slug.com slug.com

5 2

LINK Supreme Court Rules Gay Workers Protected From Job Discrimination

"The Supreme Court handed a big win to the LGBT community Monday, ruling in a 6-3 decision that an employer who fires a worker for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act -- which already protected people from employer sex discrimination, as well as discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin."

This is a big win, and a great moment in US history.

JacksonNought 8 June 15
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Rights are won with blood, not wishful thinking....

0

One of the head honchos of gay groups in America said that he thought it was a disgrace that gays had to use the marriage ruse to try to get acceptance in America, when most of them are not interested in Marriage. What in hell do you think the word "gay" means....

0

It's all deviance but I know you will not accept that. You must think all of this is something new? See comparative religions, humans don't change....

You're entitled to your opinion. But you aren't allowed to deny people rights based on it.

0

OK OK Next on the sexual docket, coming soon bestiality. It's already here. The left media constantly tries to equate dogs and animals with human tendencies that they do not have. The suckers buy it up too. I bet there must be almost as many dogs in the country as people. That is why you know the mystery virus was a hoax as both people and animals were not greatly affected by it.

I don't understand your comment. So saying you cannot fire a person simply because they are gay is equal to bestiality? Did you hurt your back with how far you just reached?

And you do understand that viruses can affect different species in different ways, and some species can't get certain viruses?

0

Personally, I have no interest or quarrel with someone’s “tendencies” in the Workplace.
What I hope is that it is recognized that what a person’s actions are in the workplace ... specifically if it includes “Acting Out” their “tendencies” ... May, Could and Should result in Termination.

Regardless of Race, Creed, Tendencies or Any Other Consideration, an Employee should be required to act in a Professional and Appropriate Manner as befits the Task or Job being Performed.

I acknowledge that every job has different parameters ... different requirements ... but, if at Any Time an Employee acts in a manner that Damages or Degrades the Company or the Performance of the Task, there is NO Excuse Possible ... NO Reason that is Acceptable ... to “Force” the Company to maintain that Employee’s Position.

What exactly do you mean by "acting out"? A lot of people criticize this by saying that they shouldn't have someone's sexuality shoved in their face - but they ignore the fact that there are a lot of subtle instances of someone's sexuality being displayed in the workplace. If a man has a picture of his wife and kids on his desk, his is displaying his sexuality. If a woman discusses her recent vacation with her husband, she is displaying her sexuality. If a man has a picture of his husband on his desk, would you consider that "acting out" and therefore not professional?

When I think of "acting out" I think of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior, which can be displayed by any orientation or identity.

@JacksonNought
If I have to explain “Acting Out” to you perhaps you could explain “Inappropriate Behavior” to me since I see both terms as being synonymous.

Actually, I think I was pretty clear in clarifying my position in the last paragraph of my post.

@Bay0Wulf I would just like to hear what your interpretation of acting out is? Do you agree with my interpretation?

@JacksonNought
“Do you agree with my interpretation?” No.

“Regardless of Race, Creed, Tendencies or Any Other Consideration, an Employee should be required to act in a Professional and Appropriate Manner as befits the Task or Job being Performed.

I acknowledge that every job has different parameters ... different requirements ... but, if at Any Time an Employee acts in a manner that Damages or Degrades the Company or the Performance of the Task, there is NO Excuse Possible ... NO Reason that is Acceptable ... to “Force” the Company to maintain that Employee’s Position.”

What did I miss? I don’t care about the display of “pictures on the desk”. I care about the way the Employee interacts with a Client or Customer. I care about whether the Task or Job is done in a Professional Manner.

@Bay0Wulf okay, we agree on professionalism. I still am just curious what you mean by someone acting out their tendencies. Can you give an example?

@JacksonNought
No. You’re either being a deliberate Devil’s Advocate, deliberately obtuse or ... you’re a NitWit (which I doubt to be true).
I’m finished with this conversation with you.

@Bay0Wulf I don't see why you can't just give me a straight answer?

@JacksonNought BayOWulf did give you a straight answer.

I had a boss once who was gay. Someone had to tell me so because I had no idea from his behavior. Likewise, at another job there were two lesbian girlfriends working there. I didn't know they were lesbians or partners... After I found out I suppose I could point to certain interactions between each other. But there was nothing blatant and they were both well liked and did their jobs well.
Then one day they hired an obvious dyke. Don't care if that term is offensive - that's precisely what she was. She made sure everyone knew she was a lesbian, and seemed to challenge anyone to call her on her crudeness. I mean, seriously, this was a place where just about anything could be discussed and joked about. No one cared if she was a lesbian. But she had to push it your face at every chance.

She didn't last long. Her "acting out" made her so un-liked and unlikeable that the employees basically drove her out.

@Tycho I disagree, there was no real answer. All I asked was their definition of acting out. Is it running around the office waving rainbow flags? Is it wearing tshirts saying "GAY" in the office? Or is it just not hiding your sexuality because you refer to your partner / spouse or have pictures that make it known you have a same-sex partner?

You say someone was hired who was an "obvious dyke" - how so? Did they wear less feminine clothes or act less feminine or have short hair or something? How did she make sure everyone knew she was a lesbian?

Would you apply this to straight people who acted out in a similar way? For example, a man who keeps talking about his female "conquests"?

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:104394
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.