussion then?

[Vassenor]

Regardless what you may think. I say owners should be allowed to discriminate against Gays. And it should be a religious right to not have to hire them in your company.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

[Kannap]

I hope that the 1964 Civil Rights Act will be expanded to include LGBT, but I doubt that the current composition of SCOTUS will.

It's not the job of SCOTUS to expand legislation, that's on Congress. As written CRA64 just doesn't apply to sexual orientation.

Though you could make an interesting argument that it protects trans people.

As written it doesn't apply, but you add the words and it does apply. That's typically how the English language works.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Regardless what you may think. I say owners should be allowed to discriminate against Gays. And it should be a religious right to not have to hire them in your company.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Once more Vass, you don't get what that means.

[Telconi]

It's not the job of SCOTUS to expand legislation, that's on Congress. As written CRA64 just doesn't apply to sexual orientation.

Though you could make an interesting argument that it protects trans people.

As written it doesn't apply, but you add the words and it does apply. That's typically how the English language works.

Well, yeah, but SCOTUS cannot add words to laws. You'd need the legislature to write an amendment to the law, and have it pass.

[Kannap]

A business owner should be allpwed to discriminate who works for them. If a small family bookstore that specializes in religious texts. Or a christian bookstore.

Wait, am I missing something here? Do you think that gay people hate books or something?

I love books, if evidence is needed.

[Aclion]

It's not the job of SCOTUS to expand legislation, that's on Congress. As written CRA64 just doesn't apply to sexual orientation.

Though you could make an interesting argument that it protects trans people.

As written it doesn't apply, but you add the words and it does apply. That's typically how the English language works.

That's not what the supreme court is for, that's what congress is for.

[Kannap]

You have discrimination even in the public sector? Get your shit together, America.

We've got more discrimination than you could ever want over here.

[Kannap]

Regardless what you may think. I say owners should be allowed to discriminate against Gays. And it should be a religious right to not have to hire them in your company.

Then we need to amend the Civil Rights Act to remove "Christian" from the protections. If you can refuse to hire gays, it should be legally acceptable for a gay business owner to refuse to hire Christians.

[Telconi]

You have discrimination even in the public sector? Get your shit together, America.

We've got more discrimination than you could ever want over here.

Some level of discrimination is a good thing.

[Kannap]

As written it doesn't apply, but you add the words and it does apply. That's typically how the English language works.

That's not what the supreme court is for, that's what congress is for.

Congress needs to get their act together then. The Supreme Court could rule that marriage extends to same sex couples at the federal level, what's the difference with extending discrimination protections?

[Kannap]

We've got more discrimination than you could ever want over here.

Some level of discrimination is a good thing.

Not really.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That's not what the supreme court is for, that's what congress is for.

Congress needs to get their act together then. The Supreme Court could rule that marriage extends to same sex couples at the federal level, what's the difference with extending discrimination protections?

Because it's really an open and shut case for marriage via the 14A. This however would plainly go against what the Civil Rights Act says, they'd be better off making a general 14th Amendment case.

[Sethtekia]

Your all liberal retards. So you won't listen to reason no matter how much we show you any logical reason. Let Discrimination against LGBTQ+ it wont be long till they allow pedos.

[Telconi]

Some level of discrimination is a good thing.

Not really.

Nazis with guns are bad tho, and my capacity to tell a guy with a fat red swastika tattoo on his leg to gtfo when he responds to a for sale ad I posted is not something I'd like to give up.

[Kannap]

Congress needs to get their act together then. The Supreme Court could rule that marriage extends to same sex couples at the federal level, what's the difference with extending discrimination protections?

Because it's really an open and shut case for marriage via the 14A. This however would plainly go against what the Civil Rights Act says, they'd be better off making a general 14th Amendment case.

How would this go against what the Civil Rights Act says?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I maintain that sexual orientation and gender identity should be protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Being gay doesn't make you any less capable at performing tasks.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Because it's really an open and shut case for marriage via the 14A. This however would plainly go against what the Civil Rights Act says, they'd be better off making a general 14th Amendment case.

How would this go against what the Civil Rights Act says?

Because the Civil Rights Act plainly doesn't apply to sexual orientation. You could make an argument that it applies to trans people but the LGB part are not protected under the law currently as it's written.

[Telconi]

Because it's really an open and shut case for marriage via the 14A. This however would plainly go against what the Civil Rights Act says, they'd be better off making a general 14th Amendment case.

How would this go against what the Civil Rights Act says?

I think the issue is he Civil Rights act don't say anything one way or the other about sexual orientation.

[Bienenhalde]

I hope that the 1964 Civil Rights Act will be expanded to include LGBT, but I doubt that the current composition of SCOTUS will.

Expanding the 1964 Civil Rights Act would be the job of congress, not SCOTUS.

[Senkaku]

I have full confidence that SCOTUS with its lovely new judges will fuck us over completely on this lol

We've got more discrimination than you could ever want over here.

Some level of discrimination is a good thing.

Oh do explain to us how so lmao

[Telconi]

I have full confidence that SCOTUS with its lovely new judges will fuck us over completely on this lol

Some level of discrimination is a good thing.

Oh do explain to us how so lmao

Try reading like literally two more posts.