SCOTUS Ruling on LGBTQ+ Protections

Vanity | 6/19/202 | self

[Calvin Cooledge]

The recent ruling by SCOTUS on LGBTQ+ rights has far-reaching, unintended consequences. The court was basically saying, "you wouldn't fire a woman for wearing a dress, so if you fire a man for wearing a dress, you are treating men unfairly."

Here's another scenario. A female employee says "Women are b*tches." The boss takes no action because it's a woman insulting women. A male employee says "Women are b*tches". Now, you can no longer fire that man for sexual harassment, because you would be firing them for something specifically because they are a man.

[Calvin Cooledge]

I think this ruling guts the sexual harassment laws.

[Meatspace]

“A female employee says “Women are b*tches.” The boss takes no action because it’s a woman insulting women. A male employee says “Women are b*tches”.”

Fire them both.

When you are at work, do work and just talk about work.

[faithhopecharity]

abortion, obamacare, open borders, and now this

we have a run-away court

and it is extremely dangerous to USA

extremely dangerous

the USSupremeCourt provoked the 1861 Civil War and now...?

[PapaBear3625]

More than that. If an employer permits black employees to call each other “n word” without consequence, then the employer cannot enforce penalties against white employees for the same thing.

[semimojo]

A female employee says "Women are b*tches." The boss takes no action because it's a woman insulting women.

Why would a boss think it's OK for women to insult women?

It seems he should fire anyone throwing around arbitrary insults at work.

[Calvin Cooledge]

He should not tolerate anyone saying that -- but it's reality. Women are allowed to do and say things that men are not.

[freedumb2003]

>>I think this ruling guts the sexual harassment laws.<<

Also title ix. No more women’s sports programs. Football programs can be regrown to the expense of ugly womens’ sports so long as the tryouts allow women (who would have to shower with the guys).

In fact no more women’s sports AT ALL.

[LeoTDB69]

So if a man gets pregnant, would he get maternity leave or paternity leave?

The simple fact that that question could generate sincere debate among some merely demonstrates what strange times we live in.

[Calvin Cooledge]

I have been advocating that for a while. Eliminate separate men and women’s sports. Just have sports and select only the fastest and strongest.

[freedumb2003]

>>Why would a boss think it’s OK for women to insult women?

It seems he should fire anyone throwing around arbitrary insults at work.<<

That is workplace conduct not sexual harassment. And if it was said confidentially between 2 employees it would not be actionable. Now even if you privately express something like that you will be fired for “creating a hostile work environment” i.e. sexual harassment.

[freedumb2003]

>>I have been advocating that for a while. Eliminate separate men and women’s sports. Just have sports and select only the fastest and strongest.<<

That will vanquish a LOT of ugly women from the sports landscape.

Now what happens with the Olympics I wonder? They still pretend to separate by sex — except when they don’t.

[Salvation]

**we have a run-away court**

The disagreement with the Bible is rampant here. What has happened to the SCOTUS?

[rightwingcrazy]

“When you are at work, do work and just talk about work.”

“Silence is violence”. Your strategy won’t work for much longer.

[Calvin Cooledge]

Here's another example in the workplace.

Woman #1 says to woman #2 "where do you buy your underwear." Perfectly innocent conversation.

Now, man #1 (a normal man) says to woman #2 "where do you buy your underwear." Woman #2 goes to boss and says "he made me uncomfortable. Punish him."

Boss says "he only made you uncomfortable because he is a man. It's illegal to punish him. And by the way, you are wrong for being uncomfortable based solely on his birth sex."

[lurk]

Who would hire a mentally unstable person who might sue?

[Calvin Cooledge]

You are right about that. I filter out the problem candidates at interview time, sometimes based on behavior, sometimes based on their membership in troublesome organizations.

[freedumb2003]

>>Boss says “he only made you uncomfortable because he is a man. It’s illegal to punish him. And by the way, you are wrong for being uncomfortable based solely on his birth sex.”<<

“And I suggest you start wearing more comfortable underwear.” ;)

[freedumb2003]

>>Who would hire a mentally unstable person who might sue?<<

Good luck finding someone who WON’T. Everyone like that is mostly retired.

[semimojo]

That is workplace conduct not sexual harassment.

The SCOTUS ruling was about sexual discrimination, not harassment.

Harassment can be a form of discrimination but hiring/firing was the specific issue in the cases.

The point was you can't treat men and women differently for the same conduct.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

I think the main effects of this will not be in the area of business, but in the areas of religious institutions, schooling, and medicine. There are already rules against general harassment and bias that cover sexual, racial, etc. harassment and hiring practices. It may mean an additional cost for yet more sensitivity training, and it may make it more difficult for LGBTQ to get hired only because companies will fear it will be impossible to get them fired if/when necessary.

With regard to religious institutions: There will be test cases where gays and the transgendered attempt to get jobs as pastors, priests, teachers, choir directors, etc. at churches and religious schools. I don't think that these religious institutions will be able to pull the 1st Amendment Card for very much longer. A number of oddball religions have tried to get religious exemptions for drug use, animal sacrifice, etc. and were denied. I believe that discrimination against gays and the transgendered will be seen as similar or worse than animal sacrifice and will not be given a religious exemption. Bibles may need to be edited to remove verses from Leviticus, etc. or Amazon may refuse to sell them.

With regard to schooling: the LGBTQ folks want to force kids from an early age to learn about LGBTQ history and LGBTQ sex practices. The progression will go like this: first public school will force students to listen to this crap. Parents who attempt to prevent their kids from attending those sessions will either end up getting their kids expelled or the parents will be found to be unsuitable and their kids put in foster care. Then they will go after the private schools because this ruling applies to all schools public or private. Then they will go after home schools. Sections on LGBTQ history and practices will be put on the GED so if the students are not taught this by their parents at home they will fail and not get accredited. Parents found to not be home schooling their kides in LGBTQ crapola will be found wanting and their kids put into foster care. The authorities will most likely make sure that the foster parents are gay.

With regard to medicine: Confused children may decide at an early age that they are the wrong sex. Their teachers may encourage this and the kids may eventually ask for sex reassignment drugs and/or surgery. If one or both of the parents disagree then they will be ignored, excoriated, fined and/or imprisoned. The damaging procedures will be inflicted upon the toddler regardless. Eventually this may be seen as the second coming of thalidomide, but it will be too late for a generation of permanently damaged young people.

Trust me that Big Business is very much in favor of this ruling. They want to be able to move their employees around at will and don't want to have to worry that a valued gay employee that started working for them in California won't relocate to North Dakota because the laws there are different. They also know that people with warped minds spend more to fill the hole in their lives. The more freaks, the more profits.