Court Rules--LEGAL To Fire Homo's!

[DarkFury]

The United States appeals court has ruled that homo's have NO protection under the law and its LEGAL to fire a homo for being a homo.

“The cases as they stand do ... create a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College"

When Trump wins and we get another conservative SCOTUS these "Trans-homos will no longer be in bathrooms and the filth in our schools can be removed.
Appeals court: Sexual-orientation discrimination is legal

Fury

 

[Stratford57]

 

[The Great Goose]

oh well, i had a good run. twenty years in the women's bathroom.

 

[Hossfly]

HOT MAMAS

 

[ScienceRocks]

Personal freedom? You know that thing you call liberty. Funny how things change.

 

[Katzndogz]

The strange thing about liberal personal freedom is that it isn't a freedom at all without the liberty of telling others what to do.

 

[Brynmr]

Personal freedom? You know that thing you call liberty. Funny how things change.

You mean like the freedom to use a bathroom with people of the same sex as yourself?

 

[Darkwind]

What the fuck?

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?

 

[Andylusion]

Personal freedom? You know that thing you call liberty. Funny how things change.

Personal freedom, is being twisted by the left, to mean removing freedom from one group, to benefit another.

I own my podcast. If I desire to hire someone, I'm going to hire who I want. If I don't want you to work for me, because I don't like your purple socks..... that's my right. Your freedom, doesn't override my freedom.

So the RCC Podcast doesn't hire homos. If you are a homo, and I find out, you fired. Sucks to be you. I have freedom to. Sorry losers... you don't get a lock on freedom, and exclude everyone else.

You can go get hired by other homos, and have a homo party until you die of aids. Fine with me. But you don't get my money. Sorry.

 

[Darkwind]

HOT MAMAS

View attachment 83643

Okay, that made Me laugh....

 

[Andylusion]

What the fuck?

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual? What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?

Doesn't matter. If I don't like you.... I can fire you. If you don't come in with a belt on, and your shirt tucked in, I can fire you.

You don't have a 'right' to my money. You have the right to pursue happiness. Not a right to it.

 

[DarkFury]

What the fuck?

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?

Court say you CAN fire them.

 

[JoeMoma]

From the article linked in the OP

"While dismissing the case, the judges criticized lack of protection for sexual orientation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The judges said that change must come in a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or new legislation from Congress."

Would not a change coming from a ruling from the Supreme Court be in effected legislating from the bench?

 

[Skylar]

The United States appeals court has ruled that homo's have NO protection under the law and its LEGAL to fire a homo for being a homo.

“The cases as they stand do ... create a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College"

When Trump wins and we get another conservative SCOTUS these "Trans-homos will no longer be in bathrooms and the filth in our schools can be removed.
Appeals court: Sexual-orientation discrimination is legal

Fury

There are no federal protections for sexual orientation under the Civil Rights Act. This is relatively similar to Barron V. Baltimore. The courts recognize bullshit allowed by States. But also recognize that they have no authority to prevent it.

A supreme court ruling could extend say, Due Process protections. But a lower court has no authority to do so.

 

[Darkwind]

What the fuck?

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual? What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?

Doesn't matter. If I don't like you.... I can fire you. If you don't come in with a belt on, and your shirt tucked in, I can fire you.

You don't have a 'right' to my money. You have the right to pursue happiness. Not a right to it.

Nonsense. Just cause has to be shown. If you can't afford to pay the person, then say so. Be fucking honest about it.

If you are a small government believer, then to get the government to back you up so that you can fire people for their sexuality makes you no better than the libs.

 

[Darkwind]

What the fuck?

You can't fire someone for being a homosexual. What the fuck does their sex life have to do with their job performance?

Court say you CAN fire them.

Courts say you don't need ID to vote.

Courts are wrong.

 

[DarkFury]

The United States appeals court has ruled that homo's have NO protection under the law and its LEGAL to fire a homo for being a homo.

“The cases as they stand do ... create a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College"

When Trump wins and we get another conservative SCOTUS these "Trans-homos will no longer be in bathrooms and the filth in our schools can be removed.
Appeals court: Sexual-orientation discrimination is legal

Fury

There are no federal protections for sexual orientation under the Civil Rights Act. This is relatively similar to Barron V. Baltimore. The courts recognize bullshit allowed by States. But also recognize that they have no authority to prevent it.

A supreme court ruling could extend say, Due Process protections. But a lower court has no authority to do so.

I think that is what I pointed out. NO protection.

 

[Skylar]

The United States appeals court has ruled that homo's have NO protection under the law and its LEGAL to fire a homo for being a homo.

“The cases as they stand do ... create a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College"

When Trump wins and we get another conservative SCOTUS these "Trans-homos will no longer be in bathrooms and the filth in our schools can be removed.
Appeals court: Sexual-orientation discrimination is legal

Fury

There are no federal protections for sexual orientation under the Civil Rights Act. This is relatively similar to Barron V. Baltimore. The courts recognize bullshit allowed by States. But also recognize that they have no authority to prevent it.

A supreme court ruling could extend say, Due Process protections. But a lower court has no authority to do so.

I think that is what I pointed out. NO protection.

Under Federal Law. The law could be changed, or a higher court ruling could change that. But a lower federal court has no means to extend such protections.

 

[DarkFury]

The United States appeals court has ruled that homo's have NO protection under the law and its LEGAL to fire a homo for being a homo.

“The cases as they stand do ... create a paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”

7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College"

When Trump wins and we get another conservative SCOTUS these "Trans-homos will no longer be in bathrooms and the filth in our schools can be removed.
Appeals court: Sexual-orientation discrimination is legal

Fury

There are no federal protections for sexual orientation under the Civil Rights Act. This is relatively similar to Barron V. Baltimore. The courts recognize bullshit allowed by States. But also recognize that they have no authority to prevent it.

A supreme court ruling could extend say, Due Process protections. But a lower court has no authority to do so.

I think that is what I pointed out. NO protection.

Under Federal Law. The law could be changed, or a higher court ruling could change that. But a lower federal court has no means to extend such protections.

But as the laws stands NOW its legal to fire a homo for being a homo. Which is what I stated.

 

[DarkFury]

From the article linked in the OP

"While dismissing the case, the judges criticized lack of protection for sexual orientation in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The judges said that change must come in a ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court or new legislation from Congress."

Would not a change coming from a ruling from the Supreme Court be in effected legislating from the bench?

I think so and would be illegal as such.