The GLBT and GSA Thread

[Annoyed]

Yet you point out yourself that it's perfectly possible to still discriminate legally. What's the point of giving minorities the legal protection of work, when said legal protection by your own admission has no weight? The only way then is to use harsher measures.

Then apply those "harsher measures", whatever you're proposing to EVERYBODY.

Equal treatment, remember? If you don't treat everyone EQUALLY, it's discrimination, regardless of who is being discriminated against. Discrimination is either right in all cases or it's wrong in all cases.

You have to make up your mind. Which is it?

[Annoyed]

Amen



It is actually called a right to work state. And yes, Texas is a right to work state. However, I have a contract that outlines what I can and cannot do. Unless I make a gross violation that mandates immediate termination, I just can't be let go. There is a process to follow.

Right-to-work state has to do with whether or not you can be forced to join a union. Work at will means that employment is at the will of both parties, either party can choose to end the relationship at any time for any reason.

[LtColCarter]

Right-to-work state has to do with whether or not you can be forced to join a union. Work at will means that employment is at the will of both parties, either party can choose to end the relationship at any time for any reason.

Ummm...same thing in a right to work state.

[Annoyed]

Ummm...same thing in a right to work state.

Getting Your Terms Right: “Right to Work” -vs- “At-Will Employment”

Under the employment at-will doctrine, both the employer and employee can terminate an employment relationship at any time without consequence. The employment relationship can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all. The employer cannot, however, terminate an employee for an “illegal” reason, such as termination based on discrimination against certain protected classes such as sex, gender, race, religion or national origin; violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act; and termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Italics above mine.

As you can see, the employee can be fired for any or no reason at all.
To get around the legal restrictions I emphasized, all the employer has to do is lie, which is something that your average corp. executive does as easily as they breathe.

[Annoyed]

Remember the discussions about businesses being able to choose whom they serve and whom they don't?

This ought to throw a nice monkey wrench into it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-wa...rump-supporter

A Manhattan judge on Wednesday threw out a case alleging that a New York City bar illegally discriminated against a customer who wore a "Make America Great Again" hat.

Manhattan Supreme Court Justice David Cohen ruled that the law doesn’t protect people from political discrimination, meaning the West Village bar did not overstep its bounds in kicking out the customer, The New York Post reported.

Philadelphia accountant Greg Piatek had said he went to the bar in January 2017, shortly after Trump entered office, and was told to leave after he complained about the staff’s service.

He then sued, claiming the incident “offended his sense of being an American,” according to the Post.

The bar's lawyer pointed out in court that only religious beliefs, not political ones, were protected under state and local discrimination laws.

Piatek’s lawyer, Paul Liggieri, then said his client had worn the hat “because he was visiting the 9/11 Memorial.”

“He was paying spiritual tribute to the victims of 9/11. The 'Make America Great Again' hat was part of his spiritual belief,” Liggieri claimed.

“Rather than remove his hat, instead he held true to his spiritual belief and was forced from the bar,” the lawyer added.

When the judge questioned how the bar’s staff was supposed to know about Piatek's religious beliefs, Liggieri said they could do so based on the hat.

In throwing out the case, Cohen said the "plaintiff does not state any faith-based principle to which the hat relates."

The judge said that not being served and being thrown out of the bar because of political beliefs amounted to only a “petty” slight, the Post reported.

“Here the claim that plaintiff was not served and eventually escorted out of the bar because of his perceived support for President Trump is not outrageous conduct," the judge ruled.

[Annoyed]

This might be of interest to some folks around here.

http://comicbook.com/dc/2018/05/20/s...verse-casting/

[LtColCarter]

This might be of interest to some folks around here.

http://comicbook.com/dc/2018/05/20/s...verse-casting/

Interesting. However, is just the character transgender or is the actress transgender IRL?

[Annoyed]

Interesting. However, is just the character transgender or is the actress transgender IRL?

No idea. But what would it matter?

[LtColCarter]

No idea. But what would it matter?

Makes the character more believable if the actress is really transgender. There are a few shows on TV already with trans characters and the actors/actresses are trans IRL.

[Falcon Horus]

Interesting. However, is just the character transgender or is the actress transgender IRL?

I hope they cast a trans woman for it... that would be the icing on the cake.

No idea. But what would it matter?

Yes, it would.

But that's not saying that a cis-gendered male couldn't pull it off. The male lead in Girl (a Belgian film who recently took some prices in Cannes) played a transgender female ballet dancer.

[Annoyed]

I hope they cast a trans woman for it... that would be the icing on the cake.



