Stand Proud---the SCOTUS still functions

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination, handing the movement for L.G.B.T. equality a stunning victory.

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling.

Until Monday’s decision, it was legal in more than half the states to fire workers for being gay, bisexual or transgender. The vastly consequential decision extended workplace protections to millions of people across the nation, continuing a series of Supreme Court victories for gay rights even after President Trump transformed the court with two appointments.

The lopsided ruling, coming from a fundamentally conservative court, was a surprise. Justice Gorsuch, who was Mr. Trump’s first appointment to the court, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

---

:hatoff::usa::usa::clap:

Sign of the times because the law they “interpreted” does not say that. Not surprising because employers long ago lost control to government of jobs they create. For good or ill “Employment At Will” is a lost concept.

I completely disagree with the government's intrusion into private business decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

I completely disagree with the government's intrusion into private business decisions.

---

I wouldn't have wanted anyone telling me who to hire or fire either...I hired on the basis of job qualifications, experience and how prospective employees presented themselves...I only ever fired for cause, or laid off for business downturns...

Quote:

---

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling.

---

But in light of Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion, I don't think it's right to take away a person's livelihood for the sole reason of sexual preference...If such a condition didn't prevent the same person from being hired in the first place, how could it be a factor in continued employment...If a black, female, lesbian employer and her customers only liked the presence of other black, female lesbians in her business, would it be right to fire an employee if she suddenly realized that employee was actually a straight, male Filipino if the employee was not asked to identify those traits before being hired, and therefore did not disclose it?...Yes, it's a ridiculous scenario, but would it be right?...I don't think it would...:uhuh:...Ben

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

They don't care whether small businesses comply......this is the foundation of yet another shakedown of big corporations. Who generally deserve to be treated like the beotches most of them are.

If they are a good Dependable worker who shows up for work I could care less what they do on their off time. It means nothing to me at all I could care less about all lgbtq stuff is meaningless to me. Let them do what they want to as long as they don't break the law if they want to be different than me I'm all for it. I don't think they deserve any more rights than anybody else and I don't think they deserve any less.

It's a good ruling. Everyone is equal under the law. It also protects a Straight worker from harassment from a LBGQT boss or co worker. using the same standards

Just another group that wants special treatment not equal treatment. Not the intent of the law but that's the way it ends up. Between unemployment and having employees that require a phone and earbuds to work the bosses will have to start dropping the hours back and then get them to work on days they don't want to so they will quit. They are plain sick and tired of getting sued every time they ask someone to work for their pay.

Rights are rights until they begin to infringe on others. I have some of these folks working for me, I can't imagine why I would want to fire them because of that:shrug: I don't hire people for what they do at night unless it impacts what they do during the day.
I have also, on occasion left some go--for cause, without issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puffy Cravinmore

Right on. And that's the beginning and end of it...:clap: But what do we have occurring worldwide today? Somebody needs to step in and say sit down and shut up.

What if your house, or my house gets burned out by thugs?

Something to think about...

It happened to me before the current insanity began. I have zero tolerance for Crackheads... Wait 'till it happens to you...

---

That is a completely different issue and you will get no argument from me on that one. Clearly, that is a violation of YOUR rights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puffy Cravinmore

...My rights are your rights. Creepdom is a violation of everyone's rights... When you get violated, I'll be the first to stand behind you. C'mon man? Let's shake hands?:peace:

No...?

---

I'm lost :o:

I have no issue with any of that, to the contrary I agree. That does not mean, however that I disagree with SCOTUS in this recent ruling. I do not regard that as a "PC" issue, it is a real human rights issue.

Amen :clap: