• 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!

Trump Admin for Discrimination: Trans Workers

calamity

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
160,900
Reaction score
57,844
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Well...this is interesting.

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice is asking the Supreme Court to set a legal precedent that would enable employers to fire employees because they are transgender.

The Department of Justice has submitted a brief to the Court Friday asking the Justices to rule that Title VII, a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, religion or national origin, does not protect transgender people.

DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Permit Transgender Work Discrimination | Time
Click to expand...

There are definitely two sides to this argument. On one, there is a simple civil rights matter which should protect people with medical conditions from discrimination. On the other is a more complex matter which should allow employers to choose exactly who they have representing their company.

I side on civil rights here. But, I can certainly appreciate the other side's argument.
 
calamity said:
Well...this is interesting.

There are definitely two sides to this argument. On one, there is a simple civil rights matter which should protect people with medical conditions from discrimination. On the other is a more complex matter which should allow employers to choose exactly who they have representing their company.

I side on civil rights here. But, I can certainly appreciate the other side's argument.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
calamity said:
Well...this is interesting.



There are definitely two sides to this argument. On one, there is a simple civil rights matter which should protect people with medical conditions from discrimination. On the other is a more complex matter which should allow employers to choose exactly who they have representing their company.

I side on civil rights here. But, I can certainly appreciate the other side's argument.
Click to expand...

The funeral home owner claimed it would distract people mourning. I'd like to see evidence of that.
 
calamity said:
Well...this is interesting. There are definitely two sides to this argument. On one, there is a simple civil rights matter which should protect people with medical conditions from discrimination. On the other is a more complex matter which should allow employers to choose exactly who they have representing their company. I side on civil rights here. But, I can certainly appreciate the other side's argument.
Click to expand...
It is indeed interesting. In most cases companies freely discriminate based on sex, race, religion, etc. when they hire. You can't typically prove it, but they do it all day every day. In this case, she's transitioning mid-job...oops. They want to re-do that hiring choice. I wonder if they had just let her do it, even helped her perhaps, if they would have gotten loss of business/complaints. If they got lots of complains/loss of business from an employee, can they use that as grounds for termination, not gender? Would seem the more fair approach? Maybe people would have been cool about it.
 
Mean and pointless just for the sake of being mean and pointless. Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't done this already.
 
AProudLefty said:
The funeral home owner claimed it would distract people mourning. I'd like to see evidence of that.
Click to expand...
I think there is something to letting it play out, and documenting distraction as the reason for firing, rather than them guessing at it. And if no distraction, they get over it and let her be.
 
vote against Tweetycult.
 
calamity said:
Well...this is interesting.



There are definitely two sides to this argument. On one, there is a simple civil rights matter which should protect people with medical conditions from discrimination. On the other is a more complex matter which should allow employers to choose exactly who they have representing their company.

I side on civil rights here. But, I can certainly appreciate the other side's argument.
Click to expand...

If transgender is to be a protected class, it will take a court or a law to make it so. Otherwise, the DOJ has no legal basis to determine there can be discrimination against transgender. I read it as a case wanting a court - not the DOJ - to decide, which is the appropriate thing to do. Currently, transgender is not a protected class and it is NOT proper for the DOJ to create a law that doesn't exist. Courts decide Constitutional rights and Congress/president make laws - not the Department of Justice.
 
calamity said:
Well...this is interesting.

There are definitely two sides to this argument. On one, there is a simple civil rights matter which should protect people with medical conditions from discrimination. On the other is a more complex matter which should allow employers to choose exactly who they have representing their company.

I side on civil rights here. But, I can certainly appreciate the other side's argument.
Click to expand...

I am confused. Title VII of the Civil Rights act does protect one from discrimination on the basis of "sex." But there are only two sexes, male and female.

Meanwhile you bring up the issue of a "medical condition." Medical conditions are covered by the American's with Disabilities Act.

