• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Civil Rights Law Prohibits Discrimination of LGBT

I know first hand that black Americans just love their plight being equated with the gay community.

Just ask them.
 
Erod said:
I know first hand that black Americans just love their plight being equated with the gay community.

Just ask them.
Click to expand...

Saying that sex discrimination is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
 
Henrin said:
No, it's moral logic actually.
Click to expand...

Yes. Outlawing employment based racial discrimination, sex discrimination, etc is so immoral and a violation of human rights :roll:
 
Beaudreaux said:
THis is just my opinion as a non-lawyer:

I believe that the courts can interpret existing law to protect certain groups not specifically named as a protected class by association on a case by case basis, but that would only protect the actions covered in the case - marriage would be protected but not something else for instance - which is the way courts work, incrementally by, and only dealing with, the specific facts surrounding a single given case.

However, to prevent additional court cases requiring more incremental steps, legislation will be required to give full protected class status. Why? Because only the legislative branch has that power in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

that is the whole thing right there. the court is once again writing law that they do not have the power to do.
I think this is being appealed to the SCOTUS as well.

they should go back on it as there is no legislation that has been passed on this.
what is weird is this goes not only against a federal judge but the first appeals court decision that through the case out.

it was appealed to the full court that made this screwy ruling
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes. Outlawing employment based racial discrimination, sex discrimination, etc is so immoral and a violation of human rights :roll:
Click to expand...

It is. I have a right to decide that I don't wish to hire women, men or people from a certain race. It's also immoral to force someone to associate and pay someone against their will.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Yes. Outlawing employment based racial discrimination, sex discrimination, etc is so immoral and a violation of human rights :roll:
Click to expand...

employment should be based on skill and knowledge of the person not skin color.
skin color should not even be a factor. telling a business they have to hire people of
different colors just because you have to hire them (regardless if there are better qualified people)
Is wrong.

I work with people from all over the world. some are really great others aren't so great.
skin has little to do with it.
 
Erod said:
I know first hand that black Americans just love their plight being equated with the gay community.

Just ask them.
Click to expand...

Being black isn't a "You must be this tall to ride" in order to enjoy civil rights.
 
Henrin said:
It is. I have a right to decide that I don't wish to hire women, men or people from a certain race. It's also immoral to force someone to associate and pay someone against their will.
Click to expand...

No its not.

ludin said:
employment should be based on skill and knowledge of the person not skin color.
Click to expand...
It is. Civil rights act is saying you cannot choose to not hire someone for the soul reason of their race, sex, sexuality, etc.
 
Henrin said:
How about making an argument for why it's not.
Click to expand...

Establishing a law that states you cannot not hire someone for the sole reason being based on race, sex, sexuality is not a violation of your human rights.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Establishing a law that states you cannot not hire someone for the sole reason being based on race, sex, sexuality is not a violation of your human rights.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Employment is a form of association and last time I checked the right to association is protected by the first amendment. The right to association means the right to associate with those people of your choosing. Like it or not the first amendment does apply to employers.

It is also a fact that forcing people to hire others is a violation of the right to contract and the right to property.
 
Last edited:
Liberals/progressives:

I oppose social conservatives desire to impose their moral beliefs on everyone!

Discrimination is wrong and needs to be illegal!

:lamo
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No its not.


It is. Civil rights act is saying you cannot choose to not hire someone for the soul reason of their race, sex, sexuality, etc.
Click to expand...

good thing I would hire people by skill and knowledge and don't care about the color of their skin.
 
Henrin said:
I'm in no mood for humor if you haven't noticed. I don't take kindly to this fascist law and I don't kindly to idiot justices thinking it should be expanded.
Click to expand...
Have you ever been refused service or discriminated against ? I would wager that you haven't.
 
Henrin said:
Why does the LGBT community think they have a right to force someone to bake them a cake? Don't even say they don't either or they would sue bakers for refusing them service.
Click to expand...
Why did the black community think they had a right to force someone to allow them to sit where they wish on a bus?
 
Henrin said:
It is. I have a right to decide that I don't wish to hire women, men or people from a certain race. It's also immoral to force someone to associate and pay someone against their will.
Click to expand...
No you don't, you're bound by the rules and laws of the society and country that you reside in. Maybe you'd be more happy in say Somalia?
 
Henrin said:
Why would that change my opinion?
Click to expand...
Oh it would. You strike me as a privileged white dude who's never been told no, been subjected to any public humiliation or had a door slammed in his face.
 
HenryChinaski said:
No you don't, you're bound by the rules and laws of the society and country that you reside in. Maybe you'd be more happy in say Somalia?
Click to expand...

Yawn.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Oh it would. You strike me as a privileged white dude who's never been told no, been subjected to any public humiliation or had a door slammed in his face.
Click to expand...

If you say so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom