Historic Ruling By SCOTUS Coming Soon About LGBTQ People

[Half-Life]

Will companies be able to fire people for being LGBTQ? I personally hope the companies will be able to. I am 100% for hiring any person you want to run the kind of office you deem fit for your business.

If leftists don't want to hire conservatives, this is fine. If conservatives don't want to hire leftists, this is fine. LGBTQ people will end up working for bosses who support them instead of bosses who are forced to put up with them. It gets very dicey when the government tells you who you can and can not hire or fire. Sadly, leftists love the government playing mommy and daddy.

For example, imagine someone in the workplace demanding to be treated like a dog and walked on a leash throughout the day. It's certainly not bigoted to fire this person if they are not what you are looking for in the workplace. Anti-discriminators will say businesses can't fire this person. This is authoritarian nonsense. If employers feel like LGBTQ people are not right for their workplace, they can get rid of them. Likewise if a gay business owner only wants to hire gay people or if a straight owner only wants to hire straight people, this is perfectly fine.

Everything will work itself out this way. Companies would run much more smoothly because people would be working around people they genuinely enjoy and support.

I'm ready for the comments of how this freedom makes me a bigoted racist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Save us Gamera!

 

[starwater]

And all those bars and restaurants that only hire white, blond, big breasted, thin women will rejoice. They can fire at will if anyone of them gains an ounce of weight. Lord knows that they can’t have any fatties or unattractive waitresses serving those privileged males!

They can just claim they are gay and don’t fit in!

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm ready for the comments of how this freedom makes me a bigoted racist.

I'll just say this. "If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it probably is a duck". I think your positions are pretty obvious based on your posts.

It's useless to discuss anything with you, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

. It gets very dicey when the government tells you who you can and can not hire or fire.

when does the government do that, halfie?
I know the government has limits on the reasons why you can fire someone, but they generally don't say who. but maybe you have an example of the government telling you who to hire?

For example, imagine someone in the workplace demanding to be treated like a dog and walked on a leash throughout the day. It's certainly not bigoted to fire this person if they are not what you are looking for in the workplace.

So, you should be able to fire people who voted for Hillary because it would be difficult to move appliances if your salesman went around on all fours and asked customers to scratch his belly...

That's kind of a stretch, Halfie.

Hve you thought it thru, though?
If employers can fire preople for any damned reason, then you could be fired by a christain employer just because you post on an atheist site like this one....
And you have no route to appeal.

Anti-discriminators will say businesses can't fire this person.

cite?

If employers feel like LGBTQ people are not right for their workplace, they can get rid of them. Likewise if a gay business owner only wants to hire gay people or if a straight owner only wants to hire straight people, this is perfectly fine.

No, it's not.
You're using an example of a demand that would impact productivity to justify baseless bigotry.

I really wish i could add 'you're better than that, Half,' but i cannot.

 

[laughing dog]

The op is very telling. First, there is nothing anout race in this issue, yet the poster worries about be called a racist bigot. Second, the op ignores the actual legal issue(s) concerning the law in question. Third, it employs the very unconvincing method of delusional straw men (the “dog” example) to try to support a position.

 

[Half-Life]

And all those bars and restaurants that only hire white, blond, big breasted, thin women will rejoice. They can fire at will if anyone of them gains an ounce of weight. Lord knows that they can’t have any fatties or unattractive waitresses serving those privileged males!

They can just claim they are gay and don’t fit in!

And then those girls are free to work elsewhere. The ones who prefer that job will stay and not care. Or the place will be boycotted by women and they would go out of business.

This is the free market working itself out without government intervention.

 

[Half-Life]

when does the government do that, halfie?
I know the government has limits on the reasons why you can fire someone, but they generally don't say who. but maybe you have an example of the government telling you who to hire? So, you should be able to fire people who voted for Hillary because it would be difficult to move appliances if your salesman went around on all fours and asked customers to scratch his belly...

That's kind of a stretch, Halfie.

Hve you thought it thru, though?
If employers can fire preople for any damned reason, then you could be fired by a christain employer just because you post on an atheist site like this one....
And you have no route to appeal.

Anti-discriminators will say businesses can't fire this person.

cite?

If employers feel like LGBTQ people are not right for their workplace, they can get rid of them. Likewise if a gay business owner only wants to hire gay people or if a straight owner only wants to hire straight people, this is perfectly fine.

No, it's not.
You're using an example of a demand that would impact productivity to justify baseless bigotry.

I really wish i could add 'you're better than that, Half,' but i cannot.

They already can fire employees for any reason. It's called "at will" employment. They can fire you and not even have to give you a reason. Not all jobs are like this, but for the most part they are.

If someone fires me for being a Christian, then I will go to another job where I am wanted and would most likely get along with the boss who doesn't discriminate against Christians.

Remember the gay wedding cake? Leftist authoritarians were trying to FORCE a business owner to serve people he doesn't want to serve. It's the complete opposite of freedom. If a business owner choose to not serve someone and lose money, that's his own choice. Nobody should get bent out of shape about it. Own your own business and you can choose who to serve as well.

Free market, Keith!

 

[Keith&Co.]

They already can fire employees for any reason. It's called "at will" employment. They can fire you and not even have to give you a reason. Not all jobs are like this, but for the most part they are..

i think it's more some states are like that....

