LGBT+ Discrimination in the Workplace Now Illegal in US

[Crockerland]

When they claimed falsely that there is a constitutional right to kill a baby.

You mean when they claimed that no human can be forced to share his or her body with another,even if the other dies without said use ? Hence why we do not have mandatory organ donation nor forced blooddrives, even though those would save thousands ?

What a stupid false equivalence.

More like if I donated blood and then killed the person who received it so I could take it back.

[Necroghastia]

You mean when they claimed that no human can be forced to share his or her body with another,even if the other dies without said use ? Hence why we do not have mandatory organ donation nor forced blooddrives, even though those would save thousands ?

What a stupid false equivalence.

More like if I donated blood and then killed the person who received it so I could take it back.

Loving the guy talking about "killing babies" lecturing about false equivalency.

Anyway, fuck yeah, gay/trans rights.

[Kowani]

When has that actually ever happened? All SCOTUS has ever done is interpret the existing laws, as is their constitutional duty.

When they claimed falsely that there is a constitutional right to kill a baby.

Roe v. Wade is based on privacy, actually,

[The Alma Mater]

You mean when they claimed that no human can be forced to share his or her body with another,even if the other dies without said use ? Hence why we do not have mandatory organ donation nor forced blooddrives, even though those would save thousands ?

What a stupid false equivalence.

More like if I donated blood and then killed the person who received it so I could take it back.

No, my comparison is fine. And actually relevant under the law.
Yours is silly.

[Crockerland]

When they claimed falsely that there is a constitutional right to kill a baby.

Roe v. Wade is based on privacy, actually,

A government stopping you from ending the life of another human being is not a violation of your right to privacy.

[Aclion]

ok

Do you not understand how big a deal this is? It means that someone cannot be fired for being gay in any state.

Except that was already the case.

[Kowani]

Roe v. Wade is based on privacy, actually,

A government stopping you from ending the life of another human being is not a violation of your right to privacy.

Sigh.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
Medical procedures are a private matter between a person and their doctor (and also the insurance company.)
What goes on in that procedure is irrelevant to the above analysis.
Thus, Roe v. Wade stands.

[Mandicoria]

Our LGBTQ+ Comrades have finally achieved more equality. This is truly a great day.

this

[Thermodolia]

Do you not understand how big a deal this is? It means that someone cannot be fired for being gay in any state.

Except that was already the case.

Not in the majority of states

[Major-Tom]

You can't discriminate against employees on a religious basis. That's also illegal, it was made illegal in 1964. Now it's illegal to discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation.

Your argument might have had a shred of validity were it not grounded in total shit.

Religious basis is why a lot of people discriminate against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. However, businesses can discriminate against consumers based on sexual orientation, a lot of the time due to religious reasons. Many conservatives have argued that they should be able to refuse service to the LGBTQ community based on the freedom of religion, the supreme court is controlled by conservatives.

SCOTUS has never once issued a judgment holding that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment shields an employer from complying with federal or state anti-discrimination laws, on the basis of religious beliefs. The Masterpiece Cakeshop judgment was based on a narrower legal question, namely whether the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's investigation of the plaintiff's refusal to serve a gay couple, and its compliance or lack thereof with Colorado civil rights law, was tainted with religious hostility or animus, so as to fall afoul of the First Amendment. Nothing in Masterpiece Cakeshop holds it is incompatible with the First Amendment for either federal or state law to impose a general, anti-discrimination obligation on employers and businesses, without an exemption for conscientious religious beliefs. That specific legal issue has never been specifically ruled upon by SCOTUS in any judgment, contrary to what the first clause in your sentence is implying.

As for this decision, RG & GR, the constitutional interpretation of the First Amendment or the Free Exercise Clause was simply not an issue in this case, so anything about 'religious freedom' is likewise irrelevant to the central legal issue in this case, which is, namely, whether on a proper interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the prohibition on employment discrimination on grounds of biological sex extends to discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender identity. SCOTUS answered 'yes' to that question of statutory construction, without ruling on Title VII's relative relationship with the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, an issue which was not raised on the facts of the three cases certified for consideration by SCOTUS.

As you can see, once you analyse the actual legal issues that were at play in both those cases, Masterpiece Cakeshop and RG & GR, its plain that there is no analytical contradiction or incompatibility, precisely because the legal issues concern very different subject-matter. The former was about constitutional interpretation, the latter about statutory construction.

According to the Supreme Court's own website "As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. "
Allowing these two laws to exist side by side is not equal justice under the law.

Then what's your point? Yeah, businesses can discriminate against consumers, whether you purr over that or not isn't the thing here, this extends to discriminating against employees.

Prior to this ruling, LGBT employees weren't protected from discrimination based on identity in 26 states. So, I'm not sure why you're remarking that SCOTUS is hypocritical when this is about employees, not consumers. They're now protected in the same sense that religious folks are protected. So, if you're trying to see this as inconsistent, you'll see that this really isn't. It's actually remarkably consistent and overdue.

[Crockerland]

A government stopping you from ending the life of another human being is not a violation of your right to privacy.

Sigh.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
Medical procedures are a private matter between a person and their doctor (and also the insurance company.)
What goes on in that procedure is irrelevant to the above analysis.
Thus, Roe v. Wade stands.

So when did the court rule against laws requiring mandatory reporting from doctors for gunshot wounds?
When did the court rule that reporting evidence of parents sexually abusing their children violates the parents' right to privacy?
When did the Supreme Court step in to protect the right of medical privacy by striking down laws mandating that Doctors report patients who show signs of elder abuse?

Oh, never? Right, because that's a laughably indefensible and absurd argument to make that cannot exist outside of a double standard.

[Shofercia]

The SCOTUS has just ruled in a 6-3 decision that federal law extends to LGBT+ workers and that they are thus protected from discrimination and firing. It is now illegal to be fired at any place of employment in the US for being LGBT+

This is a great victory for the US. And I couldn’t be happier. Honestly this is a pretty great decision and one that proves that just because the court might be more conservative doesn’t mean it’s going to roll back rights

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/supreme- ... SP34gN2yI/

The 6-3 decision, totaling 172 pages, was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch

Wow.

In January 2013, he joined the Honey Badgers of the gay Hotlanta Softball League.

Not a bad name.

On a more serious note, is it just limited to the workplace? Or does it include all boys and all girls schools too? Also, now I'm curious, was the dude good at softball? Or did he have soft balls? I'm talking about his throws as a pitcher, NSG...

[Kowani]

Sigh.
Abortion is a medical procedure.
Medical procedures are a private matter between a person and their doctor (and also the insurance company.)
What goes on in that procedure is irrelevant to the above analysis.
Thus, Roe v. Wade stands.

So when did the court rule against laws requiring mandatory reporting from doctors for gunshot wounds?
When did the court rule that reporting evidence of parents sexually abusing their children violates the parents' right to privacy?
When did the Supreme Court step in to protect the right of medical privacy by striking down laws mandating that Doctors report patients who show signs of elder abuse?

Oh, never? Right, because that's a laughably indefensible and absurd argument to make that cannot exist outside of a double standard.

You realize that the case has to make its way up to SCOTUS, right?
Like, they don’t go around looking for things to change. This doctrine of passivity literally dates back to the federalist papers.

[Shofercia]

Employers will find ways around this new ruling. Employees don't have as much leverage to sue businesses and etc. If they didn't need the money/job, they'd work for themselves instead of for someone else. How hard is it going to be to prove that x workplace discriminates against LGBT?

Not very hard. If you're working, employer finds out you're LGBTQ+ because you're a Honey Badger Softballer, and you get fired, the case to prove wrongful termination is quite easy.

I found that extremely surprising. Perhaps he's not as conservative as we thought he was.

I am fairly certain I pointed out a conservative methodology of reading statutes arguably reads title Vii as protecting LGBT rights. He doesn't need to be liberal.

It is also worth noting Kavanaugh in his dissent said protecting LBGT people from being fired was a good thing he just felt it should have been congress doing this.

"But Kavanaugh bad! Waaaaa!" - someone in Chaz

It's illegal to not hire gays but perfectly legal to deny them healthcare coverage now.

Wtf America? Why?

Denying people Healthcare is a Republican hobby. Overcharging people for healthcare so that they won't get it, is a Democrat hobby. It's legal to deny healthcare to anyone, ergo it's not discrimination.

If this is how they ruled on the discrimination case it gives me hope they will do the right thing when it comes to the adoption case.

We agree. It's scary.

[Saiwania]

Not very hard. If you're working, employer finds out you're LGBTQ+ because you're a Honey Badger Softballer, and you get fired, the case to prove wrongful termination is quite easy.

