Are Homosexuals Protected In The Workplace?

[Truth7t7]

Bloomberg

Trump Administration Says Bias Rules Don't Cover Gay Workers

The U.S. law that has protected workers from gender and racial bias for more than half a century should not be extended to cover gay and lesbian employees because that isn’t what Congress envisioned when it passed the bill, Trump administration lawyers told a federal appeals court.

Judges must interpret laws based on lawmakers’ intent, and Congress didn’t have the LGBT community in mind when it crafted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan argued on Tuesday in Manhattan. The agency made its case in defense of a New York skydiving company accused of firing a worker for being gay.

"Every circuit court for 50 years has said this isn’t covered," Mooppan said at the hearing in Manhattan, referring to sexual orientation. He then compared the situation to an employer firing a worker for having an affair or being promiscuous, scenarios that he said have both been deemed legal.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

The same reason workplace discrimination against sex, religion, race or national origin or nationality is not allowed.

 

[Reaper]

The same reason workplace discrimination against sex, religion, race or national origin or nationality is not allowed.

But us queer folk have a hidden agenda, don't you know?

 

[Sunstone]

It would be cruel to discriminate against someone for a sexual orientation they didn't ask for nor have any control over. But then the world is full of cruel people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bloomberg

Trump Administration Says Bias Rules Don't Cover Gay Workers

The U.S. law that has protected workers from gender and racial bias for more than half a century should not be extended to cover gay and lesbian employees because that isn’t what Congress envisioned when it passed the bill, Trump administration lawyers told a federal appeals court.

Judges must interpret laws based on lawmakers’ intent, and Congress didn’t have the LGBT community in mind when it crafted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan argued on Tuesday in Manhattan. The agency made its case in defense of a New York skydiving company accused of firing a worker for being gay.

"Every circuit court for 50 years has said this isn’t covered," Mooppan said at the hearing in Manhattan, referring to sexual orientation. He then compared the situation to an employer firing a worker for having an affair or being promiscuous, scenarios that he said have both been deemed legal.

Gay marriage would be protected for housing under the Fair Housing Act.
It's about family status being protected.
Ref....
The Fair Housing Act | CRT | Department of Justice
Our local laws are even stronger.

 

[Jainarayan]

Judges must interpret laws based on lawmakers’ intent

Judges must interpret laws based on precedent and case law, and the needs of society today. If the law doesn't evolve it dies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Judges must interpret laws based on lawmakers’ intent

Oddly, that is and isn't how our system works. We were given a Constitution that can be amended and changed, which reflects the intentions of some our nation's earliest law makers, such as Thomas Jefferson, who wrote each generation should ditch the previous Constitution to write a new one to suit the world and times they live and to not be governed by the dead.
Basically, the law's intention is that laws can be made, changed, revised, and even overturned and abandoned.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Oddly, that is and isn't how our system works. We were given a Constitution that can be amended and changed, which reflects the intentions of some our nation's earliest law makers, such as Thomas Jefferson, who wrote each generation should ditch the previous Constitution to write a new one to suit the world and times they live and to not be governed by the dead.
Basically, the law's intention is that laws can be made, changed, revised, and even overturned and abandoned.

That was the line that jumped out at me, too. It struck me as an odd claim, given the raft of legal rulings that are utterly disconnected from the intent of the law makers, yet many conservatives so wholeheartedly endorse.

Could it be @Truth7t7 is engaging in a little bit of a double standard? Given his MO of posting all these articles without commentary, we may never know. I'm sure he has a point, it's beyond me, though.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Could it be @Truth7t7 is engaging in a little double standard? Given his MO of posting anll these articles without commentary, we may never know. I'm sure he has a point, it's beyond me, though.

Maybe he's trying to get himself unstuck from a fetal position that was brought on by the shock of legal same-sex marriage in all 50 states and LBGT people being more and more tolerated and accepted in society?

 

[fantome profane]

It is my understanding that it varies from state to state, there is no overall federal protection. In some states you can be fired from your job just for being gay.

 

[sealchan]

Bloomberg

Trump Administration Says Bias Rules Don't Cover Gay Workers

The U.S. law that has protected workers from gender and racial bias for more than half a century should not be extended to cover gay and lesbian employees because that isn’t what Congress envisioned when it passed the bill, Trump administration lawyers told a federal appeals court.

Judges must interpret laws based on lawmakers’ intent, and Congress didn’t have the LGBT community in mind when it crafted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan argued on Tuesday in Manhattan. The agency made its case in defense of a New York skydiving company accused of firing a worker for being gay.

"Every circuit court for 50 years has said this isn’t covered," Mooppan said at the hearing in Manhattan, referring to sexual orientation. He then compared the situation to an employer firing a worker for having an affair or being promiscuous, scenarios that he said have both been deemed legal.

I just completed my company's annual workplace conduct training. I noted that one of the scenarios described in the training would led one to presume that the training would say that same sex relationships are protected. I think that the spirit of the law is clear...that even if same sex relationships are not specifically protected ANY form of harrasment creating a hostile work environment for any employee whether it was over what sports team a person in the office favored or something else IS protected in any case. Not only that but any behavior that could reasonably be considered harrassment even if all parties outwardly accept the behavior is still a problem that needs to be reported and dealt with.

I would say that if we take the sincere claims of those who consider themselves being sexually attracted to the same sex to heart, then it is a small step to render the existing law to cover those sexual orientations not specifically listed as a natural extension of the existing law.

IMO

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Maybe he's trying to get himself unstuck from a fetal position that was brought on by the shock of legal same-sex marriage in all 50 states and LBGT people being more and more tolerated and accepted in society?

Possibly. What I'd really like him to answer is "why does it bother him so much?" No one is forcing @Truth7t7 to be gay, presumably, so why is he so bothered by them?

I don't "approve" of homosexuality, for want of a term, and from a religious point of view I believe homosexual activity is sinful. But why should I want homosexuals denied civil protections? I probably do a lot of stuff other people don't approve of, and even consider sinful. I don't think anyone should be able to legally discriminate against me for it, though.

How about a response @Truth7t7 ?

 

[tytlyf]

RW shill alert. Notice how it's targeting a religious website. Be cautious. Research, fact check. Stop becoming prey to those who want to fool you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The article in the OP is about as ignorant as those Christians who claim that the First Amendment only applies to Christianity.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

Bloomberg

Trump Administration Says Bias Rules Don't Cover Gay Workers

The U.S. law that has protected workers from gender and racial bias for more than half a century should not be extended to cover gay and lesbian employees because that isn’t what Congress envisioned when it passed the bill, Trump administration lawyers told a federal appeals court.

Judges must interpret laws based on lawmakers’ intent, and Congress didn’t have the LGBT community in mind when it crafted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan argued on Tuesday in Manhattan. The agency made its case in defense of a New York skydiving company accused of firing a worker for being gay.

"Every circuit court for 50 years has said this isn’t covered," Mooppan said at the hearing in Manhattan, referring to sexual orientation. He then compared the situation to an employer firing a worker for having an affair or being promiscuous, scenarios that he said have both been deemed legal.

Hey I think your homophobia is showing. You might want to cover that up.

 

[Prestor John]

Bloomberg

Trump Administration Says Bias Rules Don't Cover Gay Workers

The U.S. law that has protected workers from gender and racial bias for more than half a century should not be extended to cover gay and lesbian employees because that isn’t what Congress envisioned when it passed the bill, Trump administration lawyers told a federal appeals court.

Judges must interpret laws based on lawmakers’ intent, and Congress didn’t have the LGBT community in mind when it crafted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan argued on Tuesday in Manhattan. The agency made its case in defense of a New York skydiving company accused of firing a worker for being gay.

"Every circuit court for 50 years has said this isn’t covered," Mooppan said at the hearing in Manhattan, referring to sexual orientation. He then compared the situation to an employer firing a worker for having an affair or being promiscuous, scenarios that he said have both been deemed legal.

Undoubtedly, yes. Homosexuals have just as much protection under the law as anyone else. Even more protection.

That skydiving instructor was not fired for "being gay".

He was fired because a customer complained that he shared his sexual orientation with her (unsolicited) and then manhandled her in a way that made her uncomfortable.

If any heterosexual employee was fired for such a complaint no one would bat an eye.

Also, his side eventually won the case, so how are homosexual not protected?

 

[columbus]

Undoubtedly, yes. Homosexuals have just as much protection under the law as anyone else. Even more protection.

How many times do you and I have to go over this?
Where I live, firing you because I don't want a Mormon working for me is illegal. You could fire me because you don't want a gay working for you and it would be legal.
Get it?
Tom

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, not everywhere. Trans people have even less protections or rights.

 

[columbus]

That skydiving instructor was not fired for "being gay".

He was fired because a customer complained that he shared his sexual orientation with her (unsolicited) and then manhandled her in a way that made her uncomfortable.

Frankly, that's the way it looks to me as well.
His orientation was an unimportant side issue. He behaved badly in a way that seriously reflected on his employer. That should get you canned.
Tom

 

[Prestor John]

How many times do you and I have to go over this?
Where I live, firing you because I don't want a Mormon working for me is illegal. You could fire me because you don't want a gay working for you and it would be legal.
Get it?
Tom

You have yet to provide any example of this.

I want you to show me a case where the reason for firing was, "Because you are gay."

Anything less than this is exactly that - less than.