Posted on 04/22/2019 7:41:26 AM PDT by C19fan
Imagine you hire a bright young professional to manage your sales team, and he shows up for work in heels, mini-skirt , lipstick, and a cheap wig. The hairy legs and 3 day beard really sets off the outfit.
Can you fire him? If liberals get their way you will just have to let your business be destroyed a fruit.
“..forbids employment discrimination based on sex.”
The trouble with those kinds of laws is that laws are supposed to be based on facts and actions, not attitudes.
Claiming discrimination based on sex can only be subjectively assigned, not objectively determined. Sort of like what the democrats are doing with the obstruction charges against Trump. No actions can be nailed down, so obstruction is grandly assigned as a substitute.
There may be a few exceptions but all-encompassing laws should not have as their foundations possible exceptions.
As an employer, I do not want people who show signs of serious mental illness either working in my shop or representing me to customers and the public.
I never know when, or if, one of these people is going to go from trying to fit in to being a complete in your face idiot. So, I choose not to have them.
Here is an example of "creative interpretation" of the law. Do you think the congress was intending to prevent discrimination against homosexuals in 1964? I think we were still locking them up in mental institutions in those days.
I assume you have some familiarity with the zeitgeist of the 1964 era?
My employers consider me a good employee. This does not mean that they would not fire me if they decided I was mentally unstable, or if my behavior made other employees sufficiently uncomfortable as to be damaging to the work environment.
I have no doubt that SCOTUS will rule that way, however. Because penumbras.
Ping to "x".
Seriously? Homosexuality would get you involuntarily confined in a state mental institution in the 1950s. It wasn't until 1973 that it was removed from the list of mental disorders, and even then it was only removed because the @ueers got together and threatened the members of the APA.
There is no way on God's green earth that anyone in 1964 intended to protect F@ggots from discrimination. They were trying to lock them up for crying out loud!
Congress would have put in the right words back in 1964 except that there were no gays or trannies back then.
I can’t say whether the law was intended to cover gay or transgender folks, but as a philosophical matter there ought not be bias against these folks unless it would affect their ability to perform the job.
I don’t believe in transgender. We should accept people the way they are and not encourage them to surgically “switch to the opposite” because it isn’t even successful 50% of the time (contentment).
But no one should be discriminated against for hiring because of sexual orientation or how closely they appear to match their biological gender. If the job depends on one gender, that is different. I can discriminate on hiring help for mom by gender because she doesn’t want a male nurse dressing or bathing her, for an example.
Ouch, she must be made of corduroy.
Roberts voted against gay marriage. This would be a great vehicle for returning marriage decisions to the states. We can expect nothing of the sort to happen however.
Transgender women and men are at high risk for getting HIV. According to current estimates, about 1 in 7 (14%) transgender women have HIV, and the percentage is much higher among black/African American (44%) and Hispanic/Latina (26%) transgender women.* An estimated 3% of transgender men have HIV. - cdc@service.govdelivery.com
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The NY Times is sidestepping the real issue.
From related threads …
More specifically, probably many FReepers know that the first thing that the Supreme Court needs to do when it examines any federal law is to make sure that the states have expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make the law.
Doing so is a very important constitutional check, the post-FDR Supreme Court probably ignoring (imo) that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that powers that the states haven’t expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, who needs the Supreme Court's opinion when probably many patriots, at least FReepers, can identify major constitutional problems with the Civil Rights Act?
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [emphasis added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
"The law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [??? emphasis added], forbids employment discrimination based on sex."
In this case, two major constitutional problems can be found with the Democratic vote-winning, unconstitutional, post-17th Amendment Civil Rights Act of 1964 imo.
The first problem is the only constitutional power that the states have expressly given to the feds to make laws that protect citizens on the basis of sex is the voting rights-related 19th Amendment.
19th Amendment:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
And since the Civil Rights Act addresses sex-related issues outside the scope of voting rights, without even mentioning the second major constitutional problem with that act, it's already dead in the water imo.
Post-17th Amendment ratification career lawmakers probably made the act to win the votes of low-information voters, voters who have likely never been taught about the fed's constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
The second major constitutional problem with the Civil Rights Act is this. The states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to oversee and make policy for private businesses, the 10th Amendment (10A) indicating that private businesses are state power issues.
