Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[Scomagia]

Again, free association is a natural right. You need to demonstrate why they should be restricted from doing those things.

Do you support restricting individuals rights to quit for discriminatory reasons? Should someone be penalized for leaving their job because their boss is black?

No as that is not discrimination.

Yes it is. If you quit because your boss is black, you are quitting for discriminatory reasons.

[Internationalist Bastard]

No because power dynamics
If I quit, clearly I’m comfortable with losing my job
If I’m fired, I could be up the creek without a paddle
If I quit there’s plenty of new people you can hire
If I’m fired I might not find a new job

That's obviously stupid reasoning.
If you are a skilled employee, it may actually be incredibly difficult to replace you. Depending on the company and your position within it, your departure could actually be heavily destabilizing, on par with the difficulties faced by a newly unemployed peeson.

You are being inconsistent with regards to free association.

Fair enough
You should be punished for quitting for discriminatory purposes

[San Lumen]

No as that is not discrimination.

Yes it is. If you quit because you're boss is black, you are quitting for discriminatory reasons.

In theory but one should not face penalty for it.

[Des-Bal]

So I should have to hide my identity at work and hope my employer doesnt find im gay and if they fire me a result oh well?

Well 1st of all that implies you're lying to your boss to get your job so no and 2nd you're asking the wrong question again. It's not whether you should have to its whether the state should with the threat of violence restrain your boss's decision making.

[San Lumen]

So I should have to hide my identity at work and hope my employer doesnt find im gay and if they fire me a result oh well?

Well 1st of all that implies you're lying to your boss to get your job so no and 2nd you're asking the wrong question again. It's not whether you should have to its whether the state should with the threat of violence restrain your boss's decision making.

And why does my boss or a interviewer have any business asking about my personal life?

[Des-Bal]

And why does my boss or a interviewer have any business asking about my personal life?

Jesus. Christ. You are asking the wrong question.

[San Lumen]

And why does my boss or a interviewer have any business asking about my personal life?

Jesus. Christ. You are asking the wrong question.

What question should i be asking?

[Des-Bal]

What question should i be asking?

Your last 4 posts I have responded that you were asking the wrong question and explained what you should be asking. It was the same every time. I am going to leave this riddle of the ages in your hands.

[San Lumen]

What question should i be asking?

Your last 4 posts I have responded that you were asking the wrong question and explained what you should be asking. It was the same every time. I am going to leave this riddle of the ages in your hands.

I not see why the state should allow discrimination to take place why people ought to be allowed to treat someone differently under the law.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

It's not whether you should have to its whether the state should with the threat of violence restrain your boss's decision making.

I’d say that the state, with the “threat of violence”, should restrain business decision making. We already do the same thing with health and safety laws and codes, anti-discrimination laws aren’t much different.

[Scomagia]

Yes it is. If you quit because you're boss is black, you are quitting for discriminatory reasons.

In theory but one should not face penalty for it.

Why?

[Des-Bal]

I’d say that the state, with the “threat of violence”, should restrain business decision making. We already do the same thing with health and safety laws and codes, anti-discrimination laws aren’t much different.

In for a penny in for a pound, that's how shitty law gets made.

I not see why the state should allow discrimination to take place why people ought to be allowed to treat someone differently under the law.

Companies aren't the law, meaning discrimination by a private company isn't them being treated unequally under the law.

It's not about what the state should allow it's about where they should compel people to act wit their demands backed by violence.

[San Lumen]

I’d say that the state, with the “threat of violence”, should restrain business decision making. We already do the same thing with health and safety laws and codes, anti-discrimination laws aren’t much different.

In for a penny in for a pound, that's how shitty law gets made.

I not see why the state should allow discrimination to take place why people ought to be allowed to treat someone differently under the law.

Companies aren't the law, meaning discrimination by a private company isn't them being treated unequally under the law.

It's not about what the state should allow it's about where they should compel people to act wit their demands backed by violence.

