• 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!

Justice Dept. Weighs In Against Protections for Gays in the Workplace

P

prometeus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
27,656
Reaction score
12,050
Location
Over the edge...
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html

The Department of Justice has filed court papers arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation in a case now being considered by a New York appeals court.
Click to expand...

And now this. I guess what he meant when Trump said he is for the LGBT community he really meant he will **** them as soon as he will have a chance. And **** Sessions too.
 
prometeus said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html



And now this. I guess what he meant when Trump said he is for the LGBT community he really meant he will **** them as soon as he will have a chance. And **** Sessions too.
Click to expand...

When, exactly, did sex come to mean sexual orientation? The legal argument is that sex (stated as protected by the law) and sexual orientation (not mentioned in the law) are different - the firing was not related to the employee's sex at all. Sometimes the court must actually consider the law as written rather than what they feel that the law should have said.
 
prometeus said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html



And now this. I guess what he meant when Trump said he is for the LGBT community he really meant he will **** them as soon as he will have a chance. And **** Sessions too.
Click to expand...

I am all for sexual orientation protections in the work place, because why the f not, but he is correct that this law does not say that. Congress hasn't passed a law to the effect of protections for sexual orientation in the work place and the court should not be legislating...so...
Although he is wrong about his rational for getting involved being that the federal government has a stake in this matter because it is the largest employer, federal employees ARE covered for discrimination for sexual orientation.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
When, exactly, did sex come to mean sexual orientation? The legal argument is that sex (stated as protected by the law) and sexual orientation (not mentioned in the law) are different - the firing was not related to the employee's sex at all. Sometimes the court must actually consider the law as written rather than what they feel that the law should have said.
Click to expand...
The idea is that people should not be discriminated against based on criteria over which they have no control or conditions they do not choose. Now if you wish to discriminate simply because you can find a semantic difference, by all means proceed. The rest of civilized society will just fight for equality in the eyes of the law.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
When, exactly, did sex come to mean sexual orientation? The legal argument is that sex (stated as protected by the law) and sexual orientation (not mentioned in the law) are different - the firing was not related to the employee's sex at all. Sometimes the court must actually consider the law as written rather than what they feel that the law should have said.
Click to expand...
I'm not familiar with this specific case, so I'm just going to pose this question as a general philosophical question.

If I'm a man who is fired for being in love with another man, when women are not fired for being in love with men, is my sex not the reason for my firing?

Certainly it can be a little tough on where to draw a line, but it is quite reasonable to claim I was fired for being a man, since women who love men are not getting fired.
 
prometeus said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html



And now this. I guess what he meant when Trump said he is for the LGBT community he really meant he will **** them as soon as he will have a chance. And **** Sessions too.
Click to expand...

Trump is an obsessive compulsive, pathological liar.

But his lying about concerns for and the protection of the LGBT community, during the campaign appears to be political, but I'm still quite sure it's also related to being a pathological liar. He has no conscience about lying.

Sessions, on the other hand, is a hardcore bigot. His bigoted beliefs, along with Trump being a liar, is probably going to force civil rights issues regarding the LGBT's back into the S.C.
 
prometeus said:
The idea is that people should not be discriminated against based on criteria over which they have no control or conditions they do not choose. Now if you wish to discriminate simply because you can find a semantic difference, by all means proceed. The rest of civilized society will just fight for equality in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

The law does not contain those words. You may wish that it included sexual orientation, obesity, tattoos, drug addiction, allergies or turrets syndrome but it does not. The fact that a law enumerates specific traits means that it applies only to those specific traits.
 
Slyfox696 said:
I'm not familiar with this specific case, so I'm just going to pose this question as a general philosophical question.

If I'm a man who is fired for being in love with another man, when women are not fired for being in love with men, is my sex not the reason for my firing?

Certainly it can be a little tough on where to draw a line, but it is quite reasonable to claim I was fired for being a man, since women who love men are not getting fired.
Click to expand...

