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

The title says “gay”, but the first paragraph says “transgender”. I didn’t think they were synonymous. Although technically... lines blurred a bit.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I think they're synonymous at this point.

Does that change the point much?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I think they're synonymous at this point.

Does that change the point much?

Yes because the headline doesn't match the context of the nonsense article.

a reply to: jidnum

The supreme Court case is real. Im not talking about the headline.

This thread is still up when it is full of lies? WTH?...

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: jidnum

The supreme Court case is real. Im not talking about the headline.

But it has NOTHING to do with the Trump administration which is one of the main lies in the article and in the op...

Other threads have been deleted or thrown into the hoax or LOL forums for less than the lies found in the op...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm not saying it has to do with Trump.

I'm just asking about the case going to the court.

originally posted by: andy06shake

The Trump administration took its hardest line yet to legalize anti-gay discrimination on Friday when it asked the Supreme Court to declare that federal law allows private companies to fire workers based only on their sexual orientation.

An amicus brief filed by the Justice Department weighed in on two cases involving gay workers and what is meant by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination "because of sex.” The administration argued courts nationwide should stop reading the civil rights law to protect gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers from bias because it was not originally intended to do so.

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

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.

It's so simple and incredibly easy to leave people alone, why Trump and his administration fair to recognize that fact is quite frankly beyond me.

Hey... what the heck... while we're at it, lets conflate this story and make it about something it's not!

Oh wait... you already did that.

Newsflash... there are TWO GENDERS. I don't give a rats behind if you want to be trans, or claim a different gender... that's your right. I have rights too... like, for instance, saying there's only 2 genders.

Do what you want... I don't mind... but don't sell bullsh** to me and the public.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: clubheadjobby
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?

READ MY POSTS ABOVE.
I am for equality, period, and no more.

Gays keep pushing the goalposts and do not want mere equality but DOMINATION.
That is the case with the ridiculous law passed by immature Justin - Jail time for using the wrong pronoun.
Seriously ?
Enough!

In Canada, the criminal conviction you can get for using the wrong pronoun with a tranny can get your fired, TODAY
Not hyperbole sadly but fact.

Now, in the US, you are getting the expected pushback.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

time.com...

With an amicus brief filed on Friday, the Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to essentially legalize anti-gay discrimination in the workplace. The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

The Justice Department’s arguments pertain to the employment protections offered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which are being argued in two Supreme Court cases involving gay workers in October. Title VII is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion or national origin.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Just the part about Trump was wrong I thought. There is still the case going to the supreme Court, right?

Since the entire post is about how Trump is bad that makes the entire post fake news.

It is also fake news about what is being argued. Sex has a legal definition. The argument being made actually appears to be likely correct. Being a woman is not the same thing as being gay. Sex covers whether you are a man or a woman, not what gender you choose to sleep with. Therefore something that covers sex does not cover that. Congress needs to (and should) legislate that protection.

If you treat gay men (sex) the same as gay women (sex) then you do appear to have no bias based on sex. This is why Congress has added extra protections for gays, because sex alone did not convey that protection. They simply chose not to add that protection for some reason in this case. They need to.

a reply to: andy06shake

Wow. This thread turned into quite the fustercluck, eh? And I'm not surprised. Did you even read the amicus brief linked in your source? If you had, and therefore had a basic grasp of the whys and wherefores, you could have and I daresay would have been able to present relevant information and arguments. Rather than just crying and whining because "the bad orange man"...

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???

But that's not really true, is it? You know why. Religious reasons, for example. I don't agree. You apparently don't agree. But we know that it is. And not agreeing is very different than not "comprehending."

Then you summed it all up with orange man bad... with a HUGE pic as an exclamation point... really?

And you should also know -- would definitely know if you had read the amicus brief -- that the legal issue before the court is whether or not an existing law should be re-defined and/or re-interpreted from its original intent and purpose at the time of passage to include sexual orientation as part and parcel of one's sex. You should also note that the government is in no way telling anyone that they should fire gay employees, and even more important the government is not telling anyone they MUST fire gay employees.

Not to be too simplistic, but the plaintiff's are arguing that they should not be fired for having romantic/sexual/marital relationships with men because women are not fired for having romantic/sexual/marital relationships with men, therefore it is discrimination based upon their sex.

The amicus brief from the U.S. attorneys general states that it is not sexual discrimination, because likewise, a woman having a same-sex romantic/sexual/marital relationship would also be fired. Therefore it is not discrimination based upon one's sex.

The amicus brief also notes that in practice, the U.S. government does not discriminate based upon sexual orientation:

William P. Barr, U.S. Department of Justice Equal Employment Opportunity Policy(Apr. 4, 2019) (reiterating that “no applicant for employment or employee of our Department will be denied equal opportunity because of *** sexual orientation, *** gender identity, *** or any other nonmerit-based factor”). But those are policy de-terminations currently left to political and private ac-tors, not the courts.

