Trump Administration argues that employers should be permitted to fire Transgender workers.

DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Permit Transgender Work Discrimination | Time

This is shameful position by the Trump Administration.

Here's the story: A funeral director, Aimee Stephens, came out as transgender, and ended up getting fired for refusing to wear men's clothing to work. The courts ruled that transgender people are not federally protected, but the funeral home did discriminate based on sex. As in, the funeral home only allows people with penises to wear suits to work, and people with vaginas to wear skirts. Saying that a "biological male" has to wear a suit to work is discrimination, and they are right. Forget about the transgender part, what is really at stake is the concept that workers should be forced to wear clothing associated with their genitalia.

Now apparently the Trump Administration is siding with the funeral home, arguing they have the right to discriminate against their fellow man. In my view, this is a pretty terrible position. Why should you be forced to wear clothing based on their biological sex?

The courts used the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case as precedent in this case, where a women was denied partnership because she wasn't woman enough.

BrotherFease said:

DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Permit Transgender Work Discrimination | Time

This is shameful position by the Trump Administration.

Here's the story: A funeral director, Aimee Stephens, came out as transgender, and ended up getting fired for refusing to wear men's clothing to work. The courts ruled that transgender people are not federally protected, but the funeral home did discriminate based on sex. As in, the funeral home only allows people with penises to wear suits to work, and people with vaginas to wear skirts. Saying that a "biological male" has to wear a suit to work is discrimination, and they are right. Forget about the transgender part, what is really at stake is the concept that workers should be forced to wear clothing associated with their genitalia.

Click to expand...

Because nobody is going to bring their dead relatives to be viewed in your funeral home if you have somebody with gender dysphoria prancing around in a skirt. Since when did transgender become an acceptable norm? Its a sickness, not something to celebrate.

Now apparently the Trump Administration is siding with the funeral home, arguing they have the right to discriminate against their fellow man.

Click to expand...

Fellow man in a womans skirt? It's the right decision. And yes, people have the right to be represented in their own business by the people they choose. You don't get a free pass because you want to try an assimilate another gender.

In my view, this is a pretty terrible position. Why should you be forced to wear clothing based on their biological sex?

Click to expand...

Because in a funeral home you don't want the employees to be the topic of discussion.

Condor060 said:

Because nobody is going to bring their dead relatives to be viewed in your funeral home if you have somebody with gender dysphoria prancing around in a skirt. Since when did transgender become an acceptable norm? Its a sickness, not something to celebrate.



Fellow man in a womans skirt? It's the right decision. And yes, people have the right to be represented in their own business by the people they choose. You don't get a free pass because you want to try an assimilate another gender.



Because in a funeral home you don't want the employees to be the topic of discussion.

Click to expand...

A woman that was an employee at the funeral home that buried my brother was Trans. Literally nobody said a thing about her. It speaks volumes that you much rather speak about a hypothetical Trans-woman than deal with the grief of losing a loved one.

Condor060 said:

Because nobody is going to bring their dead relatives to be viewed in your funeral home if you have somebody with gender dysphoria prancing around in a skirt. Since when did transgender become an acceptable norm? Its a sickness, not something to celebrate.



Fellow man in a womans skirt? It's the right decision. And yes, people have the right to be represented in their own business by the people they choose. You don't get a free pass because you want to try an assimilate another gender.



Because in a funeral home you don't want the employees to be the topic of discussion.

Click to expand...

Wow. It tells me a lot about you that you think trans employees in mortuary must 'prance' in front of bereaving customers in a skirt , but cisgender women wearing skirts while they take care of the same bereaving customers, do not . Has it occurred to you that neither employee's gender identity is likely to be focus of discussion while choosing coffins? You have some very silly stereotypes in your head. Time to grow up.

If any employee has inappropriate conversation or acts in any way that is disrespectful of the customer, or the service, that is a reason for discipline or firing, not the mere fact that there are bigots who believe they might, and somehow have acquired a business license.

BrotherFease said:

DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Permit Transgender Work Discrimination | Time

This is shameful position by the Trump Administration.

