A law only means what a judge says it means, not what it actually says.
Well, I’m sad to say I called it on Gorsuch. I was duped on Roberts.
Anyway, Leonard Leo has spent his whole career trying to prevent these sorts of things and this is a spectacular failure for him. I feel bad.
It’s clear, now that most of us are old, that we shouldn’t have relied upon on the Leonard Leos to save this country. Probably too late to save the country. Still, a Plan B is in order.
Go ahead, Billyboy.
I’m a business owner, and I could care less what you are if you show up, do your job and don’t make politics, religion or your queerness an issue with others here.
If you do I’ll let you go, period.
I’ll just have to document it very well, but we are an at will state, so pretty much hire and fire as required. I won’t deny you unemployment or try to cheat you out of what you’re entitled to, but I have to think about the whole and if you’re making everyone else upset, then goodbye.
The key is catching them before they create a problem, and that is why a good interview is important these days. Fortunately I own a tool and die / mold shop so it seems to be a trade that doesn’t attract alphabet entities much,
Ping
I increasingly see the Federalist Society as controlled opposition.
Alito might be the last legitimately conservative Justice who has slipped through:
https://reason.com/2019/05/13/kavanaugh-v-gorsuch/
While Pubbies tend to campaign on appointing a Thomas or Scalia, they go more for the Roberts model in reality.
You fire someone because they don’t do their job. They sue for discrimination. How do you prove it?
The lawyers are drooling.
So day care centers, for instance, will now have to employ men who cut their !@(*#s off and prance around like they’re women because the “law” says so? And have those freaks “take care” of our children because a bunch of rich, elitist POS lawyers on the “Supreme Court” want to appear “fair and balanced” to their cocktail party buddies? Blank THAT.
Clearly, the leftists don’t give a damn about the law these days. In cases like this, I think it’s about time our side starts thinking the same.
If we’re going to have employment discrimination laws at all, then I think a law prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is probably good policy. But that is clearly not the law Congress passed.
Gorsuch glosses over some pretty major logical gaps in his attempt to interpret “because of such individual’s . . . sex” to mean “because of such individual’s sexual orientation,” while pretending to be a textualist. Pretty disappointed in him.
It is not an issue about "being." It is about behavior. LGBT is about sexual exhibitionism. Otherwise, how would anyone know if someone identifies as LGBT.
If a kindergarten teacher crossdresses at home, no one cares. If he does a drag show for the kids, he should be fired.
The inability to fire a bad employee is and will be the downfall of us. No matter how bad they are, if they claim race, sex, sex confusion, you won’t be able to fire them.
This decision is wrong, and breaks constitutional protections. I fail to see how “homosexuality” is anything, especially how it represents a gender under the cited federal law. Homosexuality is the sexual behavior which some people practice. Every day we discriminate on the basis of behavior. Our criminal laws discriminate on the basis of behavior. But somehow we’re not allowed to discriminate for this particular behavior?
Bullshit.
While I’m sensitive to the notion of the court acting as a Legislative body and I appreciate Alito’s dissent in that spirit, I think the SCOTUS made the right call in this instance.
In this day and age, civil rights are human rights. Who anyone chooses to love or sleep with should not be a factor in the eyes of the law. That sort of prejudice, which is all that it is, runs counter to the guiding principles of equal protection under the law and the notion of due process.
This decision doesn’t force employers to do anything. It prevents them from firing employees already acting in that capacity based solely upon sexual orientation. This shouldn’t have needed to be done. Our humanity and compassion should not have needed this sort of check and balance.
The fact of the matter remains, that if someone is so closed minded, prejudiced and hateful as to fire someone simply because they are gay, then chances are that same person will easily fabricate a bonafide reason to fire that same person.
I think SCOTUS got it right.
Disappointing since it doesn’t follow the Bible.
I don’t get it, weren’t they already covered by being
either men or women???
The more delineations, the more loopholes you end up with.
A green light for “in your face” flaunting.
“For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,
And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another—men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.”
(New Testament, Romans 1: 26,27)
A private investigator should find out what kind of blackmail the left has on Roberts and expose it so that he can no longer be blackmailed into submission.
you can still,fire people if business income can’t support them all
or everyone’s an independent contractor.