a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....
Judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay people from discrimination · PinkNews
"a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....
Baxley contends he was referred to by his supervisor as a “fag,” “faggot,” “f**king faggot” and “queer”.
Scott Medical Health Center had argued that the lawsuit had no grounds because there is no law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation."
This will inevitably end up before SCOTUS and with Scalia gone, has a decent chance. There are other cases using the 14th amendment strategy
So for 50 years congress utterly failed to do its job to protect ALL citizens equally. The "Employment Non Discrimination Act" recently very nearly passed, but Republicans in their endless hatred blocked it. Contrary to most of the public's belief, only 18 states and some cities protect homosexuals from employment and housing discrimination. Now we turn to the courts, once again, to ensure an equal playing field in 'the pursuit of happiness'
That's my take on it anyway. My question is what do you think will come of this and what should come of it?
Judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay people from discrimination · PinkNews
"a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....
Baxley contends he was referred to by his supervisor as a “fag,” “faggot,” “f**king faggot” and “queer”.
Scott Medical Health Center had argued that the lawsuit had no grounds because there is no law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation."
This will inevitably end up before SCOTUS and with Scalia gone, has a decent chance. There are other cases using the 14th amendment strategy
So for 50 years congress utterly failed to do its job to protect ALL citizens equally. The "Employment Non Discrimination Act" recently very nearly passed, but Republicans in their endless hatred blocked it. Contrary to most of the public's belief, only 18 states and some cities protect homosexuals from employment and housing discrimination. Now we turn to the courts, once again, to ensure an equal playing field in 'the pursuit of happiness'
That's my take on it anyway. My question is what do you think will come of this and what should come of it?
A woman in a relationship with a man wouldn’t be sacked. A man in a relationship with the same man would be. The only difference between the two individuals is their gender.If you think it is, "logically," I would like to see the formal proof.
A woman in a relationship with a man wouldn’t be sacked. A man in a relationship with the same man would be. The only difference between the two individuals is their gender.
Legally I think it’s a stretch and I think it’s a mistake to try to make such stretches to try to account for a failure of governments to introduce properly words contemporary legislation on the issue. I think you can justify the raw logic though.
How do you explain affirmitave action, diversity goals or preference point systems as being consistent with treating all people equally? Obviously, if you can legally favor one person with "good discriminaton" then that has the effect of disfavoring another.
In the 1950s there were real issues systemic discrimination. Obviously some think there still is. Personally, I don't believe it is anymore. It is now jerks on both sides being obnoxious.
Right now, the city is only choosing those companies about 17 percent of the time when it does not include goals to seek minority- and women-owned companies. The study found that giving them extra consideration makes them twice as likely to win a contract when they're up against businesses owned by Caucasian males.
That’s just the reverse example. A man in a relationship with a woman would be OK but a woman in a relationship with the same woman would be discriminated against. The point is that the two employees are doing exactly the same thing, the only difference between the two situations is their own gender.No. Apparently, if it's going to happen, it would happen to a woman in a relationship with another woman as well, entirely negating this.
That’s just the reverse example. A man in a relationship with a woman would be OK but a woman in a relationship with the same woman would be discriminated against. The point is that the two employees are doing exactly the same thing, the only difference between the two situations is their own gender.
Judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay people from discrimination · PinkNews
"a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....
Baxley contends he was referred to by his supervisor as a “fag,” “faggot,” “f**king faggot” and “queer”.
Scott Medical Health Center had argued that the lawsuit had no grounds because there is no law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation."
This will inevitably end up before SCOTUS and with Scalia gone, has a decent chance. There are other cases using the 14th amendment strategy
So for 50 years congress utterly failed to do its job to protect ALL citizens equally. The "Employment Non Discrimination Act" recently very nearly passed, but Republicans in their endless hatred blocked it. Contrary to most of the public's belief, only 18 states and some cities protect homosexuals from employment and housing discrimination. Now we turn to the courts, once again, to ensure an equal playing field in 'the pursuit of happiness'
That's my take on it anyway. My question is what do you think will come of this and what should come of it?
The relationship isn’t being discriminated against, the employee is. You can’t define a relationship (or an orientation – there’s nothing to say the victim is in an actual relationship at the time) without identifying the gender of the people involved so gender and sexual orientation and inexorably linked.But if the woman were in a relationship with another woman, the same thing would happen to her. That's the actual "exact same thing" -- being in a homosexual relationship. It doesn't matter what their "gender" is -- it's the relationship. The same thing would happen to men OR women in homosexual relationships.
Actually, in the kind of working environment described in the OP, I suspect a woman perceived as homosexual would be treated differently to the man (though not necessary betterIf the woman in the homosexual relationship wouldn't be fired, then it's not discrimination based on homosexuality. It would just be discrimination against males.
Judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay people from discrimination · PinkNews
"a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....
Baxley contends he was referred to by his supervisor as a “fag,” “faggot,” “f**king faggot” and “queer”.
Scott Medical Health Center had argued that the lawsuit had no grounds because there is no law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation."
This will inevitably end up before SCOTUS and with Scalia gone, has a decent chance. There are other cases using the 14th amendment strategy
So for 50 years congress utterly failed to do its job to protect ALL citizens equally. The "Employment Non Discrimination Act" recently very nearly passed, but Republicans in their endless hatred blocked it. Contrary to most of the public's belief, only 18 states and some cities protect homosexuals from employment and housing discrimination. Now we turn to the courts, once again, to ensure an equal playing field in 'the pursuit of happiness'
That's my take on it anyway. My question is what do you think will come of this and what should come of it?
The relationship isn’t being discriminated against, the employee is. You can’t define a relationship (or an orientation – there’s nothing to say the victim is in an actual relationship at the time) without identifying the gender of the people involved so gender and sexual orientation and inexorably linked.
Actually, in the kind of working environment described in the OP, I suspect a woman perceived as homosexual would be treated differently to the man (though not necessary better). There’s unlikely to be any actual examples to compare though.
I was just noting an interesting aside on the male/female element (in response to your own off-topic comment). I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the underlying logic element.I think you've lost track of what the actual point of discussion is, whether or not sexual orientation is "logically" a part of sex (gender). You 1) keep bringing up examples which show it isn't, and 2) by making these assumptions about this and that, you're entirely outside the realm of logic.
I was just noting an interesting aside on the male/female element (in response to your own off-topic comment). I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the underlying logic element.
The relationship isn’t being discriminated against, the employee is. You can’t define a relationship (or an orientation – there’s nothing to say the victim is in an actual relationship at the time) without identifying the gender of the people involved so gender and sexual orientation and inexorably linked.
How do you explain affirmitave action, diversity goals or preference point systems as being consistent with treating all people equally? Obviously, if you can legally favor one person with "good discriminaton" then that has the effect of disfavoring another.
A woman in a relationship with a man wouldn’t be sacked. A man in a relationship with the same man would be. The only difference between the two individuals is their gender.
Legally I think it’s a stretch and I think it’s a mistake to try to make such stretches to try to account for a failure of governments to introduce properly words contemporary legislation on the issue. I think you can justify the raw logic though.
In the 1950s there were real issues systemic discrimination. Obviously some think there still is. Personally, I don't believe it is anymore. It is now jerks on both sides being obnoxious.
What does that have to do with gay people wanting equal treatment? That is seriously a stretch and you have no idea what i think of racial quotas
A recent study for that gay men are about 1/3 less likely to get an interview and the need to stay closeted at work is still an epidemic
A recent study for that gay men are about 1/3 less likely to get an interview and the need to stay closeted at work is still an epidemic
How would they know they were gay. Do people put that on their CV/resume? Seems like a suspect claim as far as the interview goes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?