What is this BS going around that the first Amendment only applies to the government, not Facebook

[Skylar]

Ah man... I kept thinking you were playing an angle. But you really are just stupid.

As has been explained to you several times in this thread, your rights protect you from government oppression. They don't mandate that other people accommodate you.

The government should certainly not oppress, but their further purpose is to protect us from oppression.

You don’t seem to get how any of this works. I don’t think you’ve actually taken a look at the first amendment. Here you go:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Notice not a single mention of Facebook

What is the purpose of that Amendment?

Answer, so that free speech is guaranteed.

What you need to accept now is that Facebook is the US government, created and run and fully accessible at all points and times by the NSA. Snowden still has proof of this and other crimes on his laptop

You may now call me a conspiracy theorist, I consider the truth an honor to spread

Again, for the fourth time, the purpose of the 1st amendment was to limit government.

The only entity limited by the 1st amendment......is government.

The purpose of the first amendment was to guarantee freedom. At the time in a fledgling country no one could imagine trillion dollar companies that could block anyone.

It used to take 6 months to send a message from the US to London, now a message can go there and be responded to in well under 10 seconds. Computers did and are continuing to change the World

Freedom.....from government infringement.

You’re literally ignoring the 1st amendment and making up your own. Which has nothing to do with the law.

And Jones can still say whatever he’d like. You can still download his content and watch his videos right now.

 

[The Professor]

Seriously if Facebook can censor conservatives and it is not subject to the first Amendment, because it is not a public entity, but a private one, then we can all violate the first Amendment since we are all private entities.

So can Walmart not hire a certain color people? They are a private company.

Who thought this nonsense thru?

Some laws are based upon the U.S. Constitution and others obviously are not. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right which protects citizens' speech from government intrusion. The Constitution is silent regarding whether private individuals/institutions can discriminate against a person because of his/her speech.

The Constitution prevents government from discriminating against an individual because of race but is silent regarding whether a private employer can do so. However, such discrimination is prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You ask: “So can Walmart not hire a certain color people?” You should know the answer to that one. Here's a link to help you understand:

Prohibiting Private Discrimination

 

[The Professor]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Walmart will not refuse to hire gays because if they do the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will rule against them and the courts are not likely to overturn the EEOC. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate, so let me explain).

Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on this specific issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:

“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”

Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)

It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so would discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

CONCLUSION: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy.

When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, the Court will include protections for sexual orientation.

 

[Syriusly]

Seriously if Facebook can censor conservatives and it is not subject to the first Amendment, because it is not a public entity, but a private one, then we can all violate the first Amendment since we are all private entities.

So can Walmart not hire a certain color people? They are a private company.

Who thought this nonsense thru?

You really don't have a clue what the First Amendment says- do you?

 

[Syriusly]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Walmart can refuse to hire conservatives in any state- and can refuse to hire gays in most states.

And that has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

LOL

 

[Syriusly]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Walmart will not refuse to hire gays because if they do the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will rule against them and the courts are not likely to overturn the EEOC. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate, so let me explain).

Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on this specific issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:

“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”

Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)

It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so would discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

CONCLUSION: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy.

When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, the Court will include protections for sexual orientation.

I would not consider it definitive that the todays EEOC would rule that way.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Hiring has nothing to do with the first amendment. There is a slew of hiring laws.

The Bill of rights, the first ten amendments to the constitution are all limitations on the government.

 

[JBond]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Umm. I own part of Walmart.

 

[The Professor]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Walmart will not refuse to hire gays because if they do the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will rule against them and the courts are not likely to overturn the EEOC. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate, so let me explain).

Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on this specific issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:

“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”

Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)

It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so would discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

CONCLUSION: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy.

When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, the Court will include protections for sexual orientation.

I would not consider it definitive that the todays EEOC would rule that way.

Yes they would. They already have, and their stated policy is to grant Title VII protection to gays. Here is a link to their official site:

What You Should Know: EEOC and Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers

 

[Skylar]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Walmart will not refuse to hire gays because if they do the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will rule against them and the courts are not likely to overturn the EEOC. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate, so let me explain).

Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on this specific issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:

“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”

Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)

It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so would discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

CONCLUSION: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy.

When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, the Court will include protections for sexual orientation.

I would not consider it definitive that the todays EEOC would rule that way.

Yes they would. They already have, and their stated policy is to grant Title VII protection to gays. Here is a link to their official site:

What You Should Know: EEOC and Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers

Almost every stat cited.....stops in 2015. Every single recent case cited is under the Obama administration.

And they speak of transgender protection....with the President banning them from being employed by the military. Explicitly contradicting the policies clearly laid down in a previous administration.

Trump also signed an executive order for 'Religious Freedom' to make it easier for busiensses to discriminate against gays, lesbians and transgender people on the basis of their religious beliefs.

