The GLBT and GSA Thread

[LtColCarter]

Well educated people use trash as an escape. poorly educated people see them an ideal.

Personally, I like people close to my level. I don't watch these types of shows or things like Duck Dynasty.

[Falcon Horus]

Just a theory.. maybe this is because the younger folks are in general are "more highly educated" at least as far as college transcripts go, and the younger generation is far more narcissistic than prior generations?

Unfortunately, in my test group this does not apply...

[LtColCarter]

Federal Judge in Texas Rules Title VII Bans Anti-LGBT Discrimination

By Trudy Ring
April 10 2018 6:34 PM EDT

A federal judge in Texas has added to the growing number of rulings asserting that existing civil rights law bans anti-LGBT discrimination.

Judge Lee Rosenthal’s ruling, issued last week, doesn’t automatically change the law but does stand to affect how other courts interpret it. And some case involving the law may eventually make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which could change the law for the entire nation.

Rosenthal, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, ruled in a lawsuit brought by Nicole Wittmer, an engineer who claimed that energy company Phillips 66 had rejected her for a job because she’s transgender, The Dallas Morning News reports. Rosenthal found that Wittmer hadn’t proved the company had discriminated, but if it had, she would have had a case under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law, in banning sex discrimination, also bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, according to Rosenthal.

This is the first time such a ruling has come out of Texas, which is part of the Fifth Circuit for federal courts. Federal appeals courts — a step above district courts — in the Second Circuit (covering New York, Vermont, and Connecticut) and the Seventh Circuit (covering Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) have ruled that Title VII bans sexual orientation discrimination. The appellate court for the Sixth Circuit (covering Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee) has ruled that it bans gender identity discrimination.

Rosenthal said these rulings influenced her decision. “Within the last year, several circuits have expanded Title VII protection to include discrimination based on transgender status and sexual orientation,” she wrote, according to the Morning News. “Although the Fifth Circuit has not yet addressed the issue, these very recent circuit cases are persuasive. ... The court assumes that Wittmer's status as a transgender woman places her under the protections of Title VII.”

With a majority of states still not banning anti-LGBT discrimination, and federal legislation on the matter stalled in Congress, LGBT people have often looked to courts for relief. President Barack Obama’s administration argued for an expansive view of Title VII, but Donald Trump’s administration has reversed that stance, with the Justice Department stating that the law does not ban anti-LGBT discrimination and even making that argument in the Second Circuit last year. A case involving the interpretation of Title VII was appealed to the Supreme Court in 2017, but the court declined to hear it, without comment, as is generally the case.

Wittmer’s lawyer, Alfonso Kennard Jr., expressed disappointment in the outcome for his client — since the ruling doesn't immediately make it illegal to discriminate against LGBT workers in Texas — but he praised the judge’s interpretation of Title VII. “We’re certainly disappointed that this particular ruling did not fall in her favor,” he told the Morning News Monday. “The silver lining here is it has helped to define the landscape for people who have been discriminated [against] in the workplace due to their transgender status. … This ruling is earth-shattering — in a good way.”

[Annoyed]

This may indeed end up before SCOTUS. 6 months ago, I would have thought SCOTUS would have struck it down, but they have been remarkably silent about that bakery case. I would have thought we would have heard that decision by now. That may indicate a surprising result on that.

[Falcon Horus]

This may indeed end up before SCOTUS. 6 months ago, I would have thought SCOTUS would have struck it down, but they have been remarkably silent about that bakery case. I would have thought we would have heard that decision by now. That may indicate a surprising result on that.

Because the next hearing is scheduled for June so hence why it's quiet there.

But for crying out loud man, what's your problem... Do you honestly think it's okay for people to discriminate against people like that?

How can anyone even be OKAY with that?

[Annoyed]

Because the next hearing is scheduled for June so hence why it's quiet there.

But for crying out loud man, what's your problem... Do you honestly think it's okay for people to discriminate against people like that?

How can anyone even be OKAY with that?

Actually, I don't favor discrimination against anyone. EVERYONE should be treated EQUALLY.

The problem I have is that history has shown that people who are members of "protected groups" often twist and misuse such laws to push for and get PREFERENTIAL treatment. Examples would be affirmative action, special set-aside programs, difficulty "just cause" firing protected classes because they go whining to some court claiming they were fired due to discrimination.

Equal treatment for all? Bring it, that would be the ideal. But that isn't what many people in protected groups want. They want preferential treatment, and if they don't get it, they claim it to be discrimination.

If they write a law that bans discrimination of any form, for or against, that bans affirmative action, set-asides or any other form of preferential treatment, I would support that law 100%

[LtColCarter]

Actually, I don't favor discrimination against anyone. EVERYONE should be treated EQUALLY.

The problem I have is that history has shown that people who are members of "protected groups" often twist and misuse such laws to push for and get PREFERENTIAL treatment. Examples would be affirmative action, special set-aside programs, difficulty "just cause" firing protected classes because they go whining to some court claiming they were fired due to discrimination.

Equal treatment for all? Bring it, that would be the ideal. But that isn't what many people in protected groups want. They want preferential treatment, and if they don't get it, they claim it to be discrimination.

