Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender, Supreme Court rules

a reply to: mikell

What special treatment? A straight person can't be fired for being straight and a gay person can't be fired for being gay.

The only reason you guys are considering this special treatment because you can't actually conceive of a straight person being fired for their sexual orientation.

a reply to: projectvxn

Self ID is all about having more rights than anyone else. To the point of compelling the acknowledgement of their confused reality.

Are you a straight male? If so, don't you have an expectation that people acknowledge your maleness by calling you sir, or man, bro or mister? Aren't you special that way?

Speaking of confused reality, aren't religious people special, entitled to special rights, because of their (confused) reality?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, as an employer, there's a fine line when you start dictating what "professional appearance" entails.

It entails what I, as the employer, want to put forth.

I've got better things to spend my time on, honestly.

Time to do your nails again?

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I think though that transvestitism and transexuality are considered different things.

That's just it. They aren't.

Transexuality I believe is a medically recognised phenomenon whereas tranvestitism is considered a sexual fetish, a mental abnormality if you like.

I may be wrong though.

You are wrong. The only difference between the two is, with what you call 'transexuality', genital mutilation is involved, and possibly some heavy drug/artificial hormone use.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tanstaafl

Agree as a general principle.

But if you're hiring or firing based on anything except who can do the best job for your company ... you're not going to be in business long.

Which - again - is as it should be.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, as an employer, there's a fine line when you start dictating what "professional appearance" entails.

It entails what I, as the employer, want to put forth.

I've got better things to spend my time on, honestly.

Time to do your nails again?

You've never managed people have you? The more you specify exactly what they are going to do, the more they unconsciously thwart you.

My nails? Nah. I don't waste time on that at work. Is that where you do yours?

originally posted by: olaru12
There are two types of people I won't even let fill out a job application. Bootlickers and bald old men; I don't care what your qualifications are!!!

Hey! I resemble the second half of that remark (been shaving my head for many years now)...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You've never managed people have you? The more you specify exactly what they are going to do, the more they unconsciously thwart you.

I have, but not sure what you're talking about. I'm not talking about being a pain in the ass petty-detail-dictator, I'm talking about controlling who you choose to represent your company to the public. I would never put forth a dog faced pony girl as the face of mine.

My nails? Nah. I don't waste time on that at work. Is that where you do yours?

Only when it's raining...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You've never managed people have you? The more you specify exactly what they are going to do, the more they unconsciously thwart you.

I have, but not sure what you're talking about. I'm not talking about being a pain in the ass petty-detail-dictator, I'm talking about controlling who you choose to represent your company to the public. I would never put forth a dog faced pony girl as the face of mine.

My nails? Nah. I don't waste time on that at work. Is that where you do yours?

Only when it's raining...

Sure, part of my business is sales and appearance is important for that. Funny thing about letting your own narrow-minded views dictate who you put in front of the public though, sometimes that young lady you're dismissing could have made you a fortune, but you'll never know.

DIfferent strokes though.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

It's boring to argue with you Bo.

I always end up agreeing, LOL.

Well darn... One of these days when I've got a bee in my bonnet, I'll seek you out and see if I can be more difficult and disagreeable... how's that?

I think it's a decent way to try to help folks deal with all the different "identity" issues ... as long as all parties are TRYING to work it out in good faith.... Here's my take: I'll do my best to refer to you as you prefer IF you're polite about it. And by polite I just mean the common human respect and dignity that all deserve.

Personally -- as I wrote earlier, but not sure if it was in this thread -- I think society as a whole can benefit from some gender bending and stereotype smashing. That's much of our problem! And that includes much of the transgender community, who are often the most gender conforming. (I understand why, but it's part of the problem, not part of the solution). And I'll throw in the whole damn intersectionality victim Olympics. That's why a snot nose punk can and would reduce you to an old White cisgender "oppressor." (Did I leave any of his crybaby words out???) No one -- NO ONE!!! -- perfectly conforms to gender norms and roles and such. Nor should anyone. We're all individuals and we're free to live as we choose. And we're all free to learn from each other and grow with each other. Even when our journeys are leading us to different destinations. I'm happy to give everyone the same courtesy and respect, including pronouns, unless and until they give me reason not to.

But I'll admit with pronouns though, it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks. Pronouns are just habit by now! My husband loves to watch history shows, especially WWII, and there's one commentator who is frequently on these shows who has transitioned from male to female. We went through a period of using both male and female pronouns and just confusing ourselves, until we're now both using female pronouns for her. Thank goodness! She's very very good at what she does, and I'm glad they've continued featuring her. Her transition wasn't a big deal and hasn't taken anything at all from her work. Dr. Lynette Nusbacher (Aryeh Nusbacher) Wiki: Transformation from Man to Woman

Anyway, thanks for your great post.

