Does a National Employment Non-Discrimination Act Have Merit

a reply to: xuenchen

I'm not exactly sure honestly, i don't know if they could just Grant GLBTQ+ as a Federally protected Class, or if it would have to be written into each state

a reply to: Darth_Prime

here's some info ..

Protected class

a reply to: xuenchen

Thanks, i've been doing a lot of research on it and talked about it with a couple people here already, i wonder if it can be a Grassroots lead effort, or if we have to wait for the organizations like HRC or GLADD etc

Whether it's a choice, or you're born that way, I don't care if someone is heterosexual or homosexual. The problem I have is when people state that people are born that way, as if science has figured it out.

I thought this was still up for debate.

Is Homosexuality Genetic?

Or is there a study that shows more already. Because even though this study shows more proof that it is genetic, it is still incomplete.

Or did I miss something?

Like I said, either way, I could care less who you sleep with.

a reply to: xuenchen

The main issue I have come to realize from these types of laws and always adding in certain groups as the next letter in an acronym is added does two things:

1. It sometimes stops the actual best candidate from getting the job due to fear of perception and lawsuit, and

2. It will always leave the next group out and "need" updated again and again and again, which wastes our legislators time and effort, and our tax dollars.

Here's a thought--if this really is necessary (which I don't think it is), scrap all versions that currently exist and write one that simply says, "No employer or person may discriminate against any job applicant for reasons other than skills pertaining to the job for which he/she is applying."

Boom. Done. It will never need to be updated.

Next?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Makes sense.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's not just Jobs though, it's being denied services and housing/property among other things, maybe that would fix the workplace but apart from that we would need to be a federally protected class

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's not just Jobs though, it's being denied services and housing/property among other things, maybe that would fix the workplace but apart from that we would need to be a federally protected class

This thread is specifically titled "Does a National Employment Non-Discrimination Act Have Merit," so that is what I discussed.

But we also have the Constitution, like in the 14th Amendment, which states in Section I:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We don't need laws specifying groups of people who cannot be discriminated against--it's already there, in the supreme law of the land. It just needs to be enforced better, not specified by groups that will needed to be constantly updated.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's not just Jobs though, it's being denied services and housing/property among other things, maybe that would fix the workplace but apart from that we would need to be a federally protected class

Yes, LGBTQ need to be included as a federally protected class. Period!

I'm old enough to have experienced what happened before the Fair Housing Act.

I'm from an all white middle class Christian neighborhood. I experienced first hand the extreme measures a neighborhood will go to to keep "undesirables" out. At that time it was Jews and blacks.

They formed a neighborhood committee. Anyone renting or selling had to be approved by this committee. That included all local realtors. Background checks were done on any prospective renter/buyer.

So, then counter committees were created by Equality groups and realtors outside the area. They would have a white Christian couple present as the buyer/renter ---- but the real couple would be a black activist couple. They'd stay about a year, then resale to another black couple. Then we'd have "white fright", homes going up for sale enmasse.

Do we really need to be this stupid again?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Employment Non-Discrimination has been an issue in the U.S. for decades.

Congresses have introduced legislation that has always been defeated or tabled or killed in Committees.

Citing the fact that an LGBT classification has apparently been omitted in laws addressing discrimination begs the question why.

Perhaps now that the Supreme Court has "certified" marriage legal between any 2 people, Congress can better justify a National law.

Many employers have already made non-discrimination policies that include the LGBT and obviously it works (subject to any cited law suits).

Perhaps some questions before were about "proof". Proof like authenticating somebody is actually in the LGBT group and would justify the right to sue.

Now maybe that "proof" is available with a marriage license issued by a government agency.

Common government certificates like birth certificates and drivers licenses and passports usually don't document any LGBT status.

Compare all the current laws and see if anything includes LGBT status.


There are powerful Lobby groups on both sides of this issue.

Who has the "advantage" after last week's Supreme Court ruling?

Who has the funding "advantage"?


Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers


Employment Non-Discrimination Act - Legislative activity

Well ?

Not only no, but Hell no. The current well-meaning laws have created a cottage industry of lawsuits with lawyers going around looking to create lawsuits and one cannot fire a member of any "protected class" for any reason very easily regardless the reason why they are fired.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

We don't need laws specifying groups of people who cannot be discriminated against--it's already there, in the supreme law of the land. It just needs to be enforced better, not specified by groups that will needed to be constantly updated.

Words vs action.