Being fired for "who you love" or "who you are attracted to" is not stated in the law. The law applies to sex (gender) alone not all which may be considered related to sexual activity or sexual preference. I am not that familiar with the case either but you seem to assume that who he loves made the difference rather than what he chose to discuss and its effect on customers which was the deciding factor.
 
prometeus said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html



And now this. I guess what he meant when Trump said he is for the LGBT community he really meant he will **** them as soon as he will have a chance. And **** Sessions too.
Click to expand...

Most times the law isn't changed or fixed until a court case exposes a flaw. Sex is a federal protected class, sexual orientation is not. This case may be the event that causes Congress to change to the law.
 
Good to see the Generals speak out and say that they were NOT involved and STILL haven't received their specufic orders.

What a complete cluster**** trump is on all policy issues. And NO, I don't feel sorry for GOP lawmakers who put us in this place in time .
 
prometeus said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html



And now this. I guess what he meant when Trump said he is for the LGBT community he really meant he will **** them as soon as he will have a chance. And **** Sessions too.
Click to expand...

From the article which is probably irrelevant:

Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Justice Department has now stepped into the fray, as BuzzFeed reported on Wednesday night. In its court brief, the department noted that every Congress since 1974 has declined to add a sexual-orientation provision to Title VII, despite what it called “notable changes in societal and cultural attitudes.” The brief also claimed that the federal government, as the largest employer in the country, has a “substantial and unique interest” in the proper interpretation of Title VII.

“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,” the brief said. “It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.”

I hope the law is changed by Congress.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Being fired for "who you love" or "who you are attracted to" is not stated in the law. The law applies to sex (gender) alone not all which may be considered related to sexual activity or sexual preference.
Click to expand...
But only the man is getting fired. The man and the woman are taking the same action, but only the man got fired. How is that not discrimination against me based on my sex? Why is it okay for a woman to do something but not the man? How come it is a fireable offense for a man to do something, but not a woman?

I am not that familiar with the case either but you seem to assume that who he loves made the difference rather than what he chose to discuss and its effect on customers which was the deciding factor.
Click to expand...
I'm not assuming anything about this case, only the philosophy of what you said.
 
prometeus said:
The idea is that people should not be discriminated against based on criteria over which they have no control or conditions they do not choose. Now if you wish to discriminate simply because you can find a semantic difference, by all means proceed. The rest of civilized society will just fight for equality in the eyes of the law.
Click to expand...

Sessions is worried about workplace suck-a-thons going on. Gays and bisexuals trying to lure straight people into those suck-a-thons is a no-no for Sessions.

Either that are he believes drinking out of the same water fountain that gays drink from causes straight people to become gay.

As ignorant as Sessions, is he probably would fall for the excuse that gays are transmitting their gay behaviors from toilet seats.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The law does not contain those words. You may wish that it included sexual orientation, obesity, tattoos, drug addiction, allergies or turrets syndrome but it does not. The fact that a law enumerates specific traits means that it applies only to those specific traits.
Click to expand...
So you prefer discrimination because of an omission.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Most times the law isn't changed or fixed until a court case exposes a flaw. Sex is a federal protected class, sexual orientation is not. This case may be the event that causes Congress to change to the law.
Click to expand...
While I do not disagree with your reasoning, I find it spurious that to be Sessions reason.
 
Slyfox696 said:
But only the man is getting fired. The man and the woman are taking the same action, but only the man got fired. How is that not discrimination against me based on my sex? Why is it okay for a woman to do something but not the man? How come it is a fireable offense for a man to do something, but not a woman?

I'm not assuming anything about this case, only the philosophy of what you said.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that a woman would not be fired for "the same thing" but what if that "same thing" was telling a customer that they were homosexual which resulted in a customer complaint?

The woman’s husband complained to the company, which subsequently fired Mr. Zarda.
Click to expand...

The reason for the firing appears to be as a direct response to customer complaint which is not protected under any law that I am aware of. If the company saw it as in their best interest to fire an employee due to a customer complaint then the nature of that complaint is not the primary issue. I have no idea if the customer complaint was only about the employee being homosexual or if the husband took offense at the employee doing/saying something else.
 
prometeus said:
So you prefer discrimination because of an omission.
Click to expand...

No, I prefer that a judge rule on the actual text of the law rather than what they wished that text to have been. IMHO, other forms of distracted driving are at least as serious as DUI yet because the law says that they are not the penalties differ.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Being fired for "who you love" or "who you are attracted to" is not stated in the law. The law applies to sex (gender) alone not all which may be considered related to sexual activity or sexual preference. I am not that familiar with the case either but you seem to assume that who he loves made the difference rather than what he chose to discuss and its effect on customers which was the deciding factor.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has already ruled in a number of cases that discriminating against homosexuals is a form of gender discrimination. The argument here is whether the logic used in those cases is supported by workplace discrimination law

WRT your last sentence, if it were the latter reasons, then he would be fired for cause and not for being gay.
 
sangha said:
SCOTUS has already ruled in a number of cases that discriminating against homosexuals is a form of gender discrimination. The argument here is whether the logic used in those cases is supported by workplace discrimination law

WRT your last sentence, if it were the latter reasons, then he would be fired for cause and not for being gay.
Click to expand...

I have little information on what happened or the exact nature of the customer complaint. For all I know the husband may have simply said that the employee made disturbing remarks of a sexual nature to me about (or in front of) my wife.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
When, exactly, did sex come to mean sexual orientation? The legal argument is that sex (stated as protected by the law) and sexual orientation (not mentioned in the law) are different - the firing was not related to the employee's sex at all. Sometimes the court must actually consider the law as written rather than what they feel that the law should have said.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have little information on what happened or the exact nature of the customer complaint. For all I know the husband may have simply said that the employee made disturbing remarks of a sexual nature to me about (or in front of) my wife.
Click to expand...

If they are fired for making inappropriate remarks, then they are not being fired for being gay; They are being fired for cause, which is perfectly legal, even for gay employees. What we are talking about here are people who are fired for being gay, and for no other reason than that.
 
sangha said:
If they are fired for making inappropriate remarks, then they are not being fired for being gay; They are being fired for cause, which is perfectly legal, even for gay employees. What we are talking about here are people who are fired for being gay, and for no other reason than that.
Click to expand...

OK, but that must be stated in the law not just deemed "closely related" to sex by a judge. As I said in an earlier post, while DUI is definitely a serious form of distracted driving not all serious forms of distracted driving should be considered to fall under the DUI laws. In other words, the law must be applied as it is actually written not as a judge wishes that it was.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, but that must be stated in the law not just deemed "closely related" to sex by a judge.
Click to expand...

No, it does not have to be stated in the law. That is not how our legal system works.


As I said in an earlier post, while DUI is definitely a serious form of distracted driving not all serious forms of distracted driving should be considered to fall under the DUI laws. In other words, the law must be applied as it is actually written not as a judge wishes that it was.
Click to expand...

That is neither realistic nor how the legal system works.

In the US, judges decide how the law applies to specific sets of circumstances. They review the facts and then issue their opinions. Those opinions are every bit as much "law" as a piece of legislation passed by Congress
 
prometeus said:
While I do not disagree with your reasoning, I find it spurious that to be Sessions reason.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what the motivation of the administration is to push this case. However, the ultimate result of this will eventually be the adding of sexual orientation as a federal protected class. So, regardless of the intent or reasoning of this case and the administration, the ultimate result will be positive.
 
sangha said:
No, it does not have to be stated in the law. That is not how our legal system works.




That is neither realistic nor how the legal system works.

In the US, judges decide how the law applies to specific sets of circumstances. They review the facts and then issue their opinions. Those opinions are every bit as much "law" as a piece of legislation passed by Congress
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is part of the problem and not part of the solution. The law should not vary based on which judge gets your case - that is not consistent with equal protection of the law. The fact that a 2010 case (based on a 1964 law?) is still up in the air is insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom