- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 8:59 am to mindbreaker
Posted on 6/16/20 at 8:59 am to mindbreaker
quote:
no one part of this applies to dress codes either. If you don't want dudes wearing dresses. Implement a dress code of no dresses in the office regardless of sex
No craft one for hairstyles, makeup, etc...oh and if you don’t have a cross dresser, then your policy is discriminatory as it only impacts the women in your office.
0
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:02 am to mindbreaker
quote:
that isn't what they are saying though
they are saying you can't keep one person who hates black or brown people because and fire another one for the same reason.
I don't understand why it's so hard to get. If you are okay with what someone does in the privacy of their own home then should be okay with everyone else that does that same thing in the privacy of their own home regardless of race, sex, etc.
no one part of this applies to dress codes either. If you don't want dudes wearing dresses. Implement a dress code of no dresses in the office regardless of sex.
Funny, what you said isn't in there at all, I would suggest you read the decision.
quote:
If you are okay with what someone does in the privacy of their own home then should be okay with everyone else that does that same thing in the privacy of their own home regardless of race, sex, etc.
That is not what the statute says. The statute doesn't say anything about your behavior and what you think, generally speaking. Its more factual, your race, sex, etc.
Religion is the only close one, but I would think under the statute you could fire someone that says, "killing whitie is good, and its part of my religion". Just because its a part of the religion doesn't mean they can say and think what they want.
So... if there is a person that doesn't like gay people, you can't deny him/her employment.... same would apply to race, color, etc.
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 9:07 am
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:03 am to Meatflap
quote:
My criteria is that I hire the people that I think are going to help my business become successful.
And I don't think the government should have any say over your criteria. Do you disagree?
quote:
To date, the only person who has ever raised a stink over being let go was a white woman. It went nowhere.
That's good, but don't think your experience can be extrapolated to the rest of the country. Especially if you're a small business; they like deeper pockets.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:09 am to GRTiger
quote:
But that's not what happened in this case. The guy was fired upon announcing he was transitioning. If your revenue actually starts to hurt, that's a justification for downsizing.
So he needed to lose $40k before firing someone who was going to lose him thousands of dollars per year? $60k? I know what you’re saying. But it’s still clown world.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:10 am to mindbreaker
quote:
It boils down to different interpretations of the law as written.
Here's where you prove that you're a f*cking idiot.
Literally redefining a word in a statute from its CLEAR MEANING isn't a "different interpretation," rather it's legislating from the bench to serve YOUR individual politics and policy agenda.
When this "opinion" on "different interpretations" is used in the Title IX context -- TRUST ME, the courts will have no choice given the complete f*cking absurdity of this opinion -- you'll realize how truly f*cked up Gorsuch's "logic" and "different interpretation" really is.
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 9:11 am
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:19 am to the808bass
quote:
So he needed to lose $40k before firing someone who was going to lose him thousands of dollars per year? $60k?
I don't know what the number is, but generally, someone has to perform poorly in order to be fired as a poor performer.
quote:
I know what you’re saying. But it’s still clown world.
I don't disagree. I am mostly just enjoying the discussion and presenting a counter for thought purposes. I have no problem with protecting LGBT folks from being fired because of their status in that group, but I don't really agree with how we went about getting there.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:20 am to LSU2ALA
There should be laws against discrimination. However, any reasonable person should know, employers will find another (legal) reason to get rid of the employee if it is deemed necessary. It’s been happening for years when the real reason was a discriminatory one..be it age, gender, etc.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:27 am to GRTiger
quote:Ever heard of forecasting? A business that is purely reactionary will fail in the long run. You have to try to plan ahead and anticipate revenue shortages or increased expenditures and adjust accordingly. If a person's personal life may interfere with the business performance, whether it be tangible or intangible, that is something an employer must consider.
The guy was fired upon announcing he was transitioning. If your revenue actually starts to hurt, that's a justification for downsizing.
