Supreme Court Rules Homosexuals Can Sue Employer

[Ava]

I never worked at a place that cared if one was gay or not. If you are doing your job well is the only issue I care about.

And that is how it was when we had 45 employees in our business. Several of them were gay and really great at their jobs. They were also great fun to be around. They dressed no differently than the other employees and were not flaunting their sexuality to the public. If any of them had to be let go we treated that no differently than we would any other employee. And to avoid lawsuits for "unfair" job discrimination or termination we offered any employee an opportunity to work in another department of the business. They rarely wanted that and decided to quit.

The gay bartender who we found using and peddling cocaine was fired outright, though. Instead of offering him a position in the kitchen or office, pool attendant, or maintenance, housekeeper, laundry room, dining room, we had to let him go immediately. I liked that particular employee who was great at his job but should have thought twice about making too many trips to the public restroom in an eight hour period every day. No one has to go that often for the length of time he worked for us. It was very suspicious and BOY what we found underneath the toilet tank lid! FIRED! We had to fire another great employee, a heterosexual server, as she was caught with her hand in the virtual cookie jar to the amount of two thousand dollars over a short period of time. FIRED! She was the last person we even thought of suspecting. Both employees took us to court but because of our impeccable documentation of all conversations and incidents between us and the employees, we WON!

But, the SCOTUS came down with the right decision regarding discriminating against homosexuals. They are people, too, and just as the rest of us some of the time, imperfect.

Again, my problem is with the method, not the result. Now we will have to litigate the limits of the new nationwide standard, even in States that already had these protections added via legislation.

Will Catholic schools be forced to hire openly gay teachers? What about Yeshivas and Muslim schools?

Will funeral homes not be allowed to require biological males to wear suits?

Is this limited to hiring/firing over just "being" gay or trans, or does it mean everyone has to accept the actions of the people, if said actions are based on the person's sexuality or gender identity (really confusion).

So A PR firm has an employee that goes to one of those San Fran street festivals and gets photographed blowing some other dude in public. Can the PR firm fire them, or is that part of the gay "culture" and thus protected?

Thanks for your post considering the possible ramifications of the new rule.

I take one day at a time without considering what may happen in the future. Nothing is going to be perfect and there are positive and negative sides to any new way of lifestyle. But for every problem, we are the solution and should be casting our votes for the candidate who represents our way of thinking. I, personally, just cannot justify prohibiting a homosexual from earning a wage unless during the initial interview with an applicant gives me red flags. I always listen to my intuition as its record of reliability has proved accurate for a long time.

May the rest of your day be a splendid one, martybegan.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

This is a great ruling. No longer can gay people be fired from their job because they are gay!

Take that you homophobic jerks!

Supreme Court rules gay and lesbian people can sue for workplace bias under landmark civil rights law

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court rules gay and lesbian people can sue for workplace bias under landmark civil rights law.

www.sandiegouniontribune.com

I don't think anyone has ever been fired from their job for being happy.

Partisan and dumb. Great contribution.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Is it progress that the loons on here are just quibbling about the process and have left the actual ruling alone ?

 

[martybegan]

I never worked at a place that cared if one was gay or not. If you are doing your job well is the only issue I care about.

And that is how it was when we had 45 employees in our business. Several of them were gay and really great at their jobs. They were also great fun to be around. They dressed no differently than the other employees and were not flaunting their sexuality to the public. If any of them had to be let go we treated that no differently than we would any other employee. And to avoid lawsuits for "unfair" job discrimination or termination we offered any employee an opportunity to work in another department of the business. They rarely wanted that and decided to quit.

The gay bartender who we found using and peddling cocaine was fired outright, though. Instead of offering him a position in the kitchen or office, pool attendant, or maintenance, housekeeper, laundry room, dining room, we had to let him go immediately. I liked that particular employee who was great at his job but should have thought twice about making too many trips to the public restroom in an eight hour period every day. No one has to go that often for the length of time he worked for us. It was very suspicious and BOY what we found underneath the toilet tank lid! FIRED! We had to fire another great employee, a heterosexual server, as she was caught with her hand in the virtual cookie jar to the amount of two thousand dollars over a short period of time. FIRED! She was the last person we even thought of suspecting. Both employees took us to court but because of our impeccable documentation of all conversations and incidents between us and the employees, we WON!

But, the SCOTUS came down with the right decision regarding discriminating against homosexuals. They are people, too, and just as the rest of us some of the time, imperfect.

Again, my problem is with the method, not the result. Now we will have to litigate the limits of the new nationwide standard, even in States that already had these protections added via legislation.

Will Catholic schools be forced to hire openly gay teachers? What about Yeshivas and Muslim schools?

Will funeral homes not be allowed to require biological males to wear suits?

Is this limited to hiring/firing over just "being" gay or trans, or does it mean everyone has to accept the actions of the people, if said actions are based on the person's sexuality or gender identity (really confusion).

So A PR firm has an employee that goes to one of those San Fran street festivals and gets photographed blowing some other dude in public. Can the PR firm fire them, or is that part of the gay "culture" and thus protected?

Thanks for your post considering the possible ramifications of the new rule.

I take one day at a time without considering what may happen in the future. Nothing is going to be perfect and there are positive and negative sides to any new way of lifestyle. But for every problem, we are the solution and should be casting our votes for the candidate who represents our way of thinking. I, personally, just cannot justify prohibiting a homosexual from earning a wage unless during the initial interview with an applicant gives me red flags. I always listen to my intuition as its record of reliability has proved accurate for a long time.

May the rest of your day be a splendid one, martybegan.

While again I agree with the end result, my concern is the method they got there. All of this will now have to be litigated all over again because now the protections are federal, not State, and said protections are not spelled out explicitly, and exceptions are not carved out legislatively.

I have a sinking feeling Gorusch was sold a bill of goods by the liberal justices, and in the future they won't pay back. The lack of 2nd amendment cases shows that.

Good day to you as well.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I didn't think anybody was unaware of the modern meaning of the word "gay".

Yes, the original meaning was hijacked.

Likewise, when I see a Rainbow in the sky I think, "That's nice, but, you've been hijacked too".

 

[WinterBorn]

I didn't think anybody was unaware of the modern meaning of the word "gay".

Yes, the original meaning was hijacked

The meanings of words change.

It is not hijacking. It is the normal evolution of language.

 

[WinterBorn]

I didn't think anybody was unaware of the modern meaning of the word "gay".

Yes, the original meaning was hijacked.

Likewise, when I see a Rainbow in the sky I think, "That's nice, but, you've been hijacked too".

If you hear someone say something is "cool", do you think the word has been hijacked?
If someone says they are listening to rock music, do you think the word "rock" has had its meaning hijacked?

The meaning of some words change in any major language. When you see the word "text", do you think or written words in a book, or do you think of a message sent between cell phones?

 

[Ava]

I never worked at a place that cared if one was gay or not. If you are doing your job well is the only issue I care about.

And that is how it was when we had 45 employees in our business. Several of them were gay and really great at their jobs. They were also great fun to be around. They dressed no differently than the other employees and were not flaunting their sexuality to the public. If any of them had to be let go we treated that no differently than we would any other employee. And to avoid lawsuits for "unfair" job discrimination or termination we offered any employee an opportunity to work in another department of the business. They rarely wanted that and decided to quit.

The gay bartender who we found using and peddling cocaine was fired outright, though. Instead of offering him a position in the kitchen or office, pool attendant, or maintenance, housekeeper, laundry room, dining room, we had to let him go immediately. I liked that particular employee who was great at his job but should have thought twice about making too many trips to the public restroom in an eight hour period every day. No one has to go that often for the length of time he worked for us. It was very suspicious and BOY what we found underneath the toilet tank lid! FIRED! We had to fire another great employee, a heterosexual server, as she was caught with her hand in the virtual cookie jar to the amount of two thousand dollars over a short period of time. FIRED! She was the last person we even thought of suspecting. Both employees took us to court but because of our impeccable documentation of all conversations and incidents between us and the employees, we WON!

But, the SCOTUS came down with the right decision regarding discriminating against homosexuals. They are people, too, and just as the rest of us some of the time, imperfect.

Again, my problem is with the method, not the result. Now we will have to litigate the limits of the new nationwide standard, even in States that already had these protections added via legislation.

Will Catholic schools be forced to hire openly gay teachers? What about Yeshivas and Muslim schools?

Will funeral homes not be allowed to require biological males to wear suits?

Is this limited to hiring/firing over just "being" gay or trans, or does it mean everyone has to accept the actions of the people, if said actions are based on the person's sexuality or gender identity (really confusion).

So A PR firm has an employee that goes to one of those San Fran street festivals and gets photographed blowing some other dude in public. Can the PR firm fire them, or is that part of the gay "culture" and thus protected?

Thanks for your post considering the possible ramifications of the new rule.

I take one day at a time without considering what may happen in the future. Nothing is going to be perfect and there are positive and negative sides to any new way of lifestyle. But for every problem, we are the solution and should be casting our votes for the candidate who represents our way of thinking. I, personally, just cannot justify prohibiting a homosexual from earning a wage unless during the initial interview with an applicant gives me red flags. I always listen to my intuition as its record of reliability has proved accurate for a long time.

May the rest of your day be a splendid one, martybegan.

While again I agree with the end result, my concern is the method they got there. All of this will now have to be litigated all over again because now the protections are federal, not State, and said protections are not spelled out explicitly, and exceptions are not carved out legislatively.

I have a sinking feeling Gorusch was sold a bill of goods by the liberal justices, and in the future they won't pay back. The lack of 2nd amendment cases shows that.

Good day to you as well.

Yes, my friend, martybegan, the process will be a nightmare. Just like the days, we are now living. Your thinking is worthy and solid and I appreciate your input.

Regarding Gorsuch, I thought immediately when reading his vote on this that he voted in favor because he is going to vote on a very meaningful and substantial bill in the near future and he is going to vote our way, the conservative way. The right way for the majority of Americans and the way of life most of us want back, those days before the '60s. Nothing was ever perfect but most people enjoyed their way of life more than they do now. Very sad, all that is happening because of progressive policies, including RINOs, and a liberal SCOTUS.

 

[Ava]

I didn't think anybody was unaware of the modern meaning of the word "gay".

Yes, the original meaning was hijacked

The meanings of words change.

It is not hijacking. It is the normal evolution of language.

Right. Change is the one constant.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why is the Govt telling a private business what is right and wrong? Silly. If a business didn’t want to serve me cause I am a Jew, I d find another one that would. Capitalism is wonderful like that.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Is it progress that the loons on here are just quibbling about the process and have left the actual ruling alone ?

You add zero to every discussion. I admire your consistency.

 

[pknopp]

Once again the Left completely misses the concerns of most AmerIcans, and makes it look as if the entire country was holding its breath waiting for this decision to come down.

Most Americans? Even 50% of Trump appointees supported this.

 

[Papageorgio]

Is it progress that the loons on here are just quibbling about the process and have left the actual ruling alone ?

I don't really care, it doesn't effect the way we hire or fire, never has. People are people, either they work out or they don't to a business, does it really matter who does the job as long as it gets done. Hell, I hired a Frenchman one time, that's when I found out they don't wear deodorant. Talk about offensive.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Right. Change is the one constant.

Not every change is good.

Say the law changes where we can punch someone in the face for looking at you. Is that a good change?

We all perceive change differently, some know that certain changes causes problems. It's the old cliche, "Give them an inch and they take a mile". So as soon as homosexuality was removed off the DSM list (based on a vote as opposed to science), that was the inch. I think it's safe to say with all the modern madness, they've passed the milestone, don't you think?

 

[martybegan]

I never worked at a place that cared if one was gay or not. If you are doing your job well is the only issue I care about.

And that is how it was when we had 45 employees in our business. Several of them were gay and really great at their jobs. They were also great fun to be around. They dressed no differently than the other employees and were not flaunting their sexuality to the public. If any of them had to be let go we treated that no differently than we would any other employee. And to avoid lawsuits for "unfair" job discrimination or termination we offered any employee an opportunity to work in another department of the business. They rarely wanted that and decided to quit.

The gay bartender who we found using and peddling cocaine was fired outright, though. Instead of offering him a position in the kitchen or office, pool attendant, or maintenance, housekeeper, laundry room, dining room, we had to let him go immediately. I liked that particular employee who was great at his job but should have thought twice about making too many trips to the public restroom in an eight hour period every day. No one has to go that often for the length of time he worked for us. It was very suspicious and BOY what we found underneath the toilet tank lid! FIRED! We had to fire another great employee, a heterosexual server, as she was caught with her hand in the virtual cookie jar to the amount of two thousand dollars over a short period of time. FIRED! She was the last person we even thought of suspecting. Both employees took us to court but because of our impeccable documentation of all conversations and incidents between us and the employees, we WON!

But, the SCOTUS came down with the right decision regarding discriminating against homosexuals. They are people, too, and just as the rest of us some of the time, imperfect.

Again, my problem is with the method, not the result. Now we will have to litigate the limits of the new nationwide standard, even in States that already had these protections added via legislation.

Will Catholic schools be forced to hire openly gay teachers? What about Yeshivas and Muslim schools?

Will funeral homes not be allowed to require biological males to wear suits?

Is this limited to hiring/firing over just "being" gay or trans, or does it mean everyone has to accept the actions of the people, if said actions are based on the person's sexuality or gender identity (really confusion).

