The Trump Administration Asked The Supreme Court To Legalize Firing Workers Simply For Being Gay

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Nor should people have to hide there sexual preference nether.

What makes you imagine gay people go around announcing their sexuality all the same?

I know plenty of gay people who don't go around screaming from the roofs what they get up to.

They are not all flaming attention seekers NoCorruptionAllowed, just people who come in all shapes and sizes.

It's just some of the MSM lying by ommission again. Here's the WHOLE scoop...

But the new rule appears to let government contractors terminate workers who are LGBTQ, based on the employers' personal religious views. Under the Labor Department guidelines, any organization — be it a church, school or major corporation — could prove it serves a religious purpose by claiming it is "guided by faith," according to the 46-page long draft of the rule.

"The contractor must be organized for a religious purpose, meaning that it was conceived with a self-identified religious purpose. This need not be the contractor's only purpose," the document reads.

www.cbsnews.com...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Nor should people have to hide there sexual preference nether.

What makes you imagine gay people go around announcing their sexuality all the same?

I know plenty of gay people who don't go around screaming from the roofs what they get up to.

They are not all flaming attention seekers NoCorruptionAllowed, just people who come in all shapes and sizes.

What makes me think they do? They definitely DO. The last 2 places I have worked have had gay people work there and the first thing they do when introduced is tell you that they are. Am I supposed to give them a cookie or something?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You would never have to even worry though, if you didn't brag or announce your "status" to everyone, or anyone at work, period.

Brag, like mention your wife or husband, girl friend or boy friend?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

No just say hello or raise whatever topic of conversation suits you.

They won't bite you, but they might appreciate the cookie all the same.

I don't think i have ever met anyone whos gay that decided to advocate their sexual preference during an introduction.

Where was it you were working?

a reply to: andy06shake

Firing anyone for their sexual orientation is wrong, just like punishing people for their political ideology also.

But you support and defend Google, Twitter, YouTube when they do that, so um, not sure where your moral outrage is here.

originally posted by: andy06shake

For the life of me, in this day of age, i fail to comprehend why someones sexual preference should have anything to do with there position of employment???

One has to wonder as to the true reasoning behind such heinous discrimination....

He needs votes, but just not everybody's vote?

a reply to: andy06shake

I think it's wrong to fire a worker fro any reason other than the worker in question has broken company rules or is bad at their job or if the company is downsizing due to financial hardship, etc. With that being said I would like to point out that in Right To Work states employees can be terminated for no reason and without notice, so what's the difference? I got fired once when the owner found out I had tattoos even though they were always covered when on the job because in his view "women with tattoos are tacky". At the time I was a single mom with 2 babies in diapers and it put me in an extremely bad spot, but per the Labor Relations Board and also a family friend who was a judge there was nothing I could do about it.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't think i have ever punished anyone for there political ideologies, aside from the odd racist bigot here and there, and punished is not the word i would use, more like take the piss for there stupidity.

Where have i defended or advocated for Google, Twitter, YouTube? LoL

They are simply a means to an end.

My moral outrage, as you put it, at such discrimination is rather obvious.

You're not the morality Police mate, you don't decide where or not my outrage should lie. x

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

That would be my guesstimation also.

a reply to: andy06shake

Just pointing out the obvious.

Discrimination is bad.


But it is defended regularly on ATS and social media in general when the discrimination is against those to the right of Lenin.

Unfortunately, this is fake news.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Like i have plainly stated many a time, the issues we are presented with, somewhat transcend the boundaries of simple left vs right.

Still not seeing how that makes me an advocate of Google, Twitter, or YouTube all the same.

But this is not about me its about stupid nonsensical proposals that may affect peoples jobs, life, and very existence.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: M5xaz

I'm not gay myself, but if i was, my career should not be jeopardized by my sexual preference.

What happened to the unalienable rights for every American where "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is concerned or is that only for straight people?

Similarly, in Canada, if I were to get a CRIMINAL CONVICTION for using a wrong pronoun, it would TODAY destroy my career for being a normal heterosexual.

What happened to the unalienable rights for EVERYONE "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is concerned or is that only for LGBT people?