Right back atcha!

a reply to: Gryphon66

This is a real discussion in the world of hospitality. In Austin it doesn't matter so much, but luxury hotels in Dallas? No way you'd be hired with piercings and tattoos. They are just barely getting to where beards are socially acceptable, and mostly still wear long sleeves and ties even in the summer heat.

The traditional expectation of a hotel clerk with the scarf tied around their neck, the logo'd vest, etc....that's a dying viewpoint. Thankfully. Its hard when you can't hire someone with a septum piercing, despite them having loads of experience. Its only been maybe 10 years that you could get away with this kind of stuff. 10 years ago they tried to get me to shave my facial hair and wear a suit and tie everyday just to sit in an office alone and stare at spreadsheets.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Are you a straight male? If so, don't you have an expectation that people acknowledge your maleness by calling you sir, or man, bro or mister? Aren't you special that way?

Am I compelling you to call me any of those things? Will I have you banned or fired from your job for not adhering to my sensibilities?

Speaking of confused reality, aren't religious people special, entitled to special rights, because of their (confused) reality?

The first amendment is about allowing freedom of thought at its core. No one is compelled to acknowledge the edicts of any particular religion. But we do have to treat a man as if he were a woman just because he says so?

That's an outright denial of a biological, physical fact. The trans-demands movement requires that such a denial of reality be enforced and in some areas they are.

a reply to: Boadicea

Agreed. Women are denied the right to be women in general.

They have usurped the meaning. It no longer means "Adult Human Female." It now means whatever an individual wants and everyone has to be forced to agree with it.

To be honest, any employer that sacks a good worker for being gay or trans and rather hires a dud that isn't, would be the stupidest employer ever and nobody should want to work for anyone like that in the first place.

Real homophobes or trans-wearies would just not hire one in the first place. But to make it difficult to sack someone just because they are a protected species is not what I call fair.
I had the misfortune to work with the biggest dud ever, who did nothing but cause grief and mayhem and stole and lied but it was a bummer to sack him. So we all suffered, at one time physically as he was never 'quite there ' and put us all into danger.
Just because someone is gay or trans doesn't make them automatically the worker of the month.
Quite the opposite, there will be many opportunists, abusing this. MArk my words. Humans are humans. Straight, gay and all the colours of the rainbow.

And humans can already sue if sacked unfairly. Why the need for extra protection? If you are a good, reliable worker you will be just fine.

a reply to: Hecate666

And humans can already sue if sacked unfairly.

In the US, people can sue for pretty much whatever their heart desires.

But until now, in a good number of states, being fired because of sexual orientation or identification was not illegal.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Boadicea

Agreed. Women are denied the right to be women in general.

They have usurped the meaning. It no longer means "Adult Human Female." It now means whatever an individual wants and everyone has to be forced to agree with it.

The really sad thing about it all is that it really doesn't do transgender identifying men any favors. At all. It's setting themselves up for failure, because they can never have/achieve what they think they will.

Instead of trying to be what they cannot, and creating more conflict and hostility for themselves, they should accept and promote themselves and their own rights for who they are.

But then too many people wouldn't be able to make so much money off their troubles, eh?

a reply to: Boadicea

they should accept and promote themselves and their own rights for who they are.

I think that's all that is being asked.

"Their own rights?" You mean the right to not be fired for being who they are? A gay skydiving instructor was fired because, why?

a reply to: Phage

Why would anyone work for a bigot? I have got the sack three times in my life, all very unfairly. Couldn't do anything about it, but I knew that I am rather out of a hostile place than in.
It wasn't illegal to sack me either. Nobody gives a crap about normal people getting the sack for nefarious reasons but it happens.
All other jobs were heaven compared to those three and I was always a loyal and hard working employee.

I just don't see why there need to be extra extra protection, when getting the sack for whatever reason is what happens to most of us at some point or another.
How can it be proven it was for bad work rather than some sort of -ism?

As I said, humans are humans.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Jonjonj
I think though that transvestitism and transexuality are considered different things.

That's just it. They aren't.

Transexuality I believe is a medically recognised phenomenon whereas tranvestitism is considered a sexual fetish, a mental abnormality if you like.

I may be wrong though.

You are wrong. The only difference between the two is, with what you call 'transexuality', genital mutilation is involved, and possibly some heavy drug/artificial hormone use.

Well you got me wondering, necause as far as I believed, Transvestism isn't related to Transexuality, so I googled.

Found this: Transvestism

It pretty much says that Transvestism is a mental disorder that only requires medication if problematic, and has no relation to transgenderism really.

My point was that Transvestites are NOT intending to live as the opposite sex, but rather get sexual arousal from the act of cross dressing, something which I feel is definitely a different thing.