None of which bodes well for the EEOC ruling today as they have in the past.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If someone thinks our laws affecting speech are "as bad as communism in NK", flaccid thinking characterizes that person's writing.

 

[Toro]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Walmart will not refuse to hire gays because if they do the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will rule against them and the courts are not likely to overturn the EEOC. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate, so let me explain).

Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on this specific issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:

“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”

Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)

It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so would discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

CONCLUSION: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy.

When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, the Court will include protections for sexual orientation.

haha

Look at you, making an intelligent “elitist” argument with this mob.

Good luck with that!

 

[Rosy]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Walmart will not refuse to hire gays because if they do the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will rule against them and the courts are not likely to overturn the EEOC. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate, so let me explain).

Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on this specific issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:

“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”

Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)

It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so would discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

CONCLUSION: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy.

When the SCOTUS gave gays the right to marry, most legal scholars believed the Court's decision did not make homosexuals a protected class (and thus subject to the provisions of Title VII). However, the Court's opinion in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv. seems to say that gays are in fact afforded such protection. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS did not rule on the case, electing instead to remand it to the lower court for further consideration; however, the EEOC leaves no doubt that gays are afforded the same protections under Title VII as any other protected class. Where will it end? I predict that if SCOTUS issues a final ruling on the issue, the Court will include protections for sexual orientation.

haha

Look at you, making an intelligent “elitist” argument with this mob.

Good luck with that!

Are you claiming that intelligent people voted for Hillary?

 

[Rosy]

Walmart does not have to sell fake products any more than Facebook has to push fake conspiracy whackjob bullshit.

Exactly. I’d youre not paying for a service, you are the product. Facebook decided not to carry the product called “Alex Jones”

Faceboof does not like Alex because he outed the entire company as an NSA data mine, set to track terrorist. At this point one of Facebooks supposed problems is that they can not delete terrorist profiles fast enough. The NSA has every one of these IP addresses. Alex just told the truth, like Snowden, both are heroes as they are protecting the American people with the truth

Maybe. Maybe Facebook are the heroes for squelching insane rumors. The point is, it's up to everyone to decide what they want to promote and what they don't. If you don't like the way Facebook does things, don't look at their website.

Look, what I post here is available to all, some like it some don't I understand that. What you post on Facebook is not your intellectual property, they own it, and worse they forward it to whom they choose, or block it from who they choose as well. Its stupid

No, it isn’t. There are all sorts of banned posters. They can’t ready anything you post here.

Nor can they post here.

And of course, Infowars follows the same “follow our rules or we’ll ban you” terms Of service as Facebook.

View attachment 209312

What I am saying in part, is that nothing you post on Facebook, belongs to you. They own it, and if they want to send your post to terrorist, they have the right to do this, because it's their property, got that? Your name and words no longer belong to you, Facebook and the nsa own them and can use your name and words as they choose.

Great plan, this is why Putin advertised here, he is mocking the usa

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Facebook did not ban all Conservatives. Your post and this thread are based on an entirely false premise.

The people that facebook banned were banned entirely because of their conservative views, this is NO DIFFERENT then banning Jews because of their views

um . . . no, it is not.

 

[Rosy]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Facebook did not ban all Conservatives. Your post and this thread are based on an entirely false premise.

The people that facebook banned were banned entirely because of their conservative views, this is NO DIFFERENT then banning Jews because of their views

um . . . no, it is not.

Glad u agree with me. Have a nice day

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Facebook did not ban all Conservatives. Your post and this thread are based on an entirely false premise.

The people that facebook banned were banned entirely because of their conservative views, this is NO DIFFERENT then banning Jews because of their views

um . . . no, it is not.

Glad u agree with me. Have a nice day

Um . . . you do having a cognitive disorder problem, Comrade Rosy.

 

[Rosy]

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

Facebook did not ban all Conservatives. Your post and this thread are based on an entirely false premise.

The people that facebook banned were banned entirely because of their conservative views, this is NO DIFFERENT then banning Jews because of their views

um . . . no, it is not.

Glad u agree with me. Have a nice day

Um . . . you do having a cognitive disorder problem, Comrade Rosy.

Again please notify the authorities if you believe I am a spy, they need a laugh

 

[Skull Pilot]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obvious, actually.

So can Walmart not hire conservatives or gays or whatever? Walmart is not public, they are private

You are confusing the First with the 1964 Civil Rights Act

 

[JakeStarkey]

Facebook did not ban all Conservatives. Your post and this thread are based on an entirely false premise.

The people that facebook banned were banned entirely because of their conservative views, this is NO DIFFERENT then banning Jews because of their views

um . . . no, it is not.

Glad u agree with me. Have a nice day

Um . . . you do having a cognitive disorder problem, Comrade Rosy.

Again please notify the authorities if you believe I am a spy, they need a laugh

I would not be surprised if you have not been reported, Comrade Rosy.