Supreme Court and LGBT Job Bias

[The South Falls]

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

Race realism isn't a thing, and discrimination isn't good.

[The New California Republic]

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.

Indeed it is. Excuse my tiredness.

[Kannap]

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.

The push for equal rights in this situation is therefore to ensure that the Civil Rights Act starts applying to sexual orientation and gender identity.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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.

The push for equal rights in this situation is therefore to ensure that the Civil Rights Act starts applying to sexual orientation and gender identity.

Sure, and I respect that. But that's not something you do in the judicial system. You need Congress to amend and change the law.

[Telconi]

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.

The push for equal rights in this situation is therefore to ensure that the Civil Rights Act starts applying to sexual orientation and gender identity.

The issues of rather the CRA should protect based on sexual orientation, and he issue of rather it presently does or doesn't, are two separate issues.

In the end, it is up to the Supreme Court in this situation to tell us rather the law, at present, does protect people based on sexual orientation, and it seems quite likely that per their review it does not.

That isn't to say it shouldn't, only that it currently doesn't.

[Vassenor]

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.

You've been spending too much time on 4chan, mate.

[Senkaku]

That isn't to say it shouldn't, only that it currently doesn't.

Sure, and I respect that. But that's not something you do in the judicial system. You need Congress to amend and change the law.

Since none of us are stupid and we all know Congress won't pass anything of the sort for the foreseeable future and that any attempt to do so would be vigorously blocked, and quite a few states won't either, SCOTUS is really the only viable avenue to make a decision on this, so it's quite silly to just go "aw gosh well shucks maybe it SHOULD but y'know we gotta wait for Congress!!" if you're actually concerned with this as an issue, and not just looking for ways to sound more conciliatory in your opposition to it.

[Telconi]

That isn't to say it shouldn't, only that it currently doesn't.

Sure, and I respect that. But that's not something you do in the judicial system. You need Congress to amend and change the law.

Since none of us are stupid and we all know Congress won't pass anything of the sort for the foreseeable future and that any attempt to do so would be vigorously blocked, and quite a few states won't either, SCOTUS is really the only viable avenue to make a decision on this, so it's quite silly to just go "aw gosh well shucks maybe it SHOULD but y'know we gotta wait for Congress!!" if you're actually concerned with this as an issue, and not just looking for ways to sound more conciliatory in your opposition to it.

My concern has zero bearing on what SCOTUS will or will not do. What they will do is not effected by what I wish they'd do, or should do. And I predict that what they will do is say that the CRA doesn't protect people based on sexual orientation.

[Nova Corina]

If you own a business, then you should be able to hire/fire/not hire/refuse service to anyone you please for any reason, as its your business. The Supreme Court has upheld this decision. (https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html)

Of course, that would mean that LGBTQ+ people can discriminate against people if they own businesses, and pretty much anyone could discriminate against anyone else. Of course, discrimination isn't good for business.

[Washington Resistance Army]

That isn't to say it shouldn't, only that it currently doesn't.

Sure, and I respect that. But that's not something you do in the judicial system. You need Congress to amend and change the law.

Since none of us are stupid and we all know Congress won't pass anything of the sort for the foreseeable future and that any attempt to do so would be vigorously blocked, and quite a few states won't either, SCOTUS is really the only viable avenue to make a decision on this, so it's quite silly to just go "aw gosh well shucks maybe it SHOULD but y'know we gotta wait for Congress!!" if you're actually concerned with this as an issue, and not just looking for ways to sound more conciliatory in your opposition to it.

And it sucks Congress won't do it at the moment, but that doesn't suddenly mean SCOTUS can start just writing legislation.

[The New California Republic]

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.

You've been spending too much time on 4chan, mate.

It's being handled. Don't worry about it.

*



*The mod/s that deal with it may be male or female.

[The South Falls]

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.

I mean, logical fallacies everywhere and you're calling US retards?

[Scomagia]

Yeah, employees shouldn't be discriminated against. That's messed up.

That's nonsense. It's the employer's prerogative to be discriminatory in who they hire. The only question is which forms of discrimination are tolerable and which are not tolerable.

[The South Falls]

Once again, equality should be afforded to all.

[The New California Republic]

If you own a business, then you should be able to hire/fire/not hire ... anyone you please for any reason, as its your business.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act already places some limits on that kind of thing, just not LGBT specifically.

[Scomagia]

I don't think the existing law protects LGBT persons from discrimination. Congress should pass legislation to enact protections that don't currently exist.

[Scomagia]

Once again, equality should be afforded to all.

What does that even mean?

[Scomagia]

Since none of us are stupid and we all know Congress won't pass anything of the sort for the foreseeable future and that any attempt to do so would be vigorously blocked, and quite a few states won't either, SCOTUS is really the only viable avenue to make a decision on this, so it's quite silly to just go "aw gosh well shucks maybe it SHOULD but y'know we gotta wait for Congress!!" if you're actually concerned with this as an issue, and not just looking for ways to sound more conciliatory in your opposition to it.

And it sucks Congress won't do it at the moment, but that doesn't suddenly mean SCOTUS can start just writing legislation.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are less interested in SCOTUS functioning as intended than they are in SCOTUS acting as an end run around the difficult and frustrating process of passing legislation.

[The South Falls]

Once again, equality should be afforded to all.

What does that even mean?

In business, you should not have the right to hire/fire based on race, sexual orientation, etc.

[Frostnia]

I've always found it very strange that you can discriminate based on sexuality, but not on race

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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..."

That should be written out and replaced.

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.

I'd be ok with him/her shopping, I'd take precautions tho.

What does that even mean?

In business, you should not have the right to hire/fire based on race, sexual orientation, etc.

^This

[Scomagia]

What does that even mean?

In business, you should not have the right to hire/fire based on race, sexual orientation, etc.

What is included in "etc."?

[Washington Resistance Army]

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

That should be written out and replaced.

You know if it was that Christianity would probably become our state religion, right? It likely wouldn't be good for Islam.

[Telconi]

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

That should be written out and replaced.

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.

I'd be ok with him/her shopping, I'd take precautions tho.

In business, you should not have the right to hire/fire based on race, sexual orientation, etc.

^This

Yeah I'd rather not have a Nazi walking around my home...

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That should be written out and replaced.

You know if it was that Christianity would probably become our state religion, right? It likely wouldn't be good for Islam.

Well I was thinking more of a democratic theocracy, not an Islamic country.