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

a reply to: network dude

Perhaps I did. You said this:

If you change something and it affects your ability to do your job correctly, then you need to adapt or find a new job. it's not personal, it's business.

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?

Why would you want to fire anyone for this? You can make people quit and it’s easier and saves money. This is no big deal.

The other problem with this ruling is that it sets a precedent for gender identity to mean sex in Federal Law. That undermines the recent ruling protecting the girls who sued over discrimination in athletics where they were forced to compete against biological boys merely because they identified as girls.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

Perhaps I did. You said this:

If you change something and it affects your ability to do your job correctly, then you need to adapt or find a new job. it's not personal, it's business.

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?

I don't know. I used to do plant electrical work. Wearing loose clothing or rings was a bad idea. A ring could get hung on something and rip off your finger, and loose clothing could get caught up on machinery and get you hurt. So you had to think about things like that when you were doing your job. Mostly common sense.

But with your question, I don't know, perhaps you could clarify what you don't understand. I think what I said was pretty clear. not that it matters, but I'm agreeing that being confused about your gender is not reason to be fired. Be anything or anyone you want to be, as long as you can do your job and your choices don't reflect negatively with regard to your job.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

pathetic that it even had to be ajudicated.

originally posted by: ketsuko
The other problem with this ruling is that it sets a precedent for gender identity to mean sex in Federal Law. That undermines the recent ruling protecting the girls who sued over discrimination in athletics where they were forced to compete against biological boys merely because they identified as girls.

I think you're mistaken.

The ruling is fairly narrow, like the "Hobby Lobby" case.

a reply to: Gryphon66

But since a precedent now exists, it can be used to strengthen the case that "sex" now also means "gender identity" in Federal Laws anywhere and everywhere. If it does in one, why not in others? What's the difference and why? What words where is the rationale and who decides?

Getting pretty darn arbitrary at this point.

a reply to: network dude

Rings are not unique to either women or men. There are obviously circumstances in which rings should not be worn.

It seems we both agree there is no circumstance in which a given employee's gender could make a difference in and of itself so it's a moot point.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

But since a precedent now exists, it can be used to strengthen the case that "sex" now also means "gender identity" in Federal Laws anywhere and everywhere. If it does in one, why not in others? What's the difference and why? What words where is the rationale and who decides?

Getting pretty darn arbitrary at this point.

That's not the way a "narrow ruling" works. This ruling applies only to Title VII issues.

I can't answer your "could it possibly happen somewhere sometime" queries.

What's arbitrary? Don't treat people differently based on matters that have no effect.

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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mtnshredder

Sadly, for many fundamentalist Christians, LGBT issues usually rank right behind abortion-choice issues in importance.

It's a losing proposition in the long-run, and there's a heckuva lot better things we all need to be worried about.

Yeah, for the most part true but that perception is changing in the religious communities as well as public perception in general. Heck, we have gay pastors nowadays. I think it’s a conundrum for many religions as many of the people in said religions accept the lifestyle choices of others, yet, their religion is telling them it’s unacceptable.🤔

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mtnshredder

Sadly, for many fundamentalist Christians, LGBT issues usually rank right behind abortion-choice issues in importance.

It's a losing proposition in the long-run, and there's a heckuva lot better things we all need to be worried about.

Yeah, for the most part true but that perception is changing in the religious communities as well as public perception in general. Heck, we have gay pastors nowadays. I think it’s a conundrum for many religions as many of the people in said religions accept the lifestyle choices of others, yet, their religion is telling them it’s unacceptable.🤔

I think most people are at the point where it's like most other sins -- you can't stop people from doing what they're going to do. We all sin. Sin is unacceptable but still happens and we all do it.

In most cases, divorce and the subsequent remarriage aren't correct either.

a reply to: igloo

This is what employers will do, regardless of law and sometimes I can't blame them. Happened to me several times because I have severe ADHD and some learning disabilities (I wasn't diagnosed at the time) even though I should be protected by law. I was mad as hell at the times it happened but, truth is, the jobs were too high stress and I was disorganized, forgetful, chaotic due to having these disabilities. There were better people for the job and that is the bottom line in business. Gender, sex, and sexual orientation should never be an issue though but some employers are not that evolved. Times are changing, albeit a bit slow.

Yes, times are a changing! But there's hope that it's for the better.

My son found himself in a somewhat similar situation when one of his employees (who happens to be transgender), was having a difficult time in a customer-facing position. My son didn't want to lose this employee, because they were a willing and eager worker, but got too flustered sometimes with customers. So my son offered them a position in the kitchen, where they didn't have to deal directly with customers. It's worked out well!

I know that isn't always possible for employers to do, but I think employers will continue to find and create ways to keep good employees when and where they can. At least good employers will! And if they're just crappy employers, then the employees are probably better off finding another position anyway.

originally posted by: Boadicea
And if they're just crappy employers, then the employees are probably better off finding another position anyway.

^THIS.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude

Rings are not unique to either women or men. There are obviously circumstances in which rings should not be worn.

It seems we both agree there is no circumstance in which a given employee's gender could make a difference in and of itself so it's a moot point.

none that I can think of. I cringe when I see two dudes kissing. It's just not my thing. But it's also not my business. As long as they don't try to kiss me. They can kiss and I can cringe. Everyone wins.

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.

a reply to: network dude

Different strokes.

Although, if I had two employees of any persuasion kissing at my front desk, we'd have problems, LOL.

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.

LOL.

Good for the goose?

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.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Good for the goose?

A very appropriate double standard.