In retaliation, the employers who're inclined to discriminate will probably increase the use of arbitration contracts/loopholes with wording such as: In accepting employment at X company, I hereby waive any and all rights to bring forth any lawsuit" and HR departments will basically have prospective hires sign such papers or they won't hire them.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

Not very hard. If you're working, employer finds out you're LGBTQ+ because you're a Honey Badger Softballer, and you get fired, the case to prove wrongful termination is quite easy.

In retaliation, the employers who're inclined to discriminate will probably increase the use of arbitration contracts/loopholes with wording such as: In accepting employment at X company, I hereby waive any and all rights to bring forth any lawsuit" and HR departments will basically have prospective hires sign such papers or they won't hire them.

Is that even legal? It's not legal in the UK.

[American Pere Housh]

This will have employers find other ways around this ruling.

[Shofercia]

I wonder how Trump will react.

Via Twitter, most likely.

I mean. It's just another example of the court legislating from the bench... I don't understand your point.

The Court is holding rigidly to the text of the law. If Congress didn't mean sex in that way then they ought to have been more clear.

Maybe they meant "sex" as defined by Bill Clinton?

Different branches of government. The change in non-discrimination rules by Trump’s HHS is actually an interesting test of this ruling. Employer based health insurance is subject to Title VII protection against sex discrimination.

To me it looks like one hand doesn't know what the other hand is doing.

I would appreciate if we gave gay people the right to not be discriminated against in employment OR healthcare.

And I wish that the US Healthcare System didn't discriminate against anyone, but if you're middle class or poor, you're fucked.

So you can discriminate against them by not serving them for the sake of religious freedom, but you can't discriminate against them in the Workplace for the sake of religious freedom? Which is it SCOTUS? Can you discriminate based on religious reasons or not?

You can discriminate based on the service, not the product. If I'm making In-n-Out hamburgers, and a gay couple wants a hamburger, I am required to serve them a hamburger, since I'm primarily providing the product. On the other hand, if a gay couple's getting married, and demands that I photoshoot their wedding, I can refuse, because I am providing a service. People should not be sued for failing to act. Of course knowing how crazy Democrats in NY, WA, or CA can get, I wouldn't be surprised if another excuse is used like bad weather to cover a wedding, or back pain, or something like that.

In the workplace, employees typically provide a product, not a service. Even a salesman is required to provide what shit's being sold. If I'm providing a spreadsheet to my company, then I am going to note that the spreadsheet is probably not going to care if it's viewed by a straight, lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, queer, or a ++ individual.

[Shofercia]

Not very hard. If you're working, employer finds out you're LGBTQ+ because you're a Honey Badger Softballer, and you get fired, the case to prove wrongful termination is quite easy.

In retaliation, the employers who're inclined to discriminate will probably increase the use of arbitration contracts/loopholes with wording such as: In accepting employment at X company, I hereby waive any and all rights to bring forth any lawsuit" and HR departments will basically have prospective hires sign such papers or they won't hire them.

You do realize you can't force people to sign a paper saying that they cannot sue you if you fuck them over, right?

[San Lumen]

Not very hard. If you're working, employer finds out you're LGBTQ+ because you're a Honey Badger Softballer, and you get fired, the case to prove wrongful termination is quite easy.

In retaliation, the employers who're inclined to discriminate will probably increase the use of arbitration contracts/loopholes with wording such as: In accepting employment at X company, I hereby waive any and all rights to bring forth any lawsuit" and HR departments will basically have prospective hires sign such papers or they won't hire them.

I’m almost certain such a waiver would be illegal

[Thermodolia]

This will have employers find other ways around this ruling.

You can get in trouble for that too ya know.

[Tekania]

Not very hard. If you're working, employer finds out you're LGBTQ+ because you're a Honey Badger Softballer, and you get fired, the case to prove wrongful termination is quite easy.

In retaliation, the employers who're inclined to discriminate will probably increase the use of arbitration contracts/loopholes with wording such as: In accepting employment at X company, I hereby waive any and all rights to bring forth any lawsuit" and HR departments will basically have prospective hires sign such papers or they won't hire them.

Those same companies have to be very careful with that. The keypoint of an arbitration agreement is that it's an agreement, and for it to be legally an agreement then the terms have to be negotiated. Many companies who implement don't actually negotiate on the terms, so you can kinda see where this would be going. The court is likely to consider a falsely named "Agreements" like that void

[Andsed]

Great news!

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Excellent news!

[Rusozak]

The fact we're hearing this in 2020 is a bit sad though. I would have hoped this would have happened long ago and been behind us by now.