Business is complex, by the way.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:43 am to LSU2ALA
It was a good decision under the equal protection clause, get over it. If you think it is going to be a problem, don't hire them in the first place.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:48 am to Magician2
quote:
on basis of sexuality.
What?
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:53 am to ELVIS U
quote:
It was a good decision under the equal protection clause, get over it. If you think it is going to be a problem, don't hire them in the first place.
This wasn’t a 14th Amendment case...
Posted on 6/16/20 at 9:58 am to 4evrlsu
quote:
There should be laws against discrimination.
Only for government entities.
quote:
However, any reasonable person should know, employers will find another (legal) reason to get rid of the employee if it is deemed necessary.
It's as if none of you know that there's a wrongful termination lawsuit crew out there every bit as committed as the slip & fall crowd. And every bit as honest.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:03 am to ELVIS U
quote:
It was a good decision under the equal protection clause, get over it. If you think it is going to be a problem, don't hire them in the first place.
This decision wasn't about the equal protection clause, although there is a few footnotes on equal protection.
Your second comment would be a violation of the statute generally speaking.
My take.... (fire or hire)
You can't fire someone for being gay sexually.
You can't fire someone for being transsexual, which could mean anything????
You can't fire someone for having sex with farm animals.
You can't fire someone on race.
You can't fire people that either like or dislike a race or sexual orientation.
You can't fire people who are pedophiles.
You can't fire people that are members of Black Power.
You can't fire people that are members of the KKK.
etc.
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 10:15 am
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:17 am to Magician2
Except it's the right conclusion.
Everyone jumping to but orientation when no it doesn't matter. If female A dates a man and female B dates a woman. And female B gets fired for it, it's based on her sex. Because if male C dates a woman and he isn't fired means that's dating a woman is a ok by the company standards.
It's not that fricking hard.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:20 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
Except it's the right conclusion. Everyone jumping to but orientation when no it doesn't matter. If female A dates a man and female B dates a woman. And female B gets fired for it, it's based on her sex. Because if male C dates a woman and he isn't fired means that's dating a woman is a ok by the company standards. It's not that fricking hard.
You're saying its not hard yet you skip the important part. Yes, it could be discriminatory but not necessarily i.e. details. But that is not what they said, they said all gays and transgender are protected.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:20 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:As mentioned several times so far, the issue is that it's not simply two people. When you expand the example to include a heterosexual male and a homosexual male, you can see that the issue is not biological sex because a consistent practice would leave the heterosexual male and the heterosexual female employed, which isn't what you would expect if the issue were centered around biological sex, as you seem to think.
Everyone jumping to but orientation when no it doesn't matter. If female A dates a man and female B dates a woman. And female B gets fired for it, it's based on her sex. Because if male C dates a woman and he isn't fired means that's dating a woman is a ok by the company standards.
quote:Apparently it is. Read Alito.
It's not that fricking hard.
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 10:21 am
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:24 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
Except it's the right conclusion. Everyone jumping to but orientation when no it doesn't matter. If female A dates a man and female B dates a woman. And female B gets fired for it, it's based on her sex. Because if male C dates a woman and he isn't fired means that's dating a woman is a ok by the company standards. It's not that fricking hard
So it would be legal to only hire those who date women? Men and lesbians only.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:28 am to FooManChoo
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 only reason to be fired is because they aren't performing the job. Full stop.
The only reason to be fired is because they aren't performing the job. Full stop.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:31 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
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 only reason to be fired is because they aren't performing the job. Full stop.
No, its not the employees sex, its their behavior or thoughts or feelings. (the other person if any isn't a protected class)
A transgender person is protected and it could still be a heterosexual relationship, or no relationship.
They changed it from facts (race, sex, etc) to behavior/feelings (sexuality).
So... if someone doesn't like gay people, than they are protected to? (under this ruling, I would say yes)
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 10:36 am
Posted on 6/16/20 at 10:31 am to ZappBrannigan
quote:
The only reason to be fired is because they aren't performing the job. Full stop
So you want to do away with at will employment now?
Page 6 of 9
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News