One Two Punch! DOJ Moves to Undermine Gay Rights in the Work Place

aaannnnddd this is precisely why I made the thread I did

also why is the government telling you who you can hire and why??

why isn't this in the hands of the free market??

stop trying to tell me how to run my business if you don't like it don't purchase my products simple

Give them desk jobs.
I would not want to go into a hot zone with a bunch of poofs.
Maybe some tough ass men trapped in women's bodies, but not the other way around.
Judge my opinion as you will.

Why do gays want special concessions?

I thought they wanted equal rights?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

So liking big women is a civil rights issue!!!

I think sexual preference is a civil rights issue.

Do you think that ios clever, to point out that sex (as in male or female) is in the phrase sexual preference.

Wow.

So we allow people of various sexes in public, therefore we must also allow SEX in public, because they are the same word.

Surely you are better than that.

I find it curious how quick people are to belittle the actual civil rights movement by claiming everything is the same.

So yep, you are right, those of us that like big women have suffered just like blacks did.

You are sounding pretty ridiculous right now.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

So liking big women is a civil rights issue!!!

I think sexual preference is a civil rights issue.

If sexual preference was a civil rights issue, than all preference needs to be included, including pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, etc.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

So liking big women is a civil rights issue!!!

I think sexual preference is a civil rights issue.

While I don't agree with discrimination based on sexual preference in all cases I do believe sometimes it is well within an employers rights. For example if I were an employer and chose not to hire someone based on their sexual preference for children or farm animals I don't believe too many people would have arguments for that. However if your opinion that sexual preference is indeed covered by civil rights statutes I would be forced by law to hire them. Unless these laws are changed to include some groups of particular sexual preferences and to exclude others currently they all fall under the same umbrella and the point is moot.

a reply to: Grambler

Sexual preference doesn't go hand and hand with public displays of affection in the work place, and that isn't what Title VII is all about.

If a man can have sex with a woman, and not risk his job, then a woman can also have sex with a woman, and her job "is" protected under Title VII.

That's my argument and I'm sticking with it.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

For example if I were an employer and chose not to hire someone based on their sexual preference for children or farm animals I don't believe too many people would have arguments for that.

I don't believe that American Civil Rights laws include protections of criminal activity or animal cruelty. I'm talking about 2 consenting adults.

A woman's love for another woman is not comparable to pedophilia or bestiality, therefore, your argument is moot.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

For example if I were an employer and chose not to hire someone based on their sexual preference for children or farm animals I don't believe too many people would have arguments for that.

I don't believe that American Civil Rights laws include protections of criminal activity or animal cruelty. I'm talking about 2 consenting adults.

A woman's love for another woman is not comparable to pedophilia or bestiality, therefore, your argument is moot.

In some people's books it is comparable to both, though not mine personally. And in many states homosexuality is still illegal with many laws against it- just as illegal as pedophilia and bestiality. Just because they are not comparable in your opinion or mine does not mean that they are not comparable per many, many state laws.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

In some people's books it is comparable to both

People used to have the same sentiment about interracial marriages. Some still do. But the Supreme Court ruled on interracial marriage as it ruled on same sex marriages.

a reply to: Grambler

Have a look at the DoJ's amicus curiae brief here.

The thrust of their argument is that "sex" in Title VII shouldn't be interpreted to include sexual orientation and that it is the intent of successive US Congresses that it not be because though they have amended it, they have not done so to expand protection based on sexual orientation.

Let's not kid ourselves, on the part of the DoJ, this is strictly conservative appointees trying to remove protection against discrimination from people based on sexual orientation. Their interest here isn't about abstract notions of the law and the proper roles of the legislature and the judiciary.

While I accept the merit of the arguments as they are technically compelling, the motivation behind the brief is as horrible as it is obvious and the criticism of the DoJ, this administration and President Trump are all well deserved.

