- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:34 am to ZappBrannigan
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:34 am to ZappBrannigan
This ruling likely isn't going to change much in the real world. Employers have been covering their asses for years already by documenting every employee mishap in the event they want to terminate them without fear of wrongful termination.
The only situations this ruling will impact are the employers who are blatant about their reasoning for firing a gay person because they are gay.
The only situations this ruling will impact are the employers who are blatant about their reasoning for firing a gay person because they are gay.
4
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
we have a court saying their tests are so important that they have to submit to these tests (created out of thin air and in no way directly related to the legislation at hand) and change the language of the actual words of the law
Scolia did it and you all were on same train so it went without comment.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:37 am to Dawgfanman
I mean maybe Brazzers can make a good legal argument out of that somehow. But it still won't pass muster. You're still basing a decision on a person's sex and expectations in accordance with that sex.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:37 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
This ruling likely isn't going to change much in the real world. Employers have been covering their asses for years already by documenting every employee mishap in the event they want to terminate them without fear of wrongful termination. The only situations this ruling will impact are the employers who are blatant about their reasoning for firing a gay person because they are gay.
Yup. That's basically how them do it, write up on anything and gone.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:37 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:This is the opposite of what I said. If the issue were due to biological sex, when you have two men and two women (one hetero and one homo for each group), you would expect the men or the women to remain but not one of each. The fact that a heterosexual male and a heterosexual female would remain employed shows that the issue isn't their biological sex that determines their employment but their sexual orientation.
So you just admitted it is. The bias is once again against the sex. If male or female employee dates the opposite sex. It's fine. If a male or female employee dates the same sex it isn't? It doesn't fly. The root of the issue isn't orientation. It's the employee's sex.
The law states that you cannot fire someone because they are biologically male or because they are biologically female as this is the definition of "sex". When you fire someone due to sexual orientation, you aren't firing them because they are male or female as their biological sex is a circumstance. If you expand the example to include four people--homosexuals and heterosexuals of both sexes--this is shown to be true.
quote:Perhaps but that is an issue that belongs to the people via Congress, not judicial legislation.
The only reason to be fired is because they aren't performing the job. Full stop
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:39 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
I mean maybe Brazzers can make a good legal argument out of that somehow. But it still won't pass muster. You're still basing a decision on a person's sex and expectations in accordance with that sex.
Its clearly behavior (feelings), Congress could include sexuality... the Supreme Court decided they would write it themselves.
A transgender (whatever that means) person could have a heterosexual relationship or no relationship.
They changed it from regulating discrimination on facts vs. behavior (or feelings). <------
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 10:43 am
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:45 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
This ruling likely isn't going to change much in the real world.
quote:
Employers have been covering their asses for years already by documenting every employee mishap in the event they want to terminate them without fear of wrongful termination.
You’re thinking all employers are fortune companies with massive hr departments.
quote:
The only situations this ruling will impact are the employers who are blatant about their reasoning for firing a gay person because they are gay.
Which there’s no constitutional restriction on doing.
There are plenty of state restrictions already in place.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:46 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
You’re thinking all employers are fortune companies with massive hr departments.
Actually, its pretty easy, you just document more - which is what they do with the crazies.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:06 am to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
Actually, its pretty easy, you just document more - which is what they do with the crazies.
Seriously. You don't need a massive HR department to handle write ups
I know a few people who run local restaurants/bars in BR and the GMs just keep an employee file on everyone and if they are late to work, caught drinking on the job, etc. they get a write up in their file.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:07 am to udtiger
so the super rare cases where its not obvious that the person is gay is what your worried about? because churches and any other business can just hire someone else. This is the type of discrimination that will never end. As a business owner if you want to discriminate you better get to it on the hiring part and not the firing part.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:09 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Seriously. You don't need a massive HR department to handle write ups I know a few people who run local restaurants/bars in BR and the GMs just keep an employee file on everyone and if they are late to work, caught drinking on the job, etc. they get a write up in their file.
Well, HR doesn't have to do everything, that is where supervisors come in. The people that are mentality ill don't take long.
I have no idea what the SC was thinking.
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 11:14 am
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:12 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
This ruling likely isn't going to change much in the real world. Employers have been covering their asses for years already by documenting every employee mishap in the event they want to terminate them without fear of wrongful termination.
The only situations this ruling will impact are the employers who are blatant about their reasoning for firing a gay person because they are gay.
so can a corporation change its Employee Application and add some lines for some additional info like sexual orientation? so they can make sure the employee enjoys their full protected class status.
Do you think homosexuals want to out themselves on job applications to make sure they are protected?
How about the gender piece being M/F/Other?
How about a question about their preferred pronouns during a job interview?