In reality, as in real everyday living, obviously we do need specific groups included as Federally protected in non-discrimination.

a reply to: NavyDoc

But we are not a protected class, so people can fire us.. so you don't agree that GLBTQ+ people should be a protected class?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Right, but wouldn't it be easier to just get us federally protected class that would encompass it all and we wouldn't have to fight for each one individually?

and since it's already in the constitution why did we have to fight so long for Marriage, and when we finally got it people are complaining it's infringing upon their state rights...

i mean i agree we should all be equally protected

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Not only no, but Hell no. The current well-meaning laws have created a cottage industry of lawsuits with lawyers going around looking to create lawsuits and one cannot fire a member of any "protected class" for any reason very easily regardless the reason why they are fired.

Have you ever been discrimated against? If so, let's hear your story.

Obviously we still need non-discrimination and protected minorities.

If we're still having discrimination lawsuits ---- we aren't there yet. We aren't grown up enough to treat people equally on our own.

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?

As far as hiring in this state no one can be discriminated against. As far as firing in this state ANYONE can be fired at any time for any or no reason at all. No one has special status out of that. If special classes are made, persons in those classes will be able to really toss their weight around to the point when they should be fired, for any number of reasons unrelated to their special status, wont be fired......because they are special. Real pain in the ass right there let me tell you.

Gays can just get their crybaby azzes in line with everybody else in these case. They are already likely to cry foul, when fired, based on their sexuality even when its because they are a pain. How many gay business owners or folks in position to do so in same owned, would not hire someone because they are (fill in the blank) if they are presented with these facts? Anyway gays like anyone should have to fall back on the content of their character rather than special standing.....which will certainly guarantee that they will NEVER be fired for ANY reason when they should be fired.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Right, but wouldn't it be easier to just get us federally protected class that would encompass it all and we wouldn't have to fight for each one individually?

and since it's already in the constitution why did we have to fight so long for Marriage, and when we finally got it people are complaining it's infringing upon their state rights...

i mean i agree we should all be equally protected

I guess that my only answer would be that, since marriage isn't specifically mentioned in our Constitution, that the buck was passed to the states per the 10th Amendment. That said, I think that was just laziness, and civil rights should apply to all Americans and the governments (both state and federal) should feel free to stay the hell out of the marriage business, which should be a private affair between the two parties and person legally able to validate the union (which should be handled at the local municipality level). Other than that, no one should have a say as long as it's between two consenting adults.

Everything done after the ratification of the Constitution will always have some people screaming about state's rights, but there are some things that transcend the state, and equal application of civil rights across the board is one of those, IMO.

My point is that all citizens are an equally protected class, so specifying sub-groups of citizenry just creates more problems than it solves.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

Not only no, but Hell no. The current well-meaning laws have created a cottage industry of lawsuits with lawyers going around looking to create lawsuits and one cannot fire a member of any "protected class" for any reason very easily regardless the reason why they are fired.

Have you ever been discrimated against? If so, let's hear your story.

Obviously we still need non-discrimination and protected minorities.

If we're still having discrimination lawsuits ---- we aren't there yet. We aren't grown up enough to treat people equally on our own.

Yes, I have. I was told that if I was black or Hispanic, an Euro-Asian half-breed not apply, I could get into university on scholarship both for my undergraduate and medical school. Since I was not a "protected class" and of the wrong ethnic persuasion, both times I had to retreat, take night classes, get my grades up and re-apply. Had I been black or Hispanic, not only would I have been accepted at my original grades, I would have qualified for scholarships.

Any further racist questions?

originally posted by: Annee
Words vs action.

In reality, as in real everyday living, obviously we do need specific groups included as Federally protected in non-discrimination.

I obviously disagree--we just need better enforcement (and interpretation) of the Constitution.

In reality, thought, it's a tough subject that will never have an end to the debate--I also feel that if you start a private company from the ground up, you should have the final say in who gets hired for whatever reason. But that said, if you are an absolute bigot, it should be made known and let the local society's money run that person out of business for being unethical.

But in this modern era of immediate gratification, people don't seem to be willing to let natural selection run its course in businesses like that.

Rights exist all across the board, to include owners of businesses, so where one's rights trump another's is a very delicate tight rope that we're always walking. Our nation has fallen off the rope more than once.

a reply to: NavyDoc

No no...haven't you heard, that's only "reverse discrimination," so it doesn't count.

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NavyDoc

But we are not a protected class, so people can fire us.. so you don't agree that GLBTQ+ people should be a protected class?

I think that the government should treat every citizen equally.

I think that the government should not force accommodation on private citizens.

I think discrimination against GLBT(whatever) is silly--I've partnered with a lesbian couple in a business, not because they are lesbians not because they are not lesbians but because they are aggressive businesswomen with a kick ass idea and a strong work ethic (the fact that they are gun-toting free market capitalists help) but, OTOH, I don't like the government telling me who I can or cannot do business with.