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

a reply to: andy06shake

Soooooo, as usual, someone in government may, I say May as this is BuzzFeed, have stated something to someone else that is obnoxious. And what does OP do? Slaps Trump in the title and includes a pic of Trump in the thread. If this was an actual thing, where is Trump implicated in it? Does it say "Trump filed for such and such? No. Stop using Trump Administration as a catch all for anything you feel may be sensational. If an article is true, be true to the article. You're not helping the community here by pushing your own agenda into a lame duck story.

a reply to: M5xaz

Justin Turd-eau? How mature of you.

All gays?

Lots of hyperbole.

Do you think we should be able to fire people for being gay?

a reply to: Breakthestreak

You mean like a Muslim business owner?

Yes, ANY business owner.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Believe what you want.

TheRedneck

a reply to: scraedtosleep

What about the liberty of the business owner who is forced to run his business someone else's way?

That was actually my first thought as well when I saw the thread. I do support business owners being able to hire and fire as they see fit, in most circumstances.

The one thing I think should not be included in that ability is a person's private life. Once off the clock, their time is their own, and what they do with their own time is their own business. There are exceptions, of course, such as drug use (including alcohol) that interferes with ability on the next shift, but I know of nothing that being gay would do to affect job performance the next day. If there is something that meets that criteria, someone please inform me? Without gory details, if you please.

In this instance I come down on the side of individual liberty of the employee. The employer has no business in their bedroom, only in their workplace.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Breakthestreak

The proposed law is disgusting really.

There is no proposed law. This is how the administration interprets existing law, and is asking for a clarification.

There should be a proposed law to include sexual preference, but that would require Congress to actually do the job they were hired to do.

TheRedneck

Another blame it all on Trump thread, eh? It amazes me that Trump owns and occupies peoples brain 24/7, especially the ones that don't even live in this country. I had no idea TDS was this contagious globally.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: M5xaz

I'm not gay myself, but if i was

Ummm....ahhh...hmmmm...wait...?

Ha...Ha...Ha...








YouSir

a reply to: andy06shake

There are several cases I can think of that it would be justified.

Jaden

a reply to: YouSir

That's some strange sounds to be making.

You will be waiting a while on me son. LoL

a reply to: SilentWindofDoom

Sigh!

Accept its more than just Buzzfeed that's reporting the story.

Guess it's just more fake news that Trump minions don't like.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Can you add a legitimate source to your OP?

Thanks.

Legitimates as in Fox News, Breitbart, or InfoWars. Thanks.

a reply to: M5xaz

Calm down...

a reply to: MisterSpock

Well did he say the law could be used to fire someone for sexual orientation?

a reply to: andy06shake

Is this source as legit as Axios? Hilarious how CNN was one of the first to pick that story up and run full speed ahead with it.

LMFAO!

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?

If you were gay, I would hope you wouldn't go around announcing it to everyone. Then nobody knows and they can only speculate.

a reply to: M5xaz

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.

Your sexual orientation would have nothing to do with why you were fired. You'd be fired for the criminal conviction.
Just as the law provides.

a reply to: andy06shake

That headline is quite misleading even if the idea behind it is somewhat plausible. The DoJ has argued that sexual orientation is not protected under title VII (and that's true). They have not argued people should be fired for it, even if the logical result of such a ruling made that permissible under law.

a reply to: LSU2018

Already had this conversation with someone else.

Any gay people i know or have met don't go around announcing their sexuality anymore than straight people do.

People are simply people, of all shape, sort, and size.

originally posted by: loam
This is a problem that Congress needs to solve.

It just opens the doors to more issues. We fired a gay dude after he'd been written up 3 times for watching gay porn on his work PC, threatening to scratch a co-worker and give her a disease, and being late several times. He tried to sue us for discrimination but lost. He got more chances than any other worker.