Here's the story: A funeral director, Aimee Stephens, came out as transgender, and ended up getting fired for refusing to wear men's clothing to work. The courts ruled that transgender people are not federally protected, but the funeral home did discriminate based on sex. As in, the funeral home only allows people with penises to wear suits to work, and people with vaginas to wear skirts. Saying that a "biological male" has to wear a suit to work is discrimination, and they are right. Forget about the transgender part, what is really at stake is the concept that workers should be forced to wear clothing associated with their genitalia.

Now apparently the Trump Administration is siding with the funeral home, arguing they have the right to discriminate against their fellow man. In my view, this is a pretty terrible position. Why should you be forced to wear clothing based on their biological sex?

The courts used the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case as precedent in this case, where a women was denied partnership because she wasn't woman enough.

Click to expand...

The funeral home is in the right here. It's their business, and they have a right to choose how, and in which way it's being conducted.

The family shou've asked for all of this to be clarified, and then make preparations with another funeral home if they were not satisfied with this one answer.

Oborosen said:

The funeral home is in the right here. It's their business, and they have a right to choose how, and in which way it's being conducted.

The family shou've asked for all of this to be clarified, and then make preparations with another funeral home if they were not satisfied with this one answer.

Click to expand...

This is not about the conduct of the business at all if there is zero impact outside of the Bosses bigoted imagination. Its about whether there is any measurable impact at all, to a trans employee transitioning to female, wearing the same clothes, as the cisgender woman who works the next shift or for that matter a cisgender male or whether this just amounts to a more fashionable and trendy RW version of gender discrimination.

As long as the business says in accommodates the public, and acquires a business license, it needs to meet all community, state and federal standards, regulations and laws regardless of who's business you claim to be.

Nobody cares. Civil rights laws are not lesser than safety, consumer, tax, labor, or zoning laws / ordinances that also apply. Either the owners obey them all, or they need to be out of business.

btthegreat said:

This is not about the conduct of the business at all if there is zero impact outside of the Bosses bigoted imagination. Its about whether there is any measurable impact at all, to a trans employee transitioning to female, wearing the same clothes, as the cisgender woman who works the next shift or for that matter a cisgender male or whether this just amounts to a more fashionable and trendy RW version of gender discrimination.

Click to expand...

This doesn't even have to fit into gender. Just don't wear those clothes.

Dress in a style that is befitting your station. Even my office has a dress code that separates it's doctors, between the rest of the staff. But if I were to come into the office tomorrow, dressed as a woman.

I'd surely hear about it from the higher ups.

btthegreat said:

Wow. It tells me a lot about you that you think trans employees in mortuary must 'prance' in front of bereaving customers in a skirt , but cisgender women wearing skirts while they take care of the same bereaving customers, do not . Has it occurred to you that neither employee's gender identity is likely to be focus of discussion while choosing coffins? You have some very silly stereotypes in your head. Time to grow up.

If any employee has inappropriate conversation or acts in any way that is disrespectful of the customer, or the service, that is a reason for discipline or firing, not the mere fact that there are bigots who believe they might, and somehow have acquired a business license.

Click to expand...

A funeral home is a place for grieving families to pay their last respects to their family member, not a place for transgender individuals to come out of the closet. Having men walking around dressed as women is a distraction and not the proper setting to be who they want to be at the owners expense. Most people don't believe in the 64 gender lie or that transgender individuals are anything more than gender dysphoria rum amok.

Isn't it a free country. You want a guy dressing as a woman meeting your clients, thats great, but it doesn't mean everyone else has to. And it doesn't mean you have some phobia just because you disagree with the idea of gender dysphoria.

Oborosen said:

This doesn't even have to fit into gender. Just don't wear those clothes.

Dress in a style that is befitting your station. Even my office has a dress code that separates it's doctors, between the rest of the staff. But if I were to come into the office tomorrow, dressed as a woman.

I'd surely hear about it from the higher ups.

Click to expand...

See that is the point. There is a reason to have dress codes. They fulfill legitimate job functions, like for example distinguishing between a doctor and a secretary or janitor. Presumably your office has figured out that doctors are also women, and men and does not treat them any differently or expect anything different from them because of their gender. Why should that change for their gender identity? . If you come to work dressed as a woman tomorrow, in otherwise proper attire consistent with uniform policy, the question becomes why should you 'hear about it" from your hire ups? Why is it any of their business as long as you are dressed consistent with uniform policy?