The amicus brief also notes that a bill has been introduced into every session of Congress since the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 to add sexual orientation to the law, but every session of Congress has chosen not to do so. For example, Pelosi introduced The Equality Act (HR 5) into this session of the House of Representatives, where it passed, and is now languishing in the Senate and will most likely die a slow quiet death.

Likewise, the amicus brief also lists numerous court cases which have repeatedly been denied by the courts. The current lawsuits were brought and pursued after Obama unilaterally determined to re-define and re-interpret these statutes, thus giving these lawsuits new credibility and validity... kinda sorta. However, everything is subject to challenge, including Obama's nifty legislating by a pen and a phone. It is the job of the two houses of Congress to pass laws; it is the job of the Executive branch to implement and enforce those laws both to the letter and in the spirit as intended by Congress.

And there is more than enough data and precedent for a court to know and understand that sexual orientation was never intended by Congress when passing the legislation.

For anyone and everyone interested in the facts and truth of the issue at hand, it's actually a very interesting read: Amicus Brief

a reply to: underwerks

so the administration is hustling people by pointing out that this law doesn't actually have anything to do with homosexuals?

a reply to: matafuchs

When Trump's administration supports gay rights worldwide then they call him Islamophobic!

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Leftists have a better idea about how to handle the transgender problem, they have come up with and are in the process of implementing a final solution for transgenderism. What they are doing is identifying any children who may have what they deem to be "transgender" traits (this is of course not based on any tests or anything but subjective assessments) and then putting those children on puberty blocking drugs and then later drugs from the opposite sex, these "treatments", which you are an ignorant bigot if you oppose, render the children sterile thereby ensuring that they cannot pass these traits on to the next generation.
Of course some people didn't begin their transitions early enough in life.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I think they're synonymous at this point.

Does that change the point much?

For truth in reporting I think it matters.

originally posted by: clubheadjobby
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

time.com...
...

The same time magazine that has posted lies about POTUS Trump for years?...

If the Trump administration had made this argument in that court document then the brief would identify the Trump administration, but instead they mention a county in Georgia...

I mean, that freaking article from Time was so poorly put together that they give a link to another story about the census question about citizenship... WTF does that article has to do with this one?...

It seems the Time's writer was drunk, or was smoking pot like a dumba$$ and posted whatever came to his mind...

After several links the hoaxreporter finally posts this link...

www.supremecourt.gov...

But what the dumba$$ reporter, like many in the left, can't seem to comprehend is that in that case what they are arguing is that the wording on the original Civil Rights Act of 1964 remains the same and only mentions sex and not sexual orientation.... That's the actual argument being made.

...
Title VII made it “an unlawful employment practice for an employer” covered by the statute “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or other-wise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” § 703(a)(1), 78 Stat. 255 (42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) (1964)).

Congress has amended Title VII in various respects in the 55 years since, see, e.g., Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071; Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Pub. L. No. 95-555, 92 Stat. 2076; Equal Employment Oppor-tunity Act of 1972, Pub. L. No. 92-261, §§ 10-13, 86 Stat. 111-113, but the text of that core prohibition remains the same today. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1).
...

www.supremecourt.gov...

The Trump administration is not arguing to "legalize the firing of people on the base of their sexual orientation," they are simply arguing that the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 hasn't been changed and that is the job of Congress and the Senate to enact changes in the law. Only then can POTUS Trump sign to approve it... POTUS Trump, nor anyone in his administration can change the law... But only Obamatrons would make this claim since Obama decided to circumvent Congress on various laws he enacted without Congressional approval...

This is still A HOAX OF A THREAD...

a reply to: andy06shake

I don't see the problem. And why would you want to force someone to keep you around who doesn't want you there?

That's the strange mentality I can never understand with most anything lgbtq or race related. I personally don't like being where I'm not welcomed. I wouldn't go to an all black group who's racist against whites and be like "no! they have to hire me." I wouldn't go to an all gay place and be like "you need some straight people working here!"

I just can't grasp that mentality. Its just too far out of my comfort zone. If I'm intruding where I'm not wanted its not gonna be to make friends, unless of course under the guise of an infiltration. But I could never infringe on someone's personal preference.

Like "hey, you know that one type of person you just can't stand? yeah, you gotta hire/keep them now, they are gonna be a part of your life now. those people you really hate? they're now gonna be part of the reason you make or break it. you're future and the future of your children now depends on them. cause you know that one employee screwing up could cost you your reputation, and now you're not allowed to build the team you feel will do the best job. your input is no longer needed. just scoop up a random assortment of humans and put them to work. good luck competing against the big guy, who grew and expanded in an age where they were able to handpick their team without any such restrictions."

What kind of an a-hole would do that to someone?

I say let the blacks, gays, trans, have their own businesses that are all black. Youre seriously gonna take that away from them? That would be such a
beautiful safe space and you want to take that away because that's how much you want to punish straight, white people. Discrimination is a universal human right.

Like you said, its so easy to just leave people alone, but no, you and your authoritarian government wanna go around forcing people to do things they clearly don't want to do. That's progress?