Yes, it would.

But that's not saying that a cis-gendered male couldn't pull it off. The male lead in Girl (a Belgian film who recently took some prices in Cannes) played a transgender female ballet dancer.

Is that because of personal preference on your part?

Since the stated goal of gender benders is that they prefer to be known by their chosen gender rather than their birth gender, wouldn't having a preference in either way be considered discrimination or some other social faux pas?

[LtColCarter]

Is that because of personal preference on your part?

Since the stated goal of gender benders is that they prefer to be known by their chosen gender rather than their birth gender, wouldn't having a preference in either way be considered discrimination or some other social faux pas?

Not quite certain what you're trying to say...as it made my brain hurt. However, just like someone who is gay or lesbian...evidence is pointing toward it being more than a mere choice or whim. I don't see a transgendered character as a "gender bender." A transvestite...yeah...that is a gender bender. Thinking people make random choices about their sexual and/or gender identities is ridiculous....

[Annoyed]

Not quite certain what you're trying to say...as it made my brain hurt. However, just like someone who is gay or lesbian...evidence is pointing toward it being more than a mere choice or whim. I don't see a transgendered character as a "gender bender." A transvestite...yeah...that is a gender bender. Thinking people make random choices about their sexual and/or gender identities is ridiculous....

First, I suppose we ought to settle terminology. To me, a "gender bender" is anyone who claims themselves or self-identifies as anything besides what the chromosome count says. XY is male, XX is female.

One of the rights that trans people want is to be taken at face value, based upon what they self-identify as. If a person wants to be a female, that's what they want to be taken as.

In the case of casting a TV show, the real life gender identification of the actor(male or female) shouldn't matter in regards to how well that actor can play the role, since any M/F can claim to be whatever they want to portray themselves as, so in order to respect the right of the actor in question, any combination should be able to play the role equally well. Doesn't having a preference for one RL gender or the other disrespect the right of that actor? Sure, there are many other grounds for a preference, some actors suck and some don't, or some actors are better suited for a specific role for other reasons, but I would think that basing preference on the RL gender of the actor would be an "ooops".

And on side tangent, isn't that article you cited, which basically states the brains in males and females operate differently going to twist the equality folks panties into a knot?

[Chaka-Z0]

[URL="https://www.mcrazlaw.com/getting-your-terms-right-right-to-work-vs-at-will-employment/"]

As you can see, the employee can be fired for any or no reason at all.

Don't you guys have Unions? They have many downsides, but protects you from getting fire for BS like that. Never heard of that *right to work state* term before, seems very alien to me.

On another note, about ''reversed-discrimination'' (AKA favoring a cultural group, gender, ethnic group over others) is essential to have a multi-cultural representation in the workforce. As Annoyed said, many execs can simply refuse a candidacy of a potential new employee on the basis of any grounds, bylaws, or whatever else at their disposal. They obviously won't say : Hey we don't want you in because of your color, sexual orientation or gender.

That being said, I strongly believe that MANY people have gone way over the line with this multi-genders phenomenon. Gay, Lesbian, Trans, even transvestite I understand. That's your sexual orientation, okay, you changed sex? That's fine with me.

But seriously, what the hell is this non-binary Gender and all these other funny names? And people being offended because we mis-addressed them? How was I supposed to know you self-identify as an Apache Helicopter ?

Jokes aside, rights have to be respected, you were born a male, but changed sex and became a woman, you self-identify as a woman that's fine in my book. We should address you as such. But some people are on a witch-hunt to find any small details that ''Offends'' their genders.

[LtColCarter]

First, I suppose we ought to settle terminology. To me, a "gender bender" is anyone who claims themselves or self-identifies as anything besides what the chromosome count says. XY is male, XX is female.

One of the rights that trans people want is to be taken at face value, based upon what they self-identify as. If a person wants to be a female, that's what they want to be taken as.

In the case of casting a TV show, the real life gender identification of the actor(male or female) shouldn't matter in regards to how well that actor can play the role, since any M/F can claim to be whatever they want to portray themselves as, so in order to respect the right of the actor in question, any combination should be able to play the role equally well. Doesn't having a preference for one RL gender or the other disrespect the right of that actor? Sure, there are many other grounds for a preference, some actors suck and some don't, or some actors are better suited for a specific role for other reasons, but I would think that basing preference on the RL gender of the actor would be an "ooops".

And on side tangent, isn't that article you cited, which basically states the brains in males and females operate differently going to twist the equality folks panties into a knot?

Again...you miss the point. But that isn't new.