CMPancake said:

A woman that was an employee at the funeral home that buried my brother was Trans. Literally nobody said a thing about her. It speaks volumes that you much rather speak about a hypothetical Trans-woman than deal with the grief of losing a loved one.

Click to expand...

We weren't talking about a hypothetical trans. And no, I don't believe it to be anything other than it is. Gender dysphoria.

Bottom line:

Private businesses need to have the right to hire and fire as they see fit.

This business did not want the drama.

Period.

Condor060 said:

A funeral home is a place for grieving families to pay their last respects to their family member, not a place for transgender individuals to come out of the closet. Having men walking around dressed as women is a distraction and not the proper setting to be who they want to be at the owners expense. Most people don't believe in the 64 gender lie or that transgender individuals are anything more than gender dysphoria rum amok.

Isn't it a free country. You want a guy dressing as a woman meeting your clients, thats great, but it doesn't mean everyone else has to. And it doesn't mean you have some phobia just because you disagree with the idea of gender dysphoria.

Click to expand...

You are right. This is not a free country. You are free to disagree with gender dysphoria, or homosexuality, or race mixing or feel that Jews have no place in America . You are not free to run your business as you please. But when you apply for a business license, you commit to obey all laws regulations and ordinances governing your business property, and activity. They include all local state and federal civil rights laws. That will mean you must hire black people even if you think your clients prefer to deal with white people. You may have to hire people with physical disabilities even if their looks or behaviors may disconcert some of those same grieving people and you may have to employ the only arab-american in town even if you live in a town predominantly occupied by people who don't trust people with an Arabic accent .

Your personal opinion about where fire extinguishers should be placed, or the minimum wage, or your obligations to workers compensations have a similar impact on your duties to obey other laws. We just don't care.

Employers should have the right to set rules for employees they feel are in the best interests of their business.

btthegreat said:

See that is the point. There is a reason to have dress codes. They fulfill legitimate job functions, like for example distinguishing between a doctor and a secretary or janitor. Presumably your office has figured out that doctors are also women, and men and does not treat them any differently or expect anything different from them because of their gender. Why should that change for their gender identity? . If you come to work dressed as a woman tomorrow, in otherwise proper attire consistent with uniform policy, the question becomes why should you 'hear about it" from your hire ups? Why is it any of their business as long as you are dressed consistent with uniform policy?

Click to expand...

Because I don't need any of my patients to see me dressed in such a way. If I'm going to come into work, then I'm going to come in dressed as what I am, and not what I believe myself to be.

Individual said:

Employers should have the right to set rules for employees they feel are in the best interests of their business.

Click to expand...

Employers should meet the expectations of any business in the community to obey all laws, regulations and ordinances that the community deems fit. They don't set the rules for taxation, or minimum wage, or worker safety, or environmental regs, or decide how thick their walls should or should not be, or what temperature their refrigerators should be set for regardless of the 'best interest of their establishment.

Nobody is entitled to run an unregulated business or decide which regulations they intend to obey or not. You don't like the rules, get out of the business, sell your store and get a job.

Oborosen said:

Because I don't need any of my patients to see me dressed in such a way. If I'm going to come into work, then I'm going to come in dressed as what I am, and not what I believe myself to be.

Click to expand...

You did not answer the question I asked. I did not ask what your patients do or do not 'need to see' . I sure did not ask you how you make your decision on what you wear. I asked what business was it of an employer to even wonder, let alone opine on whether you dress as a woman or man because you have a vagina/breasts or a penis, or because you wish you had a vagina/ breasts or a penis or thought you ought to have been born with a vagina/breasts or a penis?

The solution for people like you who obsess about these things, may be a unisex dress code where the employer provides the uniform and where there is little visible difference between the style of the mans uniform shirt and pants and the woman's, but you'd still be whining about the hair.

btthegreat said:

You are right. This is not a free country. You are free to disagree with gender dysphoria, or homosexuality, or race mixing or feel that Jews have no place in America . You are not free to run your business as you please. But when you apply for a business license, you commit to obey all laws regulations and ordinances governing your business property, and activity. They include all local state and federal civil rights laws. That will mean you must hire black people even if you think your clients prefer to deal with white people. You may have to hire people with physical disabilities even if their looks or behaviors may disconcert some of those same grieving people and you may have to employ the only arab-american in town even if you live in a town predominantly occupied by people who don't trust people with an Arabic accent .

