Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender, Supreme Court rules

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Good for the goose?

A very appropriate double standard.

Can't disagree with you in essence, just in form.

originally posted by: olaru12
I don't care if you are gay or not...If I don't want you on my crew, I won't pay you.

This is as it should be, in a nutshell.

Right to work. Right to hire. Right to fire. For any reason, or no reason at all.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude
In general, we're talking about someone appearing as a man or as a woman. If that's the only difference, how could it affect their ability to do their job correctly?

It depends... if said person interfaces with the public in any way, it could be considered bad for business. I know I would want some dude dressed up like a girl representing any company I owned.

Well, as an employer, there's a fine line when you start dictating what "professional appearance" entails.

I've got better things to spend my time on, honestly.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
I cringe when I see two dudes kissing.

Ooof, I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Now I need to go watch two hot chicks kissing to get the thought out of my mind.

Me too...little midget chicks...I mean little people chicks.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude
In general, we're talking about someone appearing as a man or as a woman. If that's the only difference, how could it affect their ability to do their job correctly?

It depends... if said person interfaces with the public in any way, it could be considered bad for business. I know I would want some dude dressed up like a girl representing any company I owned.

I think though that transvestitism and transexuality are considered different things.

Transexuality I believe is a medically recognised phenomenon whereas tranvestitism is considered a sexual fetish, a mental abnormality if you like.

I may be wrong though.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Agree as a general principle.

But if you're hiring or firing based on anything except who can do the best job for your company ... you're not going to be in business long.

So how many times can I change my gender or sexuality while at the same job? once? ten times? a hundred times?

Why wouldn't everyone just identify as a man since they get paid more in the work place?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
So how many times can I change my gender or sexuality while at the same job? once? ten times? a hundred times?

Why wouldn't everyone just identify as a man since they get paid more in the work place?

It already happens, gender fluidity is a thing apparently.

Everyone is supposed to have equal rights in this country. The employer cannot fire an employee because of his sex, race, or political or religious beliefs I think. Age too, but sometimes age does interfere with the ability of the person to do their job.

Anyone can be let go because they don't do their job or do it incorrectly, no matter what any of these things. The employees could be spending all their time talking politics and get fired from talking politics when they were supposed to be doing their job, or not working because they were discussing religion on the job and it was disrupting their and others work. If you got gay workers complaining and disrupting the work force, they can be fired for not doing the job or causing a loss of production

Keep the discussions out of work, it can get you fired if it interferes with your job preformance and no law is going to protect those who are doing that, maybe a union could, but the law is not designed for that.

I worked for a gay guy once, I worked for a black guy, their money was all green. Some of the people causing problems lost their jobs for other reasons and used the gay or transgender card to cause problems to the employer, the employer gets screwed because they have to hire a lawyer because they got rid of someone with an attitude that was disrupting the workplace some times. Nothing to do with any of these things...certain things are not to be discussed at work if they cause problems, that goes for gay haters and racists, do not be talking about it at work...you can get canned for not getting your work done or slowing production of a crew.

Most gays, lesbians, and transgenders are nice people, I would not hold their sex preferences against those that are good people. You do got some of those people who are jerks, and if your an employer, you do not have to put up with jerks working for you...just makes sure to not mention their sex preference or color at all. I know someone who said the boss said all kinds of bad things about him when called into the office, the owner recorded every conversation, the person lied...the guy was stirring everything up after, and got fired, then filed an unemployment claim with false information, the claim was denied once a copy of the tape was sent. I knew the employer, he told me about what happened, I also knew the guy working for him.....I called this person a guy, but that does not mean it was a guy.

Freedom of speech does not give a person the right to slander someone, I have seen that happen many times.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: olaru12
I don't care if you are gay or not...If I don't want you on my crew, I won't pay you.

This is as it should be, in a nutshell.

Right to work. Right to hire. Right to fire. For any reason, or no reason at all.

Yep, we agree on something....

There are two types of people I won't even let fill out a job application. Bootlickers and bald old men; I don't care what your qualifications are!!!

a reply to: Jonjonj

Transexuality I believe is a medically recognised phenomenon whereas tranvestitism is considered a sexual fetish, a mental abnormality if you like.

Is a 'mental abnormality' not a medically recognized phenomenon?

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: projectvxn

Is self id hurting anything?

Aside from demanding everyone else acknowledges their reality? Aside from compelled speech? Medical issues? Sports?
Self ID is the denial of reality.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes they do. Self ID is all about having more rights than anyone else. To the point of compelling the acknowledgement of their confused reality.

That same logic would mean that if someone else is a Christian, I have to believe in God; I don't, I only have to respect their belief, even though I believe they are delusional for my own part.

That applies.

originally posted by: ErEhWoN
a reply to: Jonjonj

Transexuality I believe is a medically recognised phenomenon whereas tranvestitism is considered a sexual fetish, a mental abnormality if you like.

Is a 'mental abnormality' not a medically recognized phenomenon?

I suppose in a sense it is, but nobody is going to advocate for a transvestite's rights to be a babysitter now are they?



Edit: On second thoughts...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
That same logic would mean that if someone else is a Christian, I have to believe in God; I don't, I only have to respect their belief, even though I believe they are delusional for my own part.

Hey! I resemble that remark!!!

But it's an excellent point for a couple reasons... or maybe it's really just one reason when you get right down to it. It's important to distinguish what we know and what we believe -- always! And, of course, that includes recognizing what we can and cannot know. Faith is that which cannot be seen. We cannot know. We can believe what our heart and mind and experiences reveals to us, but it cannot be known. At least not in its entirety.

However, just as I cannot know that there is a God or higher power, neither can you know that there is not. We can both temper each other so to speak. And no need for either of us to try to convince the other, or judge the other, or force our views on the other, or anything else... except respect each other and live and let live.

And maybe -- just maybe -- if we try, we can actually find some virtue in the other's position to learn from and expand our own perspective.

A non issue that special people will demand more special treatment.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes they do. Self ID is all about having more rights than anyone else. To the point of compelling the acknowledgement of their confused reality.

I look at it as being all about taking someone else's rights, because self-id literally lets someone take rights and protections that were never intended for them, but for someone else... and the persons they were intended for lose them.

To wit, when a man (who identifies as a woman) uses any sex-based space -- bathroom, changing room, shelter, etc. -- women are denied their right to their sex-based spaces.

a reply to: Boadicea

It's boring to argue with you Bo.

I always end up agreeing, LOL.

I think it's a decent way to try to help folks deal with all the different "identity" issues ... as long as all parties are TRYING to work it out in good faith.

We don't do that anymore, and it's not just right and left. You know that I've personally had to struggle with some aspects of gender identity myself. I don't understand it just because I'm gay (some people seem to assume that). I had a terrible row with one of my partner's classmates while he was in his undergraduate program. It's when I learned for the first time that I'm "cisgendered."

The kid threw a fit on Facebook over pronoun use. Here's my take: I'll do my best to refer to you as you prefer IF you're polite about it. And by polite I just mean the common human respect and dignity that all deserve.

The point is ... it doesn't matter one whit whether I think a transman is *really* a man or not. Basic human respect tells me that I treat him as he deserves. I don't check anyone elses britches before I interact with them, so why should I do it with him.

I'm not debating the issues with public restrooms and sex specific areas. I personally believe that public restrooms should be private anyway and securable.

Anyway, thanks for your great post.

originally posted by: mikell
A non issue that special people will demand more special treatment.

Nope.

The only treatment I want is what every American citizen should expect.