Trump Administration Asks SCOTUS To Legalize Firing LGBTQ Workers Based On Sexuality

[SMOGZINN]

Ok. We'll i know for a fact you're asking to find yet something else to argue with me about. You honestly don't give a rats ass what my opinion is. So let it be.

Yes, I would argue with you. That is what we do here. If you don't want people to argue with you then you are in the wrong sub-forum. That is pretty much what this forum is for. And I hope that I've shown in my arguments that I actually do care about your arguments, even if I don't agree with them I find it useful to understand them. I write these long arguments because I care. If I didn't care I would go watch a video on Youtube or something.

 

[blackangst1]

Yes, I would argue with you. That is what we do here. If you don't want people to argue with you then you are in the wrong sub-forum. That is pretty much what this forum is for. And I hope that I've shown in my arguments that I actually do care about your arguments, even if I don't agree with them I find it useful to understand them. I write these long arguments because I care. If I didn't care I would go watch a video on Youtube or something.

Sexual preference vs sexual identity.

 

[darkswordsman17]

He just mistook LGBT for Lettuce, Bacon and Tomato, which he is all for. He mixes everything else up, why not BLT?

Oooh, lettuce, guac, bacon, tomato, and queso. That sounds good!

 

[Sonikku]

You must include personal written commentary in P&N.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[senseamp]

How do Jill Stein and Ralph Nader voters feel about this, seeing how 4 out of 5 SCOTUS conservatives are there thanks to them?

 

[Muse]

OK... YOU! Pull down your pants. Hmm... you're fired!

 

[Muse]

Its cute how every two days they tell us they are the party of Lincoln.

I was thinking about this today. I can't think of a Republican president after Lincoln who was worth a damn.

 

[sportage]

Russia is EXTREMELY anti gay. Putin is EXTREMELY anti gay.
Putin and Trump often talk to each other.
Trump listens to Putin.
So is it any wonder that Putin would inject this idea into Trump's head that America needs to crack down on the gay stuff?
Is it any wonder that Donald Trump would agree to follow in Putin's footsteps on handling the gays?
I knew this was coming, one day, given how the Soviets treat their gay people and how Putin basically tells Trump what to do.
I knew Putin would eventually express his objections to Donald over how America is so open to it's gay community.
I knew this issue was on Putin's hit list against America. And that it was only a matter of time.
Well obviously that time has come.

 

[dawp]

I was thinking about this today. I can't think of a Republican president after Lincoln who was worth a damn.

only one I can think of is Eisenhower.

but then even he had his flaws, like the u2 incident.

 

[Sonikku]

only one I can think of is Eisenhower.

but then even he had his flaws, like the u2 incident.

And then there was the whole overthrow of a democracy in Iran, replacing it with a dictatorship and setting it up to one day be one of our greatest enemies.

 

[brycejones]

Ok. We'll i know for a fact you're asking to find yet something else to argue with me about. You honestly don't give a rats ass what my opinion is. So let it be.

So it’s a secret. You and pcgeek11 sure have a really hard time communicating.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Sexual preference vs sexual identity.

Sorry, I still don't think I understand what you are saying. Sexual preference and sexual identity tend to go hand in hand, one's preference informs one's identity. So that if one identifies as gay that is because one's sexual preference is the same sex. They are different concepts, but they are so causally linked that it would be impossible to discriminate against one with out also discriminating against the other. I can not see any way to say that you are discriminating against someone's sexual preference without discriminating against their sexual identity, since the identity is an extension of the preference.

I just realized you might mean gender identity. If that is what you meant then I agree that it is not protected by federal law and can be changed by EO. It is still a dick move to hurt people's livelihood over a philosophical disagreement. Trans people are not harming anyone, why go out of your way to harm them?
It is one of the things that we really should address with legislation, one way or another. It is ridiculous for people to have to live their life based on the whims of a President's religious view. Much to close to a dictator for my tastes.

 

[blackangst1]

Sorry, I still don't think I understand what you are saying. Sexual preference and sexual identity tend to go hand in hand, one's preference informs one's identity. So that if one identifies as gay that is because one's sexual preference is the same sex. They are different concepts, but they are so causally linked that it would be impossible to discriminate against one with out also discriminating against the other. I can not see any way to say that you are discriminating against someone's sexual preference without discriminating against their sexual identity, since the identity is an extension of the preference.

I just realized you might mean gender identity. If that is what you meant then I agree that it is not protected by federal law and can be changed by EO. It is still a dick move to hurt people's livelihood over a philosophical disagreement. Trans people are not harming anyone, why go out of your way to harm them?
It is one of the things that we really should address with legislation, one way or another. It is ridiculous for people to have to live their life based on the whims of a President's religious view. Much to close to a dictator for my tastes.

I agree. No one should be harmed.

 

[dawp]

I just realized you might mean gender identity. If that is what you meant then I agree that it is not protected by federal law and can be changed by EO. It is still a dick move to hurt people's livelihood over a philosophical disagreement. Trans people are not harming anyone, why go out of your way to harm them?
It is one of the things that we really should address with legislation, one way or another. It is ridiculous for people to have to live their life based on the whims of a President's religious view. Much to close to a dictator for my tastes.

the only reason i can see them doing this is not to lose the evangelical votes as I seriously doubt trump hold those views himself

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Who the fuck feels the need to let their employer know about their sexuality?

I don't think it should be protected either. If I get hired and then tell them I identify as an attack helicopter and am sexually attracted to bronies is that protected? No one gives a shit, no one asked for it, so why share It and why is it "protected"?

 

[HomerJS]

Who the fuck feels the need to let their employer know about their sexuality?

I don't think it should be protected either. If I get hired and then tell them I identify as an attack helicopter and am sexually attracted to bronies is that protected? No one gives a shit, no one asked for it, so why share It and why is it "protected"?

What if someone sees you out on a weekend with your same sex SO and they report it to HR? They fire you. Don't think that should be protected?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What is someone sees you out on a weekend with your same sex SO and they report it to HR? They fire you. Don't think that should be protected?

I do, that's a valid point.

But I guess I'm asking is where do you draw the line to differentiate that discussing your sexuality at the workplace isn't appropriate? Or do you think it should be appropriate workplace discussion?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I do, that's a valid point.

But I guess I'm asking is where do you draw the line to differentiate that discussing your sexuality at the workplace isn't appropriate? Or do you think it should be appropriate workplace discussion?

Basically if it would be okay for a cis heterosexual person to talk about it, then it should be for any other combination as well. Just mentioning your same sex partner should not be considered 'discussing your sexuality'. I've worked with gay and trans people for over a decade now and I've never had one discuss their sexuality in my presence beyond what any heterosexual person would.

 

[ewdotson]

I do, that's a valid point.

But I guess I'm asking is where do you draw the line to differentiate that discussing your sexuality at the workplace isn't appropriate? Or do you think it should be appropriate workplace discussion?

No one is trying to say that people should be discussing details of their sex lives while at the workplace. Sexual harassment laws are still going to be applicable.

The problem is that there are a lot of ways folks wind up showing their orientation that don't involve actually discussing sexytimes. Photos of one's family on one's desk are an obvious example. Talking about weekend/holiday plans with one's SO have been common in every place I've worked. I've met pretty much all of my SO's spouses at company functions. (e.g. the annual holiday party, picnic, etc.) The are the sorts of things that LGBTQ shouldn't have to try to hide for fear of being fired over it.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Pedophilia is a sexuality. Should you not be able to fire someone for announcing their stance?

 

[ewdotson]

That's an appalling comparison. There's nothing predatory about being LGBTQ. Consent matters.

 

[HomerJS]

I do, that's a valid point.

But I guess I'm asking is where do you draw the line to differentiate that discussing your sexuality at the workplace isn't appropriate? Or do you think it should be appropriate workplace discussion?

Discussing your sexuality at work is becoming more verboten because of sexual harassment. I see nothing wrong discussing a date you had over the weekend. Discussing you and date doing 69 when getting back is completely inappropriate. Most people know where to draw the line.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Pedophilia is a *crime*. Consent matters.

Pedophilia isn't a crime. It's still a sexuality. It's just not a socially accepted one.

Performing sexual acts on a child is what you're referring to as a crime.

 

[dainthomas]

I was thinking about this today. I can't think of a Republican president after Lincoln who was worth a damn.

Eisenhower built the interstate system, which was pretty beneficial.

He'd be far to the left of every elected republican today, though.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Pedophilia isn't a crime. It's still a sexuality. It's just not a socially accepted one.

Performing sexual acts on a child is what you're referring to as a crime.

Really? This is the hill you want to die on?
Argumentum ad absurdum does not work well for laws or social custom, because we can always find extreme examples where they fall into the absurd. We can easily make exceptions for the absurd.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Really? This is the hill you want to die on?
Argumentum ad absurdum does not work well for laws or social custom, because we can always find extreme examples where they fall into the absurd. We can easily make exceptions for the absurd.

That's not how laws work broceritops.

I can't say things like pedophilia and the likes of beastiality are extreme examples. There are plenty of pieces of shit that advocate for their respective groups.

And I still have concerns about just generally talking about sexual preferences in the workplace. If someone prefers BDSM, is that not a sexuality? Again, can't say discussing that is appropriate in the workplace.