Your personal opinion about where fire extinguishers should be placed, or the minimum wage, or your obligations to workers compensations have a similar impact on your duties to obey other laws. We just don't care.

Click to expand...

Yeah, thats all real cute. You obviously have never owned a business before. I live in a at will employment state, which means that employers have significant discretion to fire employees. An employer can fire you for any reason at all – including reasons that seem ridiculous or unfair or fire you without warning and without first giving you a chance to correct the problem.

We are not required to hire black, white, Muslim, Transgender, Arabs, Mexicans, Jews, or anyone else you can think of. We hire who we believe are the best qualified for the job no matter what race they are. You live in your own world of entitlement. In the real world that doesn't exist as no employer is required to hire you for any reason in any state and there are no laws stating who you have to hire.

btthegreat said:

You did not answer the question I asked. I did not ask what your patients do or do not 'need to see' . I sure did not ask you how you make your decision on what you wear. I asked what business was it of an employer to even wonder, let alone opine on whether you dress as a woman because you have a vagina/breats, or because you wish you had a vagina/ breasts or thought you ought to have been born with a vagina/breasts?

The solution for people like you who obsess about these things, may be a unisex dress code where the employer provides the uniform and where there is little visible difference between the style of the mans uniform shirt and pants and the woman's, but you'd still be whining about the hair.

Click to expand...

Because it's their business. If me going around dressed as a woman is not inclined to the norm that is set, then they can at least require me to adjust myself.

If they don't want their men dressing like woman, and vise versa. They have the power to ensure that their workers at least enforce normalcy.

I, and most likely everyone that I work with. Acknowledge gender dysphoria as what it is.

A mental issue that needs to be addressed, and not coddled. Because giving it to much leeway can lead to people abusing what legal power it lends. Even if you aren't transgendered, you can pretend to be as such, and reap some form of benefit.

I go to work dressed like the men I work with everyday and no one gives a crap :lol:

Condor060 said:

Yeah, thats all real cute. You obviously have never owned a business before. I live in a at will employment state, which means that employers have significant discretion to fire employees. An employer can fire you for any reason at all – including reasons that seem ridiculous or unfair or fire you without warning and without first giving you a chance to correct the problem.

We are not required to hire black, white, Muslim, Transgender, Arabs, Mexicans, Jews, or anyone else you can think of. We hire who we believe are the best qualified for the job no matter what race they are. You live in your own world of entitlement. In the real world that doesn't exist as no employer is required to hire you for any reason in any state and there are no laws stating who you have to hire.

Click to expand...

I reread my post. I will change exactly one word here in these four sentences to be clear. " That will mean you may have to hire black people even if you think your clients prefer to deal with white people. You may have to hire people with physical disabilities even if their looks or behaviors may disconcert some of those same grieving people and you may have to employ the only arab-american in town even if you live in a town predominantly occupied by people who don't trust people with an Arabic accent .

Your personal opinion about where fire extinguishers should be placed, or the minimum wage, or your obligations to workers compensations have a similar impact on your duties to obey other laws. We just don't care."

In other words you in an at will employment state, you may hire and fire as you please as long as you do not discriminate based on specific classes set aside as protected classes for the purposes of the civil rights laws. One of those protected classes is based on gender. You may not treat people differently based on gender. Whether or not you are allowed to set different uniform standards for cisgender men, cisgender women or transgender or transitioning gender, is the question this case asks.

If the court asks the same questions I just did, that have yet to be answered here ' I asked what business was it of an employer to even wonder, let alone opine on whether you dress as a woman or man because you have a vagina/breasts or a penis, or because you wish you had a vagina/ breasts or a penis or thought you ought to have been born with a vagina/breasts or a penis?' You may have to hire that transgender and let him/her dress as she chooses, among the options for the genders that your uniform policy sets.

We don't know yet but this case was driven by federal law, not state. Your at will status is useless in that court.

Oborosen said:

Because it's their business. If me going around dressed as a woman is not inclined to the norm that is set, then they can at least require me to adjust myself.

If they don't want their men dressing like woman, and vise versa. They have the power to ensure that their workers at least enforce normalcy.