LGBTs, STOP, JUST STOP your asking for special treatment and DOMINANCE over heterosexuals. You WILL get pushback and won't like the outcome.

EQUALITY for everyone means exactly that, equality.

Many judges do not follow the guidlines, I doubt a judge will convict on that ridiculousness.

As an example, most of Harpers mandatory sentencing laws are ignored as unconstitutional.

Good gawd! Did you see what Buzzfeed did here? And...IT WORKED on a bunch of people that didn't read the entire article along with the links to the amicus brief.

Buzzfeed's headline is a lie: The Trump Administration Asked The Supreme Court To Legalize Firing Workers Simply For Being Gay

But how many people simply read the headline and believed this sorry crappy "journalism".

FAKE NEWS media is the enemy.

a reply to: andy06shake

So the Trump administration is saying the law should be read as it is and Congress needs to address the issue and fix it. Nowhere did Trump argue what you claim. What he is actually doing is pointing out they have no protection under that law's wording and it needs to be fixed so they do.

I agree. Why don't you?

Oh I know. #NPC programmed for #OrangeManBad only.

a reply to: andy06shake
No it's about your desire to spread fake news.

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein

Who is being discriminated against by asking Congress to fix the law and protect gays?

a reply to: andy06shake

That's not what the article claims. It was a brief about federal workers who consider themselves transgender. Not because of sexual preference but transgenderism . It is Buzzfeed who has now been sued more than the National Enquirer for their "straight news". At least you knew what you were reading when you skimmed the National Enquirer. Generally, one knows when you look at Buzzfeed too, another hit piece.

The previous administration made the same argument, which is Titile VII does not cover sexual preference. Every single lower court has ruled against those seeking relief under Title VII. The argument is that the relevant civil rights act does not cover sexual preference. This is established precedent. Congress needs to amend the law if sexual preference is to be considered a protected status. It was not Trump asking the court to do anything, a simple ambicus brief filed with the court in support of precedent law. Right or wrong, its Congress who needs to act and amend the ambiguous statements as part of Title VII. Perhaps you should reread or at least read the article and not just the headline.

More information about one of the cases mentioned in the article Bostock vs Clayton County. Mr. Bostock claims it is his "belief" he was fired due to his sexual orientation. Its apparently a different reason however no reason was ever provided by Clayton officials. Mr. Bostock who worked in the Child Welfare Services Department begin to participate in a "gay" softball league. In a meeting, another employee made a disparaging remark for which the individual was professionally admonished for. The meeting was to inform Mr. Bostock of an investigation involving County funds he managed. After the investigation he was informed of his dismissal. No account if improper conduct involving the funds but was implied.

Entirely possible this man was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation however it is also possible he was fired for mismanagement of funds. Since no clear reason was given for his dismissal and none is required, it's simply his belief verse what the county claims as the reason. He is attempting to use the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which clearly makes it illegal to discriminate against males or females because of their biological sex, the Act does not include sexual orientation. A mistake in my opinion as no one should be fired because of who they sleep with. Congress needs to amend the law if that is what it should be. As I stated, the Obama administration argued the same because it's not covered under Title VII.

Noone would know of ones sexual orientation unless an individual made it a point to proclaim their identity. This is not a case of Trump discriminating against LGBTQ community but a simple brief to the court of what the law says. Basically the DOJ stating precedent in this case as Bostock has lost 3 times in state court and once in Federal court of Appeals. I don't know what SCOTUS will rule, but either way, I expect strongly worded opinions to Congress to get off their rear ends and change the law or to unambiguously provide what the law covers. Of course continue to blame the Trump admin even though previous admins have argued the same in court many times

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Orange Man is indeed bad.

Gay people not so much.

I don't agree because peoples sexual preference is beside the point where employment is concerned.

Quite simple really.

As to being programmed, the same could be asserted for anyone who follows xenophobic, homophobic, sexist, racist, bigots that cannot appear to do anything wrong.

Lets face facts, Trump could rape an America bald eagle on national TV then wipe his member on the nations flag, and half his support would probably find a way to praise him for such or at least not even bat an eyelid.