Although it is now politically correct to widely interpret the Commerce Clause (1.8.3) to justify the feds sticking their big noses in to the affairs of private businesses, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never expressly given the feds such powers.
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
But not having express constitutional authority to regulate businesses did not stop FDR's corrupt majority justices from using their "magic reading glasses" to find powers for the likewise corrupt Congress to regulate businesses "hidden" in the Constitution's Commerce Clause (1.8.3) when they wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress's favor imo.
In fact, using inappropriate terms like "concept" and "implicit" here is what was left of the 10A after state sovereignty-ignoring justices got finished with it in that case.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
The remedy for unconstitutionally big federal government …
Patriots need to support PDJT by electing new patriot lawmakers in the 2020 elections, lawmakers who will not only promise to support PDJT's vision for MAGA, but will also promise to remove all constitutionally indefensible federal laws from the books.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA!
Pretty clearly they weren't.
But what does that have to do with decisions against slavery two centuries earlier?
So let me ask you: was the Supreme Court right to end racial segregation in education?
No hurry. Take your time with that one.
Yes, thank you. A clear, objective answer on that one.
But what does that have to do with decisions against slavery two centuries earlier?
You do not see the parallel here?
Massachusetts constitution borrows some phrasing from the Declaration of Independence, which was clearly not meant to address the issue of slavery. Courts decide to interpret what most people took to be verbal decoration as actual law, and expand the scope to the fullest extent possible.
1964 civil rights act was created expressly to insure equal rights for blacks. Homosexuals were considered mentally ill and locked up.
Later day courts want to apply the 1964 laws created to protect blacks to transgenders and other forms of queerness.
Both examples of courts interpreting laws in a manner that was completely inconsistent with the intent of the laws creators.
So let me ask you: was the Supreme Court right to end racial segregation in education?
Not a topic on which i've given a great deal of thought, but if I recall correctly, you are referring to the Brown vs the Board of education ruling.
M recollection is that Thurgood Marshall was not putting forth very good legal arguments, but eventually swayed the court on the basis of his emotional arguments.
Somehow the 1898 court decided on this "separate but equal" ruling, and it would seem to me that was the original mistake. The 14th amendment clearly never meant there to be two separate systems of law, nor two separate systems of societal existence.
Why did the Fuller court pull this weird ruling out of their @$$? Real Politick. They knew they could never enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment, and so to avoid looking impotent, and perhaps even getting the amendment repealed if they had tried to enforce it, they punted.
It probably worked out for the best in the long run, but it was clearly inconsistent with the will of Congress in 1868 when they created that amendment.
Of course, if it weren't for the fact that the Southern states were mere puppets of Washington DC at this time, the 14 amendment would have never passed in the first place. I also think Plessy v Ferguson reflected the reality in the North and the South at that particular time.
So was Brown v Board of education decided correctly? I don't know, because I can't do all the weird "precedent" logic for which the courts are known so very well, but I can tell you that Plessy v Ferguson was decided absolutely wrong, and had it gone the other way as it should have done, there never would have been a Brown v Board of education case.
I think that answers your question, but I don't think you really wanted an answer. I think you just wanted to set me up for some sort of moral opprobrium because you thought I was going to say black people don't deserve equal rights.
Of course they do. They always did, but as i've said, morality is not always the law, even though the law should always reflect the morality of society's Christian foundation.
When it doesn't, i'm not going to lie about it and pretend a law created to do one particular thing, really meant to do something it was never intended to do.
These behaviors violate the tenets of both scriptural Judaism and scriptural Christianity. If they are legalized with no exceptions, religions will be forced to hire their pastors and staff accordingly, even if it gave them mortal fear for their salvation.
This is wrong. It would be like forcing Kosher delis to prepare pork because pork-lovers would be offended otherwise.
I do not think the government should meddle in religion. There is a difference to me in hiring for a religious position and a janitor in the church, say.
And remember that legally, we are speaking of orientation and self-identity. Not behavior. You could be homosexual, and yet completely celibate, like that guy on the fashion show, Tim Gunn.
My dear FRiend, if you believe that, I have a bridge to Hawaii to sell you.
Call me gullible too. Whether or not someone can do the job for you is what’s important.
As if being a janitor is less in His eyes? You need to rethink. Take it up with God, since it is He and not you who makes the moral law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.