Does a National Employment Non-Discrimination Act Have Merit

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.

Why would one need medical documentation? Documentation of what?

The problem that I have with the "no infringements against anybody else" argument is that only certain folks get to determine what infringements are, and often infringements=butthurt.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

I do not disagree with your points.

Just be careful about the dependency on big government.

originally posted by: rationalconsumer

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.

Why would one need medical documentation? Documentation of what?

The problem that I have with the "no infringements against anybody else" argument is that only certain folks get to determine what infringements are, and often infringements=butthurt.

One example might be in a case where a transgender person is discriminated against.

Documentations proving a "sex change" actually took place might be helpful in proving a case against a discriminator.

And "infringements" would be known and accepted. Like a 1st amendment infringement for example, or a rage murder, etc.

a reply to: infolurker

Wait.. what does that have to do with having Federal Protection for the GLBTQ+ class?

so, are you saying that you shouldn't be federally protected because you are Heterosexual, and your religion shouldn't be protected because it's just a Belief system.. so you don't believe anyone should be protected against discrimination correct?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rationalconsumer

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.

Why would one need medical documentation? Documentation of what?

The problem that I have with the "no infringements against anybody else" argument is that only certain folks get to determine what infringements are, and often infringements=butthurt.

One example might be in a case where a transgender person is discriminated against.

Documentations proving a "sex change" actually took place might be helpful in proving a case against a discriminator.

And "infringements" would be known and accepted. Like a 1st amendment infringement for example, or a rage murder, etc.

Could an adverse employment action take place simply because the employer/hiring org thinks that the applicant is a transgender person? Why would the person need to prove that they are for discrimination to have taken place?

originally posted by: rationalconsumer

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rationalconsumer

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.

Why would one need medical documentation? Documentation of what?

The problem that I have with the "no infringements against anybody else" argument is that only certain folks get to determine what infringements are, and often infringements=butthurt.

One example might be in a case where a transgender person is discriminated against.

Documentations proving a "sex change" actually took place might be helpful in proving a case against a discriminator.

And "infringements" would be known and accepted. Like a 1st amendment infringement for example, or a rage murder, etc.

Could an adverse employment action take place simply because the employer/hiring org thinks that the applicant is a transgender person? Why would the person need to prove that they are for discrimination to have taken place?

That's a point I eluded to earlier.

Lawyers can often prove "intent" and "state of mind" based on character references etc.

But many such arguments fail in court.

A rock solid base of proof would not fail as easily as anything possibly made out to be hearsay or assumptive.

These are just my uneducated opinions.

I have no idea what precedents exist.

Cases like this could become common.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: infolurker

Wait.. what does that have to do with having Federal Protection for the GLBTQ+ class?

so, are you saying that you shouldn't be federally protected because you are Heterosexual, and your religion shouldn't be protected because it's just a Belief system.. so you don't believe anyone should be protected against discrimination correct?

No, I am saying that it has as much merit as any other legal behaviors or physical actions.

Now that you have opened that box, how about Federal Protection for being Single, Celebrate, Having Children, Having no children, Being Adopted, Being on only child, Divorced, Loosing custody of a child, etc?

Now, if you want to change the definition of LBGT from Physical Characteristic or behavior to a Religious protection then you are saying LBGT is actually a Religious Belief or Religion?

Which is it?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rationalconsumer

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rationalconsumer

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.

Why would one need medical documentation? Documentation of what?

The problem that I have with the "no infringements against anybody else" argument is that only certain folks get to determine what infringements are, and often infringements=butthurt.

One example might be in a case where a transgender person is discriminated against.

Documentations proving a "sex change" actually took place might be helpful in proving a case against a discriminator.

And "infringements" would be known and accepted. Like a 1st amendment infringement for example, or a rage murder, etc.

Could an adverse employment action take place simply because the employer/hiring org thinks that the applicant is a transgender person? Why would the person need to prove that they are for discrimination to have taken place?

That's a point I eluded to earlier.

Lawyers can often prove "intent" and "state of mind" based on character references etc.

But many such arguments fail in court.

A rock solid base of proof would not fail as easily as anything possibly made out to be hearsay or assumptive.

These are just my uneducated opinions.

I have no idea what precedents exist.

Cases like this could become common.

Even if someone were to prove that they are a transgender person with medical documentation, that doesn't do anything for their case of discrimination.

I have experience in studying and applying what constitutes an adverse action, and what is required to prove discrimination. Intent and state of mind are irrelevant (e.g. in sexual harrassment, "intent is irrelevant"). It is all about the actions of the employer/hiring org and advserse employment actions against a person based on perceived or actual protected class.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rationalconsumer

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: rationalconsumer

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.