If they write a law that bans discrimination of any form, for or against, that bans affirmative action, set-asides or any other form of preferential treatment, I would support that law 100%

Only in your world (Annoyedland). What if you could be fired for being over 60? There's a law against that, right? What if you could be fired for being pregnant? There's a law against that. You don't hear people saying those individuals are "special groups" or that they are receiving preferential treatment. I think it is sad that we have to live in a world where a judgement had to be handed down so that consenting adults can get married if they just happen to be the same gender.

[Annoyed]

Only in your world (Annoyedland). What if you could be fired for being over 60? There's a law against that, right? What if you could be fired for being pregnant? There's a law against that. You don't hear people saying those individuals are "special groups" or that they are receiving preferential treatment. I think it is sad that we have to live in a world where a judgement had to be handed down so that consenting adults can get married if they just happen to be the same gender.

You CAN be fired for being over 60, for being pregnant, etc. Many people have been. All the company has to do is say the firing was for some other reason. They don't have to tell you the truth about why they are canning you.

I'm quite sure that every damned business school has a first year course, "Lying through your teeth 101"

[LtColCarter]

You CAN be fired for being over 60, for being pregnant, etc. Many people have been. All the company has to do is say the firing was for some other reason. They don't have to tell you the truth about why they are canning you.

I'm quite sure that every damned business school has a first year course, "Lying through your teeth 101"

That would require the company to follow a process. They can't just fabricate some thing that would require immediate termination without proof.

[thekillman]

The problem I have is that history has shown that people who are members of "protected groups" often twist and misuse such laws to push for and get PREFERENTIAL treatment.

History has shown that groups that get such protection, need such protection. it's not that long ago that being gay was illegal, or that being black made you inhuman.

[Annoyed]

That would require the company to follow a process. They can't just fabricate some thing that would require immediate termination without proof.

You don't work in the private sector in a "work at will" state, do you?

You don't even have to screw up to get fired. All they have to do is make up some BS like "was a poor fit for the position" or "didn't mesh well with the office environment. They don't even have to give you a reason.

Same with hiring. All they have to do is make up some sort of BS reason for not hiring you.

[Annoyed]

History has shown that groups that get such protection, need such protection. it's not that long ago that being gay was illegal, or that being black made you inhuman.

Legislate EQUAL treatment all you want, I don't care. But the second you start allowing affirmative action, racial (or any other type) quotas, set-asides and such, you've crossed the line into discrimination yourself. If you want equal treatment, have equal treatment. Anything else is still discrimination, only difference is that it's directed towards another group.

Or is it ok to discriminate against some groups?

[LtColCarter]

History has shown that groups that get such protection, need such protection. it's not that long ago that being gay was illegal, or that being black made you inhuman.

Amen

You don't work in the private sector in a "work at will" state, do you?

You don't even have to screw up to get fired. All they have to do is make up some BS like "was a poor fit for the position" or "didn't mesh well with the office environment. They don't even have to give you a reason.

Same with hiring. All they have to do is make up some sort of BS reason for not hiring you.

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.

Legislate EQUAL treatment all you want, I don't care. But the second you start allowing affirmative action, racial (or any other type) quotas, set-asides and such, you've crossed the line into discrimination yourself. If you want equal treatment, have equal treatment. Anything else is still discrimination, only difference is that it's directed towards another group.

Or is it ok to discriminate against some groups?

[Gatefan1976]

That would require the company to follow a process. They can't just fabricate some thing that would require immediate termination without proof.

Oh, they can, but that's what labour courts are for.
I like labour courts.
Anecdote time:
When I was around 22-23, I got fired from my job as assistant manager in a bottle shop (liquor store) because after working open to close for 3 weeks on my last night I forgot to put the cash in the drop safe out the back and left it in the safe under the counter. The next night, when I had my first night off, and the store manager was back, HE didn't do it either and someone broke in, cut the 4 3/4 inch bolts off the safe into the ground and took the whole damn thing.
I got blamed, and I took them to court. It took 6 months, but at the end I had my job back and had the Judge asking if I wanted to sue for libel and lost income (they turned a lovely shade of green at that point)

Point being, stand up for your rights, learn your options. I represented myself, they had a lawyer, but I had nothing better to do than learn the law for one specific set of circumstances. Not everyone has that luxury, but if you can, use it.

[thekillman]

Legislate EQUAL treatment all you want, I don't care. But the second you start allowing affirmative action, racial (or any other type) quotas, set-asides and such, you've crossed the line into discrimination yourself. If you want equal treatment, have equal treatment. Anything else is still discrimination, only difference is that it's directed towards another group.

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. We know from statistical trends what the expected workplace makeup would have to be. 50% of the world population is female, but you wouldn't know it if you only saw director's offices or any technical workplace. Based on trends we'd expect to see (arbitrary value, say 20%). If companies don't fit that line, then it's reasonable to expect they discriminate.

We have quota's for lots of things, always based upon expected yields based on reasonable performance. I know your preference for meritocracy, but that's a pipe dream that has never worked in practice. Hell, going by Hillary's results it seems the presidency is the biggest anti-meritocracy that ever existed.