Does a National Employment Non-Discrimination Act Have Merit

a reply to: xuenchen

that's why just having GLBTQ+ a federally protected class is the right way

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rationalconsumer
The OP posed the issue of having to prove that you are LGBT according to ENDA. I don't know much about application of non-discrimination laws, but I don't think there is a burden on the victim to prove that the perp knows something about them, and whether that something is true or not.

Some would argue that anybody could say they were in that group and sue.

Any defense would surely ask for proof.

A marriage license could be accepted as proof.

I don't know if any of the government employee cases certified anything.

Perhaps proving the "perp's" state of mind would be enough?

Well, if an employer/hiring org made an adverse decision based on their belief that the individual is a member of a protected class, it doesn't matter if the individual is actually a member of that class.

The Anti-Discrimination laws have been in place a long time. They have been amended over time to include more protection. As a side note , does anyone know the company that spearheaded this legislation back in the day and continues to exceed federal standard ? Hint : 3 letters

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: infolurker

Drugs and being GLBTQ+ are completely different, i'm sorry if you can't understand that

Actually, please explain.

What is being this GLBTQ stuff? What does that mean? What makes me GLBTQ? What defines it? (I thought it was LBGT)

Just saying your GLB (how many feaking letters are going to keep being added?) TQ is like saying I am a human.

It has to be based on what? Physical Characteristics (Age, skin pigment, ethnic background, language, what?) No, it is personal choices, actions, or behavior.

Yeah, same as having a glass of wine after work or a cigar. Nobody's freaking business as long as it isn't illegal.

I can't stand those Hippocrates who have no problem discriminating against anyone else's legal personal choices that they don't agree with.

a reply to: infolurker
I can't stand those Hippocrates who have no problem discriminating against anyone else's legal personal choices that they don't agree with.

Medicine, based on the great work of Greek physician Hippocrates, tells us that being LGBTQ+ is not only based on observable actions.

a reply to: infolurker

Gay,Lesbian,Bisexual,Transgender,Queer+

you want me to explain what each one of those mean?

we don't choose to be GLBTQ+(see above) we are born this way, correct Human so it shouldn't be legal to discriminate against us and not a Heterosexual person

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: infolurker

Gay,Lesbian,Bisexual,Transgender,Queer+

you want me to explain what each one of those mean?

we don't choose to be GLBTQ+(see above) we are born this way, correct Human so it shouldn't be legal to discriminate against us and not a Heterosexual person

What makes you different than anyone else that is human?

Your Physical Characteristics (No)?

Then what?

Your personal actions and behaviors right? If not, how are you so different than anyone else who we would describe with physical characteristics? (Slim, tall, short, light pigment, dark pigment, etc?)

You know the answer? Your personal behavior, actions, and personal preferences? Should anyone be discriminated against for exercising their right to practice non-illegal actions or behavior?

The answer is no!

Something to think about when they go after smokers, over weight people, fast food eaters with high cholesterol, whatever.

a reply to: admirethedistance

Yes.

Only Federal employees.

Not regular businesses.

a reply to: infolurker

So you agree that GLBTQ+ people should not be discriminated against, and we should get federally protected

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: infolurker

So you agree that GLBTQ+ people should not be discriminated against, and we should get federally protected

As much as any other "lifestyle" choice which is not "illegal". That would be those I mentioned.

If you agree Smokers (or other nicotine users), The Overweight, those with high colesterol, those who do "dangerous things to some people" like skydiving or ride motorcycles, those that don't eat the things that others believe they should, those that drink soda and eat lots of sugar, should be singled out for Federal protection based off behaviors and personal life choices then yes.

Otherwise, No.

Your personal choices that other people might not like are not that much more special than anyone elses... LOL

a reply to: infolurker

Ok, but GLBTQ+ is not a choice. it's the same as you being Heterosexual. it's not a "Lifestyle" or a "Choice" it's how we are born so it should be illegal to discriminate against us

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: infolurker

Ok, but GLBTQ+ is not a choice. it's the same as you being Heterosexual. it's not a "Lifestyle" or a "Choice" it's how we are born so it should be illegal to discriminate against us

What is not a choice? An action or behavior?

What makes someone a GLBTQ? A thought, emotion, action, or behavior? Not a physical characteristic like the rest.

Why is your "wanting or participating" in something legal that others find wrong (like smoking, drinking alcohol in a legal setting, eating crap that other think is bad for you, having a few extra pounds because you can't resist the cola no matter what you do) different. Some people love to eat sugar and gain weight. Some people love to smoke. Etc.