Last time I checked the government doesnt threaten discrimination with violence

[Des-Bal]

Last time I checked the government doesnt threaten discrimination with violence

Any law is backed with the threat of violence, it's the purpose of the executive. You can't ignore the courts and Congress because the executive has armed men who will force you to comply.

[Scomagia]

Your last 4 posts I have responded that you were asking the wrong question and explained what you should be asking. It was the same every time. I am going to leave this riddle of the ages in your hands.

I not see why the state should allow discrimination to take place why people ought to be allowed to treat someone differently under the law.

You desperately need to actually look up what "equality under the law" means. It has nothing to do with association between individuals.

[Scomagia]

In for a penny in for a pound, that's how shitty law gets made.


Companies aren't the law, meaning discrimination by a private company isn't them being treated unequally under the law.

It's not about what the state should allow it's about where they should compel people to act wit their demands backed by violence.

Last time I checked the government doesnt threaten discrimination with violence

Add "monopoly on violence" to your google list.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

I’d say that the state, with the “threat of violence”, should restrain business decision making. We already do the same thing with health and safety laws and codes, anti-discrimination laws aren’t much different.

In for a penny in for a pound, that's how shitty law gets made.

Anti-discrimination laws are hardly shitty laws.

[Scomagia]

In for a penny in for a pound, that's how shitty law gets made.

Anti-discrimination laws are hardly shitty laws.

Okay, so why is it good to restrict the rights of free association to some individuals and not others? Why is the employer specifically bound to anti-discrimination laws but the employee is not?

[San Lumen]

Anti-discrimination laws are hardly shitty laws.

Okay, so why is it good to restrict the rights of free association to some individuals and not others? Why is the employer specifically bound to anti-discrimination laws but the employee is not?

Because you have a right to quit. Firing or not hiring someone because of their race or who they love with is immoral as that is not something they chose.

[Scomagia]

Okay, so why is it good to restrict the rights of free association to some individuals and not others? Why is the employer specifically bound to anti-discrimination laws but the employee is not?

Because you have a right to quit. Firing or not hiring someone because of their race or who they love with is immoral as that is not something they chose.

This is circular logic.
"The reason some people's rights to free association can be restricted and others can't be is because the latter has rights to free association."

Also, I object to your use of immorality as a justification for State intervention. If immorality is the acceptable basis for intervention, then you should have no problem with the idea of The State criminalizing homosexuality, so long as they consider it immoral. See the problem?

[San Lumen]

Because you have a right to quit. Firing or not hiring someone because of their race or who they love with is immoral as that is not something they chose.

This is circular logic.
"The reason some people's rights to free association can be restricted and others can't be is because the latter has rights to free association."

Also, I object to your use of immorality as a justification for State intervention. If immorality is the acceptable basis for intervention, then you should have no problem with the idea of The State criminalizing homosexuality, so long as they consider it immoral. See the problem?

being gay is not a choice.

[Greed and Death]

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

I find this case interesting because conservatives are suing a liberal means of statutory construction and liberals are using a conservative means of statutory construction.

Conservatives are arguing the intent of the statute is what should determine the meaning which is more often a liberal means of construction, while liberals are arguing that the words say on the basis of sex and hence the words of the statute should predominate.

I am not certain how any justice will vote in this case.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This is circular logic.
"The reason some people's rights to free association can be restricted and others can't be is because the latter has rights to free association."

Also, I object to your use of immorality as a justification for State intervention. If immorality is the acceptable basis for intervention, then you should have no problem with the idea of The State criminalizing homosexuality, so long as they consider it immoral. See the problem?

being gay is not a choice.

It doesn't matter if it is or isn't.

[San Lumen]

being gay is not a choice.

It doesn't matter if it is or isn't.

Why not? Why should I have to hide that i have a boyfriend from my employer? It’s none of their business

[Des-Bal]

Why not? Why should I have to hide that i have a boyfriend from my employer? It’s none of their business

Wrong. Question.