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:16 am to Flats
I don't disagree with you there, but the government isn't telling me that I can't hire people that are going to help my business, they are saying that I can't fire them based on their sexual orientation.
I'm also aware that lawsuits happen daily and thankfully I haven't been sued by any employee for any reason. I feel good that even though we have let people go in the past, it was usually amicable and occasionally I've hired them back on.
Ultimately, I tend to try and treat my employees with respect no matter their life choices and as long as they perform their jobs well, they will continue to remain in my employ.
I'm also aware that lawsuits happen daily and thankfully I haven't been sued by any employee for any reason. I feel good that even though we have let people go in the past, it was usually amicable and occasionally I've hired them back on.
Ultimately, I tend to try and treat my employees with respect no matter their life choices and as long as they perform their jobs well, they will continue to remain in my employ.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:18 am to supatigah
quote:
How about a question about their preferred pronouns during a job interview?
Gonna ask our HR person if we can do this, want to be respectful after all.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:20 am to supatigah
quote:
so can a corporation change its Employee Application and add some lines for some additional info like sexual orientation? so they can make sure the employee enjoys their full protected class status. Do you think homosexuals want to out themselves on job applications to make sure they are protected? How about the gender piece being M/F/Other? How about a question about their preferred pronouns during a job interview?
My gaydar is right about 99% of the time at least for males, females probably 70%... the switch hitter females are harder to figure out.
I personally don't have issues with gay people per se, well, the men are usually a-holes... but I don't care if they do what they do. The ITs of the world, well, if they're a disruption than I'm just not going to like them much as people.
Of course, its perfectly fine (in most States) to fire someone for being ugly.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:23 am to Meatflap
quote:As a Christian, I agree with that way of operating your business. The world isn't the Church and we can't expect folks to live like they are in Christ when they aren't. I am called to love everyone and treat everyone as the image-bearers of God that they are with obedience to God's moral law towards everyone and to act with prudence with what God has blessed me with, including my business.
I don't disagree with you there, but the government isn't telling me that I can't hire people that are going to help my business, they are saying that I can't fire them based on their sexual orientation.
I'm also aware that lawsuits happen daily and thankfully I haven't been sued by any employee for any reason. I feel good that even though we have let people go in the past, it was usually amicable and occasionally I've hired them back on.
Ultimately, I tend to try and treat my employees with respect no matter their life choices and as long as they perform their jobs well, they will continue to remain in my employ.
That said, the issue truly at hand isn't whether or not it's right to discriminate but what the right vehicle is to make that determination. The disagreement specifically is around the interpretation of the law and whether or not the SCOTUS essentially changed or created law rather than ruled according to what the law actually said. It's not the role of the judiciary to determine policy for the country, no matter how strongly they may feel about an issue. They are tasked with determining whether or not a law is valid according to the Constitution.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:33 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
Gonna ask our HR person if we can do this, want to be respectful after all.
there is a nice unintended consequences angle to this.
quote:
How can we better protect you? please disclose the pertinent personal info to the company
quote:
We should actively seek out diversity and look to hire more LGBTQ employees. Lets make LGBTQ a component of the interview process so we can make sure we are evaluating LGBTQ candidates wink wink
quote:
Q: did you ever find LGBTQ candidates to hire for our new LGBTQ diversity program?
A: nope, none of them had the proper qualifications wink wink
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:38 am to LSU2ALA
Gorsuch’s opinion is textualism but it’s a brand of textualism that is both extreme and rather transparently just a tool to reach a preferred policy result in this case. As Kavanaugh explained in dissent, the ordinary meaning of the phrase “discriminate on the basis of sex” didn’t mean in 1964 “on the basis of sexual orientation” and certainly not on the basis of “gender identity”—a term not even in use at the time. Indeed, no one would even say this NOW. Instead, one might say “the homophobe fired me because I am gay” not “the bigot fired me because I am a man and I am attracted to males, which is OK for women and not for me.” I’m fine with the policy but I hope the reasoning does not result in too much mischief down the line. Title IX and female sports is the what I’m primarily concerned about.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 11:51 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
But that is the entire point of textualism. You don’t look at what people intended. You look at what the words say. I agree the Congress never intended that but that is the logical outcome of what those words say. I don’t see any other logical way to read it.
A more concise explication of textualism's fatal flaw would be hard to find.
Legislative intent is made null and void radically diminishing one "co-equal" branch and swelling the judiciary's power, not only far beyond what was envisioned constitutionality, but to heights beyond the wildest dreams of the most activist courts. That's textualism's logical outcome.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 12:01 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Title IX and female sports is the what I’m primarily concerned about.
Gone, good luck.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News