Like it or not, same damned thing. Just different actions or behavior than someone elses?

originally posted by: infolurker

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: infolurker

Ok, but GLBTQ+ is not a choice. it's the same as you being Heterosexual. it's not a "Lifestyle" or a "Choice" it's how we are born so it should be illegal to discriminate against us

Not a physical characteristic like the rest.

Yes, homosexuality and heterosexuality are both inherent in the physical body. As in "Born That Way".

Science trumps belief.

a reply to: infolurker

Ok, you clearly don't understand...

Sigh...


It's your Sexuality, or Transgender would be their Gender Identity, it's not an "action" or a "Thought" because we are still Human

you either lack understanding or are purposely posting nonsense.

originally posted by: rationalconsumer

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rationalconsumer
The OP posed the issue of having to prove that you are LGBT according to ENDA. I don't know much about application of non-discrimination laws, but I don't think there is a burden on the victim to prove that the perp knows something about them, and whether that something is true or not.

Some would argue that anybody could say they were in that group and sue.

Any defense would surely ask for proof.

A marriage license could be accepted as proof.

I don't know if any of the government employee cases certified anything.

Perhaps proving the "perp's" state of mind would be enough?

Well, if an employer/hiring org made an adverse decision based on their belief that the individual is a member of a protected class, it doesn't matter if the individual is actually a member of that class.

The "determination" would not necessarily happen at time of hire or non-hire.

It could be charged if and when another employee (supervisor, manager, etc.) exercises the offense any time after initial employment.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: xuenchen

that's why just having GLBTQ+ a federally protected class is the right way

Now is the time to make your case for legislation.

Do you pass a whole new law, or add to and amend existing laws?

Do you favor using medical documentation to prove particular groups?

These are the hard questions in play politically and socially.

For the record in case anybody is suspicious, I am not against any efforts as long as no infringements take place on anybody else.

If big government is the way you want things, then go for it.

a reply to: xuenchen

I want to not be denied Services or Property, i want to not be able to get fired just for being GLBTQ+, i want to be able to adopt if i want, and donate blood if i want..

those are things that Heterosexual people get, or at least don't get discriminated because their straight

i would really like not to get abused harassed and killed..

and when i say I, i mean me and the rest of the GLBTQ+ community

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: infolurker

Ok, you clearly don't understand...

Sigh...


It's your Sexuality, or Transgender would be their Gender Identity, it's not an "action" or a "Thought" because we are still Human

you either lack understanding or are purposely posting nonsense.

You know exactly what I am saying. Being Gay or Transgender is not a physical characteristic like being Old, disabled, skin pigment, etc.

You define this "classification" by thoughts, ideals, behaviors, and actions.

What physical characteristic defines LBGT?

None, Nada, all emotion, psychological, behavioral, and conscious actions. What is the defining physical characteristic?

What is the defining physical characteristic?

What is the defining physical characteristic?

What is the defining physical characteristics?

Exactly.


Emotions, Desires, Physiological wants. The only physical "characteristics" are what? Actions. Physical Actions. The same as any other "Physical actions" I mentioned before.

And I love to smoke!

There is just as much justification for Federal Anti-discrimination laws for smokers, high blood cholesterol, Blood Sugar Levels, or what we Eat or drink.

More precedence for the overweight as that is actually a Physical Characteristic.

Where is our Federal Protections for Tall, Short, Overweight, how about the non-attractive... LOL?



Again, Your personal behaviors that other people might not like are not that much more special than anyone elses. That better?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rationalconsumer

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rationalconsumer
The OP posed the issue of having to prove that you are LGBT according to ENDA. I don't know much about application of non-discrimination laws, but I don't think there is a burden on the victim to prove that the perp knows something about them, and whether that something is true or not.

Some would argue that anybody could say they were in that group and sue.

Any defense would surely ask for proof.

A marriage license could be accepted as proof.

I don't know if any of the government employee cases certified anything.

Perhaps proving the "perp's" state of mind would be enough?

Well, if an employer/hiring org made an adverse decision based on their belief that the individual is a member of a protected class, it doesn't matter if the individual is actually a member of that class.

The "determination" would not necessarily happen at time of hire or non-hire.

It could be charged if and when another employee (supervisor, manager, etc.) exercises the offense any time after initial employment.

hence my use of the term "employer" and "hiring org"

originally posted by: admirethedistance
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Surely between the recent SC ruling and the laws already in place for federal employees, if anyone in the private sector werento be unjustly fired or whatever due to discrimination of that nature, there would be enough precedent for them to win any resulting lawsuit...Right?

No. Those lawsuits are extremely tough to win, your only chance of winning them is for the employer to admit guilt because in most of those states employers can fire you for any reason they want. All they have to say is "I fired X because I thought it was time to get a new employee".