Applying the logic of the DoJ's arguments, the fact that they are seeking to sway this case against the expanded interpretation while the administration does nothing to coerce Congress to fix Title VII is tacit disagreement with the necessity of protecting we the people from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Furthermore, in my opinion, it derives from the puritanical and I dare say authoritarian kernel at the heart of conservatism which holds that conservatives are the (self-appointed or in some deluded minds, anointed and empowered by the God of Abraham) gatekeepers of morality and that personal liberty for all is subject to their regressive and illiberal whims.

Maybe Trump, as unlikely as it would appear, will be the one to finally hand enough power over to the Christian Right that socially liberal Republicans will question their association.

A longtime Northeast Democrat with a seemingly liberal progressive daughter, it seems to me that there was a belief among some that at least on social issues, he would not pick up the mantle of the the conservative establishment. (hell, as much as dislike him, I had hope that he wouldn't)

The actions however expose the truth of the matter. And not just in this case. Sessions is similarly refueling the War on Drugs machine. What's the MAGA agenda again? Fill that swamp to capacity and push the GOP platform from the 1980's save Trump's own indifference to the Russians? Jesus. If he had come into a floundering economy, his approval rating would be in the 20s.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler

So liking big women is a civil rights issue!!!

I think sexual preference is a civil rights issue.

Do you think that ios clever, to point out that sex (as in male or female) is in the phrase sexual preference.

Wow.

So we allow people of various sexes in public, therefore we must also allow SEX in public, because they are the same word.

Surely you are better than that.

I find it curious how quick people are to belittle the actual civil rights movement by claiming everything is the same.

So yep, you are right, those of us that like big women have suffered just like blacks did.

You are sounding pretty ridiculous right now.

I was married to a big, fat woman for 18 years and suffered insurmountable emotional damage. I was discriminated against due to me being a skinny white dude.

Think I can sue and the courts would agree in my favor?

Or , would I be laughed at?

a reply to: theantediluvian
I for one lean conservative and am for gay marriage and against the war on drugs.

I think Sessions stance on MJ is bad, and am thoroughly against it.

However, I have a couple points to make on your posts.

First the idea of conservatives being the only group seeking to impose their version of morality; come on, you know better than this.

Progressives have been just as bad trying to enforce their morality; removing flags, screaming racism at anything (like the arrest of Awan), demanding safe spaces, demanding bakeries do as they want, etc.

And no matter what the motivations are from the DOJ, these technicalities matter and are important in the law.

We should not be legislating from the bench. There should be new laws written to protect from discrimination for homosexuals. I would support this legislation.

But it seems as though some on the left want to twist the law to suit their needs and avoid legislation.

The problem is this leaves people vumnerable, as courts can then overturn decision when there makeup changes.

I am afraid liberals are about to get a harsh wake up from using courts for legislation for years, as it appears Trump may get to appoint many more judges.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk

In some people's books it is comparable to both

People used to have the same sentiment about interracial marriages. Some still do. But the Supreme Court ruled on interracial marriage as it ruled on same sex marriages.

Sentiment and law are two entirely separate issues. Laws against interracial marriages were found to be unconstitutional and thereby illegal by the Supreme Court just as laws against homosexual marriages were, however no SC ruling has judged on the legality of discrimination based on sexual preference. Unless that happens sexual preferences of the homosexual nature are not covered by civil rights statutes and state law stands.

Not sure how I feel about this, it seems that rather than amending the law they just reinterpreted it, which left it open for this. I understand the concept, just don't know enough about the original cases to know if there was any real merit to their initial argument. I do know that people will use that excuse even if they are just bad at their job, and employers will simply fire their employees they want for other reasons. More companies will just go back to office relationships as a whole as a fireable offense. At the end of the day it's a shame there is a need for equal rights, best man, woman, or other for the job period. Efficiency is the key to a happy sustainable life, but under the guise of equal rights companies have been forced to make up jobs for people that couldnt contribute to the original tasks of the company. We've become a middleman society and it's destroying our worth and our future.

a reply to: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk


As theantediluvian pointed out in the post above, the argument centers around sexual orientation, not preference. So, arguing preference is a misdirection. The law shouldn't care about sentiment.

Seems, Republican would have us believe that we've put the cart before the horse. The Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual marriages are legal. It's a shame that their protection, and the protection of gay people everywhere, will also have to be decided by the Supreme Court too.

a reply to: windword

it's a shame that you think you have the right to use the government to force business owners how to conduct their business and then allowing the free market to decide weather or not that business owner gets to stay in business or not

a reply to: toysforadults

This issue is about Title VII and how it covers, or doesn't cover, the LGBT community. Businesses will adjust just like they adjusted to every other fandangled change like credit cards and colored people sitting at lunch counters!

This is a worrying development...

LGBT people, no matter what you think of them still need to work an earn to support themselves.

a reply to: Grambler

I for one lean conservative and am for gay marriage and against the war on drugs.

Perhaps you don't necessarily lean as conservative as you might suppose?

First the idea of conservatives being the only group seeking to impose their version of morality; come on, you know better than this.

Progressives have been just as bad trying to enforce their morality; removing flags, screaming racism at anything (like the arrest of Awan), demanding safe spaces, demanding bakeries do as they want, etc.

I had written a very long response addressing each of your examples but I decided not to post it because I don't want to get hung up debating half a dozen things. I don't know that those are really comparable with the possible exception of demanding service from would be discriminators as there is arguably a moral component and there is a conflict between the liberties of both parties. So I'll focus on that one as it also happens to be the most pertinent to the topic.

What is a conservative? By definition, it's somebody who wants to conserve the status quo and favors tradition over change. From my perspective, the common pattern throughout most of US history has been society struggling against conservatism to evolve itself. American progressives (loosely and those in the "Progressive Era") have been wrong. A lot of urban progressives championed prohibition along with rural religious conservatives. Despite the hype, there aren't too many actual communists these days in the US but there was a time when there were and clearly, communism is one of those things that might seem workable in theory but in attempted practice, led to multiple disasters.

But how often have American conservatives been on the wrong side of history?

* slavery
* immigration
* women's suffrage
* segregation
* women's liberation
* freedom of speech
* tolerance of homosexuality
* same sex marriage

Isn't the pattern pretty obvious here? Various groups having to fight for equal rights, equal liberties, equal standing in society with the group that's always had the most rights, the most liberty and the highest socioeconomic standing and by orders of magnitude, the most representation in government.

The only exception is really the labor movement because worker's rights are a pretty universal plight and freedom of speech. Though, as they enjoy benefits progressives fought and bled for — I haven't heard anyone say recently that they'd like a 100 hour work week in squalid, unsafe conditions, working alongside their children for s# wages with no overtime and no breaks — they don't seem to mind s# all over other products of the labor movement and its vestiges (OSHA, NLRB, trade unions, etc).

And free speech? Oh boy. Who wants to apply all the restrictions championed by conservatives at various times? I'd probably be in jail for sedition by now. I'm guessing that the average American isn't at all interested in giving up protections stemming from SCOTUS interpretations of the First Amendment.

But aside from that? A constant struggle for equality with we native born, white, heterosexual, Christian (raised Catholic though I became an atheist in my early teen years) males.

Sure, there's pushy "progressives" who don't act very progressive or liberal but when it comes to denying people their civil liberties in the name of morality? It's not even close.

We should not be legislating from the bench. There should be new laws written to protect from discrimination for homosexuals. I would support this legislation.

But it seems as though some on the left want to twist the law to suit their needs and avoid legislation.

I agree that this is properly a job for Congress but what is the remedy for a Congress that is controlled by a group that favors inequality for a minority group? Just let those millions twist on the vine? At what point do the ends justify the means (the means being the judiciary using an interpretation of an existing law to correct something the legislature won't)?

Is there no point? I'm sure there is for everyone and I'm sure that where individuals gauge that point to be is extremely relative to their own situations. Do our basic human rights and our fundamental civil liberties exist at the whim of the majority of voters? Hell, that's not even the case — in practice, it's often not even a majority of people but rather a majority of gerrymandered districts.

I believe the appropriate phrase here would be the tyranny of the majority with the caveat that it's probably not even the will of the actual majority of people. And what is one of the principal protections against the threat of the tyranny of the majority? Judicial review, something that has been a part of our nation since its inception.