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

a reply to: Hecate666

I just don't see why there need to be extra extra protection,

Title VII is "extra?"

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm not sure money motivates this whole thing, though I'm not sure it isn't. I believe ideology is at the root of the self-ID Trans-demands movement and in many individual cases, deep misogyny often attributed to straight males. The "othering" of feminists who fundamentally disagree with self-ID, the harassment of lesbian women to include strategies for tricking them and raping them, and the encouragement of child-grooming.

There is SO much wrong with the trans-demands movement. It is not a legitimate rights movement and never will be.

a reply to: Xcalibur254


Yeah , Talk about getting your Priorities Straight . The DO NOTHING SCOTUS Thanks to the Liberal Court Justices Strike Again ..


" Thomas, Kavanaugh lament 'decade-long failure to protect the Second Amendment' >





www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

There are 6 liberal Justices now?

Sometimes it goes beyond politics, you know?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Hecate666
Title VII is "extra?"

Extra special...

a reply to: Phage


They ALL Obey their " Masters " now . Every One of them . the SCOTUS is a JOKE ..........

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yeah.

Right.

Just stick with that. It means that, even if you don't agree, there's no point. No responsibility.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Boadicea

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

I wasn't speaking to this case. I agree with the ruling in this case.

I was speaking to self-id and "inclusion" with regard to sex-based rights and protections, including sex-based protected spaces.

Specifically, that trans-identifying persons should rally for their own transgender rights and protections, including transgender protected spaces, according to their specific needs and circumstances.

a reply to: Boadicea

Specifically, that trans-identifying persons should rally for their own transgender rights and protections, including transgender protected spaces, according to their specific needs and circumstances.

So, you're in favor of "special rights?"

You should tell trans people that they are doing it wrong. That they need to seek more. I'm sure they would be interested in your point of view.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Boadicea

I'm not sure money motivates this whole thing, though I'm not sure it isn't.

Yeah, I should qualify that snark statement. It's probably just one of many motivators.

I believe ideology is at the root of the self-ID Trans-demands movement and in many individual cases, deep misogyny often attributed to straight males. The "othering" of feminists who fundamentally disagree with self-ID, the harassment of lesbian women to include strategies for tricking them and raping them, and the encouragement of child-grooming.

I definitely agree there are many reasons and root causes for people to identify as transgender. Especially important is that not all trans identifying persons have the same objective. Not all want to just live their lives in peace. Many have very ugly motives, including violent tendencies and sexual fetishes. And without sounding too harsh, I truly believe that their various emotional/mental issues are being exploited and played for others' agendas. Personal profit being only one of these.

There is SO much wrong with the trans-demands movement. It is not a legitimate rights movement and never will be.

Agreed. And I'm glad you make the distinction between the movement and the individuals. Also very different things!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Boadicea

So, you're in favor of "special rights?"

No. Not at all. Legal precedents have been set. If society and the law are going to accept transgender identifying people as something other than "male" and "female", then there is precedent for establishing the similar sex-based rights and protections for them. With so many people synthetically altering their bodies and their appearance, having their own physical needs to attend to, their own mental/emotional needs, I should think they'd be able to make a very good case for themselves.

You should tell trans people that they are doing it wrong. That they need to seek more. I'm sure they would be interested in your point of view.

My words, my thoughts, my opinions are available for anyone and everyone to read. I certainly am not the first person to suggest that they champion their own selves, rather than try to usurp others' rights and protections.

a reply to: projectvxn

The first amendment is about allowing freedom of thought at its core.

...Freedom of expression, which include religious practice and ritual attire. We readily acknowledge religious ritual attire.

The trans-demands movement requires that such a denial of reality be enforced and in some areas they are.

The anti-"trans-demands movement" requires certain people to stifle their 1st Amendment right to self expression and orders them to conform to politically accepted practices, mannerism and ritual attire.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

...Freedom of expression, which include religious practice and ritual attire. We readily acknowledge religious ritual attire.

Are you compelled to wear it?

The anti-"trans-demands movement" requires certain people to stifle their 1st Amendment right to self expression and orders them to conform to politically accepted practices, mannerism and ritual attire.

It requires that we are not compelled in our speech by force of law.

a reply to: projectvxn

Are you compelled to wear it?

Are you compelled to dress as the opposite sex?

It requires that we are not compelled in our speech by force of law.

So, your whole beef is being "forced" to call a transgender person Sir or Ma'am, he or she, according to their ritual attire?

I don't think this SCOTUS ruling does that. LOL

You're not force to call a nun sister either.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I don't think this SCOTUS ruling does that. LOL

I'm not arguing that it is.

I responded very specifically to you.

a reply to: Boadicea

I certainly am not the first person to suggest that they champion their own selves, rather than try to usurp others' rights and protections.

I am neither gay or trans, I feel no threat to my rights and protections under the law.

What rights and protections of yours are being usurped?

a reply to: projectvxn

This is not about me.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm aware.

Go back and reread your own post and then mine and see in what context I was responding to you. I'm not going to orient your argument for you.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Boadicea

What rights and protections of yours are being usurped?

Any and all sex-based rights and protections that have been taken away by inclusion of the opposite sex -- particularly sex-based spaces, including sports -- whether I currently exercise those rights or make use of those spaces. If it usurps all women's rights and protections, then it necessarily usurps mine.

a reply to: projectvxn

Your freedom of "thought" argument is moot, since "expression", not thought, is the operative word. I'll leave the thought policing to the religious community.

Trans people are expressing themselves as a 1st Amendment right. You're upset that you might have to recognize that expression as a right to wear whatever attire suits them, but I bet you don't have a problem with religious people's exercise of their religious rights by wearing robes, scarves and habits.

But, SCOTUS' ruling today wasn't about the 1st Amendment. It was about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and whether or not LGBT folk at included in Title VII's protections. They are, according to SCOTUS.