I, and most likely everyone that I work with. Acknowledge gender dysphoria as what it is.

A mental issue that needs to be addressed, and not coddled. Because giving it to much leeway can lead to people abusing what legal power it lends. Even if you aren't transgendered, you can pretend to be as such, and reap some form of benefit.

Click to expand...

News flash, The government unities that pass civil right laws is just as interested in an employer's individual views on gender dysphoria as it is interested in employer's views on race mixing, or whether 'the gal's are too emotional and high strung to manage the guys, or whether a deaf janitor is more of a hassle than he is worth, or whether gay teachers are recruiters, or about the Jewish conspiracy to run the world.

They don't care what you think. What people have thought about these classes has been the problem for decades and decades, that is why they become protected classes. Your business is not supposed to be an embodiment your political or social platform against gender dysphoria. You are not supposed to be diagnosing or treating it or philosophizing about it or enquiring about it.

Again what business was it of an employer to even wonder, let alone opine on whether an employee dresses as a woman or man because he/she has a vagina/breasts or a penis, or because an employee wishes to have a vagina/ breasts or a penis or thinks he/she ought to have been born with a vagina/breasts or a penis?'

Oborosen said:

Because I don't need any of my patients to see me dressed in such a way. If I'm going to come into work, then I'm going to come in dressed as what I am, and not what I believe myself to be.

Click to expand...

Denying what you believe?

So, if you believe your gay but don't want it known you would marry a woman have kids and pretend that makes you happy?

That would not be healthy mentally or physically.

When I was a kid many people tried that only to ruin a marriage, destroyed their families, created heartbreak and hardships.

Individuals in denial often create faux personalities in order to mask their true feelings and beliefs which hinders them emotionally.

Some of the harshest laws in America related to the LGBTQ community were written by individuals hiding their LGBTQ desires.
Top Anti-Gay Politicians Caught Being Gay: Anti-Gay Activists Out of the Closet

The leader of the Christian Family Research Council (George Alan Rekers) who ran a Therapy to cure Homosexuality (conversion treatment) who testified in court that homosexuals men and women should not be allowed to work were children are present was forced to resign when he was caught with his personal Rent-A-Boy while traveling in Europe.

Denial to oneself is the cruelest form of lying, is a wound that cripples the denier and is totally self inflicted.

Condor060 said:

We weren't talking about a hypothetical trans. And no, I don't believe it to be anything other than it is. Gender dysphoria.

Click to expand...

You know, it's weirdly relaxing to have someone just be out and about open that their position is only rooted in prejudice and bigotry.

btthegreat said:

Employers should meet the expectations of any business in the community to obey all laws, regulations and ordinances that the community deems fit. They don't set the rules for taxation, or minimum wage, or worker safety, or environmental regs, or decide how thick their walls should or should not be, or what temperature their refrigerators should be set for regardless of the 'best interest of their establishment.

Nobody is entitled to run an unregulated business or decide which regulations they intend to obey or not. You don't like the rules, get out of the business, sell your store and get a job.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with some, perhaps even most regulations applicable to the product, goods, or services of a business or worker safety. A safe work environment, products and goods safe for human consumption/use, and services provided at a fair cost is about all government should have a say on.

BrotherFease said:

DOJ Asks Supreme Court to Permit Transgender Work Discrimination | Time

This is shameful position by the Trump Administration.

Here's the story: A funeral director, Aimee Stephens, came out as transgender, and ended up getting fired for refusing to wear men's clothing to work. The courts ruled that transgender people are not federally protected, but the funeral home did discriminate based on sex. As in, the funeral home only allows people with penises to wear suits to work, and people with vaginas to wear skirts. Saying that a "biological male" has to wear a suit to work is discrimination, and they are right. Forget about the transgender part, what is really at stake is the concept that workers should be forced to wear clothing associated with their genitalia.

Now apparently the Trump Administration is siding with the funeral home, arguing they have the right to discriminate against their fellow man. In my view, this is a pretty terrible position. Why should you be forced to wear clothing based on their biological sex?

The courts used the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case as precedent in this case, where a women was denied partnership because she wasn't woman enough.

Click to expand...

Good for the administration. It really shows how twisted the left is that they won't even leave bereaved families alone.