Are you asserting that the individual has a mental disability? Even so 42 U.S. Code § 12211 currently has this to say:

(b) Certain conditions Under this chapter, the term “disability” shall not include—

(1) transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;
Click to expand...
42 U.S. Code SS 12211 - Definitions | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

I don't understand what you mean when you argue this particular issue is a civil rights matter.

Her condition is specifically excluded from protections under current law, and there is no current Federal Court ruling that conflicts with the law as it stands.

That may change, as I think there is a case pending in a the Third Circuit...Blatt v. Cabella's Retail, but I haven't found any final ruling on it other than a 2017 opinion at the District Court level denying a motion to dismiss made by the defendants.

However, I believe that sexual orientation should be added as a protected class. I have no problem with gay and bisexual expression being specifically protected.

I just don't see much science which supports the idea that gender dysphoria is anything other than a mental condition, although I am open to any clear scientific proof making this a protected class, at least under the ADA.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Mean and pointless just for the sake of being mean and pointless. Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't done this already.
Click to expand...

By our messages you believe in totalitarian government, not rule of law, in which every authority in government creates and repeals laws, regulations and the Constitution however each it their absolute demigod authority decides.

The DOJ has NO authority to create any law nor add to the Bill of Rights, despite you want an all powerful police state as you assert.
 
AProudLefty said:
The funeral home owner claimed it would distract people mourning. I'd like to see evidence of that.
Click to expand...


And I agree with him. A guy dressed in women's clothing (that's what he was at that time when he was fired) in a funeral home is more than most people in mourning can stomach.

Frankly, I don't care if my doctor, dentist, mechanic etc. changes his/her "sex" every 6 months, but a business should have the right to decide who represents them ... and in this case, for that particular position, they wanted a man in men's clothing.
 
joko104 said:
By our messages you believe in totalitarian government, not rule of law, in which every authority in government creates and repeals laws, regulations and the Constitution however each it their absolute demigod authority decides.

The DOJ has NO authority to create any law nor add to the Bill of Rights, despite you want an all powerful police state as you assert.
Click to expand...

Trump wants to come down on trans people, and you're the one birching about authoritarianism. Uh huh...
 
Barnacle said:
And I agree with him. A guy dressed in women's clothing (that's what he was at that time when he was fired) in a funeral home is more than most people in mourning can stomach.

Frankly, I don't care if my doctor, dentist, mechanic etc. changes his/her "sex" every 6 months, but a business should have the right to decide who represents them ... and in this case, for that particular position, they wanted a man in men's clothing.
Click to expand...

In general, if you see a person wearing a dress, do you asdume it's a woman, or do you run up to strangers and grab their crotch to make sure?
 
rocket88 said:
In general, if you see a person wearing a dress, do you asdume it's a woman, or do you run up to strangers and grab their crotch to make sure?
Click to expand...


Believe me, but most people can tell when a guy is wearing women's clothing ...


transfashionfeb252019.jpg
 
Barnacle said:
Believe me, but most people can tell when a guy is wearing women's clothing ...


transfashionfeb252019.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't see any penises in that photo. Do you? Or do you just assume it? Do you assume everybody has a penis? How do you know those people don't have vaginas?
 
Keepmcrying2020 said:
You can clearly point out a transgender when you see one.
Click to expand...

Are fat people also distractions? You can clearly point them out as well. If customers complain that you have too many fat employees, would you fire them?
 
Barnacle said:
Believe me, but most people can tell when a guy is wearing women's clothing ...


transfashionfeb252019.jpg
Click to expand...

Most people can tell when a person is fat too. So what?
 
lwf said:
Are fat people also distractions? You can clearly point them out as well. If customers complain that you have too many fat employees, would you fire them?
Click to expand...
Yes really obese people are distractions and when it comes to hiring they probably don’t get picked.
 
Keepmcrying2020 said:
Yes really obese people are distractions and when it comes to hiring they probably don’t get picked.
Click to expand...

And if they get fat while working for you, you should legally be able to fire them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom