Supreme Court Rules Homosexuals Can Sue Employer

[Roudy]

Therefore causing employers to think twice when hiring a gay person. If you decide to fire them, you'll get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit.

Has that excuse worked for not hiring blacks, women, etc?

You do realize that is the same reason many employers resist hiring Blacks, don't you? In the back of their minds they're worried about getting slapped with a discrimination lawsuit should they decide to fire the black person. True story.

 

[Roudy]

Therefore causing employers to think twice when hiring a gay person. If you decide to fire them, you'll get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit.

Has that excuse worked for not hiring blacks, women, etc?

Unfortunately, I know some companies that operate that way. The occurrence is a lot less than it used to be but it does happen. I also know of companies that don't hire whites. It is messed up. I like hiring the best person for the job. I want the best. It makes for a healthier company when you do.

I am also hesitant to hire Whites because they aren't hungry enough to roll up their sleeves and make something out of it. I prefer hiring Philipinos (mostly women) and Latino's.

 

[Roudy]

Therefore causing employers to think twice when hiring a gay person. If you decide to fire them, you'll get slapped with a discrimination lawsuit.

I don't think they should ask perspective employees about their sexual orientation.

No need to ask, you can almost always tell if a person is gay.

And if you can? As long as they do their job, they should not be fired just for being gay.

But they now have a bigger obstacle getting the job, considering the employer has to now also consider possibility of false accusation of discrimination if they need to get rid of the person. This will only lead to more unemployment for gays.

Thats a pretty pathetic argument.Which jobs have you applied for and been asked about your sexual preferences ?

You must have reading comprehension problems. Nobody asks your sexual preference (among other things), its against the law to even do that. People are usually smart enough to figure out if a person is gay or not.

Maybe in your little goldfish bowl. Not in the real world.

I can tell if someone is gay in an interview. Some may get past however most are easy to spot. I'm not worried about the liability of hiring minorities, we have several working so it would be tough to prove that we would discriminate.

In the real world, there are companies that won't hire gays, give another reason for not hiring them and tough to prove otherwise. Sad but I know the objective in hiring and it is to protect against potential future lawsuits. My philosophy is different, hire them and if the mess up, keep documentation, have plenty of minorities hired and so when the time comes that you have a legitimate reason to let a person go, you can and have little chance of them suing because they weren't fit to do a job.

or maybe you can hire them because they are good at their job -- just like you would hire anyone else.....

Why is discrimination against minorities such a must

Many people behave differently than an employer anticipates once they're hired, therefore an employer is always thinking during the hiring process, if it doesn't work out and I fire him or her, what are the chances of being sued.

 

[skye]

where is the "puke" emoticon?

I can not find it....

has it been deleted?

 

[Roudy]

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.

I've had a gay employee who was my production manager about 20 years ago, very smart and knowledgeable, he had a dream of being writer and ended up moving to Hawaii after being with my company for 5 years, after his partner passed away and left him a ton of money. More recently, I hired another gay employee who was mentally unstable, and had to lay him off because he was very flakey (one excuse after another as to why he can't come to work) he would also argue loudly over the phone in his office over his phone, gas or electricity bill etc., causing clients to get uncomfortable. Needless to say, it left a very bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Roudy]

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

The ruling wasn't even a ruling, it was obvious that is how it would come down.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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".

This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

The ruling had nothing to do with anything being ‘hijacked’ – it has nothing to do with words changing, evolving, or their meaning being otherwise updated.

This is a dispute between two conservative factions of the Court as to whether rightist judicial dogma known as ‘textualism’ was appropriately followed.

‘Textualism’ is of course idiocy given the fact that all laws and measures are written with the intent that they be subject to interpretation for the purpose of administrative policymaking and implementation and in the event a law or measure be subject to judicial review.

Indeed, the legislative/judicial process couldn’t function absent statutory interpretation.

 

[Captain Caveman]

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.

In many cases, the dialogue and actions of the gay community can be offensive. Being offensive works both ways, it's not a one way street.

 

[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.

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.

I agree, lots of posts are skimmed, then you get a knee jerk reply and then it begins. I encourage people to reread what I posted, that never works either. Lol!

 

[JoeB131]

As usual I disagree with the method. Changes to the Civil Rights law should be done by congress, as they are the ones who wrote it. This is another example of legislating from the bench.

Funny, you had no problem when the Right legislated from the Bench in Heller....

The court decided that "Because of Sex" really does cover sexual orientation, not just Gender.

 

[JoeB131]

This was a good decision, but how meaningful.

Most of the country is "Right to Work", "At Will" employment. Most of us don't work under contracts. So if a homophobic boss fires you, he can still find some other excuse to do so.

I knew a gal who was fired in 2000 after she "came out" at the Holiday party by bringing her partner. the "official" reason she was let go (after being there for 14 years) was that they were downsizing her department. (They then hired someone to replace her a few weeks later.)

The reverse is, if your boss is a homophobe, do you really want to work for him to start with?

 

[martybegan]

As usual I disagree with the method. Changes to the Civil Rights law should be done by congress, as they are the ones who wrote it. This is another example of legislating from the bench.

Funny, you had no problem when the Right legislated from the Bench in Heller....

The court decided that "Because of Sex" really does cover sexual orientation, not just Gender.

Heller isn't legislating from the bench, it stopped DC from enforcing an unconstitutional law.

The court in this current case made shit up like in Plessey, Roe, and Obergfell.

 

[JoeB131]

Heller isn't legislating from the bench, it stopped DC from enforcing an unconstitutional law.

Only if you believe the bizarre reasoning that the Militia Amendment is about private gun ownership, something the courts hadn't found in 200+ years.

The court in this current case made shit up like in Plessey, Roe, and Obergfell.

Actually, Roe and Obergefell were spot on rulings. The state being able to regulate our bodies is just...crazy.

 

[Roudy]

Heller isn't legislating from the bench, it stopped DC from enforcing an unconstitutional law.

Only if you believe the bizarre reasoning that the Militia Amendment is about private gun ownership, something the courts hadn't found in 200+ years.

View attachment 351642

The court in this current case made shit up like in Plessey, Roe, and Obergfell.

Actually, Roe and Obergefell were spot on rulings. The state being able to regulate our bodies is just...crazy.

For the wisdom of the second amendment and the reason for it's existence, one only needs to look at the riots and looting, and how every citizen was left to fend for himself and his / her family from the barbarian hoards.

 

[initforme]

Oh we should feel sorry for employers......NOT. they've never had such an easy time finding hard workers. Beyond easy.

 

[Papageorgio]

Oh we should feel sorry for employers......NOT. they've never had such an easy time finding hard workers. Beyond easy.

If you don’t like being an employee, become an employer. Beyond easy.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Discrimination is wrong. I'm happy that these protections will now exist for the LGBTQ community in the workplace.

 

[JoeB131]

For the wisdom of the second amendment and the reason for it's existence, one only needs to look at the riots and looting, and how every citizen was left to fend for himself and his / her family from the barbarian hoards.

Um, no, everyone having guns and threatening each other during mostly peaceful protests did not really help the situation.

The reason why cops are so trigger happy is because there are too many guns out there, which is what is causing the grievances to start with.

 

[Roudy]

For the wisdom of the second amendment and the reason for it's existence, one only needs to look at the riots and looting, and how every citizen was left to fend for himself and his / her family from the barbarian hoards.

Um, no, everyone having guns and threatening each other during mostly peaceful protests did not really help the situation.

The reason why cops are so trigger happy is because there are too many guns out there, which is what is causing the grievances to start with.

Yeah except when the shit hits the fan and the cops stop being cops, you're basically on your own as far as protecting your home, business, family, and belongings. Let me know how it feels when the animals come after you and your family, at that point they could care less about your race, color, ethnicity, or political ideology. Do you really think that all these thugs committing Black on Black crimes in Black neighborhoods care about any of the Leftist propaganda and shit you spew?

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah except when the shit hits the fan and the cops stop being cops, you're basically on your own as far as protecting your home, business, family, and belongings. Let me know how it feels when the animals come after you and your family, at that point they could care less about your race, color, ethnicity, or political ideology. Do you really think that all these thugs committing Black on Black crimes in Black neighborhoods care about any of the Leftist propaganda and shit you spew?

Um, buddy, I'm 58 years old. I've had to call the cops about six times. Never once did they arrive "in time" to prevent a tragedy. (Fortunately most of the incidents weren't that serious, and none of them threatened my safety). I've lived in smaller towns, but as you guys like to say when talking about why you needs your guns, when seconds count, the cops will be there in minutes.

So, no, I don't worry about the cops not being cops. I worry about them doing things that create the problems.