So A PR firm has an employee that goes to one of those San Fran street festivals and gets photographed blowing some other dude in public. Can the PR firm fire them, or is that part of the gay "culture" and thus protected?

Thanks for your post considering the possible ramifications of the new rule.

I take one day at a time without considering what may happen in the future. Nothing is going to be perfect and there are positive and negative sides to any new way of lifestyle. But for every problem, we are the solution and should be casting our votes for the candidate who represents our way of thinking. I, personally, just cannot justify prohibiting a homosexual from earning a wage unless during the initial interview with an applicant gives me red flags. I always listen to my intuition as its record of reliability has proved accurate for a long time.

May the rest of your day be a splendid one, martybegan.

While again I agree with the end result, my concern is the method they got there. All of this will now have to be litigated all over again because now the protections are federal, not State, and said protections are not spelled out explicitly, and exceptions are not carved out legislatively.

I have a sinking feeling Gorusch was sold a bill of goods by the liberal justices, and in the future they won't pay back. The lack of 2nd amendment cases shows that.

Good day to you as well.

Yes, my friend, martybegan, the process will be a nightmare. Just like the days, we are now living. Your thinking is worthy and solid and I appreciate your input.

Regarding Gorsuch, I thought immediately when reading his vote on this that he voted in favor because he is going to vote on a very meaningful and substantial bill in the near future and he is going to vote our way, the conservative way. The right way for the majority of Americans and the way of life most of us want back, those days before the '60s. Nothing was ever perfect but most people enjoyed their way of life more than they do now. Very sad, all that is happening because of progressive policies, including RINOs, and a liberal SCOTUS.

Maybe, but we had a perfect 2A case regarding "shall issue" CCW permitting, and the SCOTUS ignored it.

 

[pknopp]

Why is the Govt telling a private business what is right and wrong? Silly. If a business didn’t want to serve me cause I am a Jew, I d find another one that would. Capitalism is wonderful like that.

Did anyone explain this idea to Trump who is always threatening a business with something?

If Twitter wants to block his rants, well it is their platform.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why is the Govt telling a private business what is right and wrong? Silly. If a business didn’t want to serve me cause I am a Jew, I d find another one that would. Capitalism is wonderful like that.

Did anyone explain this idea to Trump who is always threatening a business with something?

If Twitter wants to block his rants, well it is their platform.

I don’t disagree but then they become a provider of content vs disseminator and should be regulated as such.

 

[Papageorgio]

Right. Change is the one constant.

Not every change is good.

Say the law changes where we can punch someone in the face for looking at you. Is that a good change?

We all perceive change differently, some know that certain changes causes problems. It's the old cliche, "Give them an inch and they take a mile". So as soon as homosexuality was removed off the DSM list (based on a vote as opposed to science), that was the inch. I think it's safe to say with all the modern madness, they've passed the milestone, don't you think?

She never claimed all change was good, she said it was constant and it is.

 

[Ava]

Right. Change is the one constant.

Not every change is good.

Say the law changes where we can punch someone in the face for looking at you. Is that a good change?

We all perceive change differently, some know that certain changes causes problems. It's the old cliche, "Give them an inch and they take a mile". So as soon as homosexuality was removed off the DSM list (based on a vote as opposed to science), that was the inch. I think it's safe to say with all the modern madness, they've passed the milestone, don't you think?

She never claimed all change was good, she said it was constant and it is.

Thanks, Papageorgio. I just came home and checked back in on this thread. The poster's response, whom you addressed, is the reason I seldom get involved in discussions. As carefully as I try to choose the correct words to express my forthcoming statement, someone ALWAYS infers the opposite of what I said or what I meant. Then it gets into defending one's self and on and on and on. I don't have the time or desire to defend or argue opinions. That is also why I don't subscribe to threads in which I have contributed. I don't care about the feedback if it has nothing to do with my statement or implication. *yawn* I don't need to be right to another.

 

[Dana7360]

I didn't think anybody was unaware of the modern meaning of the word "gay".

Yes, the original meaning was hijacked.

Likewise, when I see a Rainbow in the sky I think, "That's nice, but, you've been hijacked too".

If you hear someone say something is "cool", do you think the word has been hijacked?
If someone says they are listening to rock music, do you think the word "rock" has had its meaning hijacked?

The meaning of some words change in any major language. When you see the word "text", do you think or written words in a book, or do you think of a message sent between cell phones?

I wouldn't say hijacked.

I would say a new meaning was added.

The old meanings of the words are still used along with the new ones.