Why would one need medical documentation? Documentation of what?

The problem that I have with the "no infringements against anybody else" argument is that only certain folks get to determine what infringements are, and often infringements=butthurt.

One example might be in a case where a transgender person is discriminated against.

Documentations proving a "sex change" actually took place might be helpful in proving a case against a discriminator.

And "infringements" would be known and accepted. Like a 1st amendment infringement for example, or a rage murder, etc.

Could an adverse employment action take place simply because the employer/hiring org thinks that the applicant is a transgender person? Why would the person need to prove that they are for discrimination to have taken place?

That's a point I eluded to earlier.

Lawyers can often prove "intent" and "state of mind" based on character references etc.

But many such arguments fail in court.

A rock solid base of proof would not fail as easily as anything possibly made out to be hearsay or assumptive.

These are just my uneducated opinions.

I have no idea what precedents exist.

Cases like this could become common.

Even if someone were to prove that they are a transgender person with medical documentation, that doesn't do anything for their case of discrimination.

I have experience in studying and applying what constitutes an adverse action, and what is required to prove discrimination. Intent and state of mind are irrelevant (e.g. in sexual harassment, "intent is irrelevant"). It is all about the actions of the employer/hiring org and adverse employment actions against a person based on perceived or actual protected class.

a reply to: infolurker

i'm saying that GLBTQ+ are PEOPLE that deserve the same protections that Heterosexual PEOPLE get.

the nonsense you are talking about, is well, nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual conversation

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: infolurker

i'm saying that GLBTQ+ are PEOPLE that deserve the same protections that Heterosexual PEOPLE get.

the nonsense you are talking about, is well, nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual conversation

What is this "Protection" that Heterosexual people get. I haven't seen this law?

What part of this law you mention doesn't apply to GLBTQ actions and behaviors that apply to this Heterosexual group's actions or behaviors you mention?

I understand your are frustrated because legislating personal habits, legal lifestyle practices, and behaviors also includes not only your chosen practices but other legal practices as well, Smoking, What and how you eat, etc. And has as much merit.

a reply to: rationalconsumer

Good points and I am not arguing.

Perhaps some study of those existing cases would cite the issue.

I will start reading the cases.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: infolurker

i'm saying that GLBTQ+ are PEOPLE that deserve the same protections that Heterosexual PEOPLE get.

the nonsense you are talking about, is well, nonsense that has nothing to do with the actual conversation

Darth ----- you need an award for patience.

here ya go!

a reply to: infolurker

in 31 States people can legally get fired for being Gay,Lesbian,Bisexual,Transgender,Queer and +(meaning other orientations and identities)

you can't get legally fired just for being Heterosexual

in 31 States (maybe more?) it's Legal to deny Services and Property to Gay,Lesbian,Bisexual,Transgender,Queer and +(meaning other orientations and identities)

You can't get denied Services or Property just for being Heterosexual

Gay and Bisexual Men Can't Donate Blood

Heterosexual People Can

Some States don't allow Same-Sex Adoption

Heterosexuals can legally Adopt

Should i go on, those are the protections that are Granted to Heterosexual People, everything else you mention like "Smoking" has nothing to do with Sexuality or Gender Identity

GLBTQ+ who are People just like Heterosexuals are not granted those protections

a reply to: Annee

Oh.. i'm honored.. i wasn't prepared with a speech.. so i guess, i would like to thank everyone

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Here is what looks like the latest submitted bill in Congress.

It is in a "referred to Subcommittee" status and apparently died with the new Congress.

It would need to be re-submitted to be debated further.

Read it over and see whats involved.

The full text is under the "text" tab above the "Summary" section on the page linked.


H.R.1755 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)

a reply to: xuenchen

The ENDA has been submitted to Congress numerous times and has been dismissed each time.

We can fight for each step like this and Marriage etc. but i would rather just get complete protection as a Protected Class for the entire US

a reply to: Darth_Prime

Very well.

Fight for it and don't give up.

"Protected Class" would be achieved how?

Does that bill not do that?

Again, I am not arguing against anything.

a reply to: xuenchen

That bill is for the Workplace, unless i read it wrong?

I've been trying to figure out the steps to becoming a protected class as well, i mean States can deny us Services and Housing among others things, i believe it's a Civil Rights issue because they don't include sexual orientation or gender identity in existing civil rights statutes.

a reply to: Darth_Prime

OK, now I understand.

So they need to amend existing laws?