If someone fires me for being a Christian, then I will go to another job where I am wanted and would most likely get along with the boss who doesn't discriminate against Christians..

Nice for you, then. Though, that's nit what i proposed.
But the question really is, if your faith does not impact your productivity, should they be able to fire you for their prejudices? Is hate a protected right?

Remember the gay wedding cake? Leftist authoritarians were trying to FORCE a business owner to serve people he doesn't want to serve. It's the complete opposite of freedom. .

so, NOW you think we don't have to sell vape supplies to people in MAGA hats? Because that's not the opinion you had before....

If a business owner choose to not serve someone and lose money, that's his own choice. Nobody should get bent out of shape about it. Own your own business and you can choose who to serve as well..

odd how the need to discriminate is couched in terms of freedom...
But only selective freedoms.

Free market, Keith!

bullshit rhetoric, Halfie.

 

[southernhybrid]

They already can fire employees for any reason. It's called "at will" employment. They can fire you and not even have to give you a reason. Not all jobs are like this, but for the most part they are.

Not to argue with you, but to correct your false statement. States that have "at will" employment can dismiss you for any reason as long as it doesn't violate federal laws which protect your civil rights. Those currently include gender, race, age and religion. Someone correct me if I've forgotten something. Some states already have laws against firing someone based on their sexual orientation or identity. So, your employer can't fire you simply because you are a Christian.

Now, there are also some states that have stricter criteria when it comes to firing someone. Some states protect people from being fired due to their sexual orientation or identity. Some laws actually demand that an employer have a legitimate reason to fire someone, like for example, they were unable to perform the required work, threatened another employee, stole money from a client, didn't show up for work for days without an excuse etc.

If you want to discuss things with people, you could at least learn a bit more about how our laws work, instead of making shit up. That is why it's useless to discuss things with you in a serious way. Your comments are often based on lies, or disinformation. Maybe instead of wasting so much time here making goofy claims, you could read some books on US history and law. Then again, perhaps you're not interested in learning. Maybe you're just here for the drama rewards, aka attention. If that's the case, then congratulations.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why are none of the Democrat political candidates making unions their main focus? Up here in Canada we have an entire political party (traditionally comes in 3rd; The NDP) who are based on union power.

 

[Politesse]

Why are none of the Democrat political candidates making unions their main focus? Up here in Canada we have an entire political party (traditionally comes in 3rd; The NDP) who are based on union power.

Too contentious. Other Americans have bought into that particular poison in a way that Canadians never did.

 

[ZiprHead]

Why are none of the Democrat political candidates making unions their main focus? Up here in Canada we have an entire political party (traditionally comes in 3rd; The NDP) who are based on union power.

Bernie Sanders’s ambitious plan to double union membership, explained

Warren would be the most pro-union nominee in generations

 

[Keith&Co.]

The law says: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual... because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

So, as an employer, I can't treat men and women differently in terms of employment.
But the claim is being made that i CAN treat men and men differently. Because only some of the men want to fuck women.

Seems odd that i can't use skin, plumbing, flags, or gods to discriminate, but i can use fantasies.

 

[Jarhyn]

The law says: “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual... because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

So, as an employer, I can't treat men and women differently in terms of employment.
But the claim is being made that i CAN treat men and men differently. Because only some of the men want to fuck women.

Seems odd that i can't use skin, plumbing, flags, or gods to discriminate, but i can use fantasies.

I don't think it is in any way different from firing someone because they are a MAN who did a thing vs if a WOMAN did that same thing.

It is clearly discriminating against their right to have employment on the basis of some aspect of their sex.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

On a serious note, SCOTUS will be ruling on this and I hope they get it right. Hopefully Roberts will be the swing vote advancing the rights of all persons regardless of what the bigots wish.

On a less serious, tangential note, Ne pascere Troglodytarum.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On a serious note, SCOTUS will be ruling on this and I hope they get it right. Hopefully Roberts will be the swing vote advancing the rights of all persons regardless of what the bigots wish.

On a less serious, tangential note, Ne pascere Troglodytarum.

Well, this is the court, minus Kavanaugh, that viewed baking and frosting as an expressive art that was more important than a person's ability to make with commerce.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

For example, imagine someone in the workplace demanding to be treated like a dog and walked on a leash throughout the day.

What are the LGBTQ employees “demanding”, aside from the right to be treated the exact same way as every other employee?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

For example, imagine someone in the workplace demanding to be treated like a dog and walked on a leash throughout the day.

What are the LGBTQ employees “demanding”, aside from the right to be treated the exact same way as every other employee?

Typically, when an argument has to argue against some other hypothetical argument instead of what is actually the topic, they don't have much of a case.

 

[Keith&Co.]

For example, imagine someone in the workplace demanding to be treated like a dog and walked on a leash throughout the day.

What are the LGBTQ employees “demanding”, aside from the right to be treated the exact same way as every other employee?

Typically, when an argument has to argue against some other hypothetical argument instead of what is actually the topic, they don't have much of a case.

...Nah, that can't be right. Halfie all-the-damned-time argues against some crazy hypothetical situation to bolster his arguments.

Oh. Wait...