Department of Justice argues Civil Rights Act does not protect homosexuals.

not if that person is qualified for the position. Not a lot of companies are firing or refuse to hire someone because of their sexual orientation.

 

No, being fired has negative consequences for families. If the person who got fired has a specialized skill that only has job offers across the country, that's an entire family.mkving because someone doesn't want a gay person employed in their company.

If it never happens as you claim, the why not just not allow it. Who will it harm? Better to be safe.

 

Okay so you're not allowed to fire someone based on their sexuality, what about catering an event that goes against your religion? Should you be forced to cater that event?

 

Looks like homosexual has fallen off the euphemism treadmill.

But isn't that same old song and dance we've been spoon fed since kindergarten?

Look, everybody wants you to looks both ways before you cross the street, wipe your feet on the doormat, little boys don't cry. The point I'm trying to make is you can say "Coke is in" and "We're the Pepsi generation", and its "got the taste that beats the other cold", and "I'm a pepper and he's a Pepper and we're a Pepper". Where do you stop, where do you draw the line?

 

And the appropriate response is.... "Huh???"

 

Under current law, no. Should they be allowed to? Yes.

See above. Also because their name is Steve, they have red hair, they double space after periods, they parked in the bosses spot that one time even though he was on vacation, Jupiter aligned with Mars, the boss thought they were someone else that had screwed up a project and didn't care when he was corrected, or any other reason. Or for no reason at all. The government should have no say in who an employer employs, who a private business chooses to do business with, who gets invited to your wedding, or any other association private citizens choose to have or not have.

 

Wow. One of the truly worst posts I've ever read on this board.

 

I think he is probably right that it does not mention sexual orientation, so it would not protect against that type of discrimination. That said, I don't think that people should be discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation, so it would be nice to pass some legislation to tie up that loophole.

 

Nah. Firing employees willy nilly is devistating to families of those employees. That's why we need worker's rights. You should only be able to be fire based on job performance or conduct with others.

 

Yawn..... the Bible Belt keeps finding ways to make discrimination legal.

 

If a company has the right to discriminate based on race ,sexuality, etc
Then They should have NO RIGHTS to tax monies or anything bought with tax monies that were taken from these groups
No Streets, roads or police protection etc. . . . .
Why should my tax dollars go to people who are allowed to deny me goods and services ?

Rocket River

 

This is a pretty obvious and pathetic attempt at trolling. I highly doubt you believe what you said.

Luckily if I don't get invited to your wedding or birthday party it doesn't affect my livelihood.

However, if someone eats too much oatmeal for breakfast and forgets their beano they might get a little gassy in their 2 pm meeting. That would be a shame if they were fired for a bit of flatulence.

 

You have the guy all wrong. Sure, I ardently disagree with StupidMoniker's take on this issue, but he's always had similar takes on these kinds of issues. Unlike you (or your friend, who says he has ended the practice, which I appreciate, if true), SM didn't use racial slurs, he didn't use bigoted pejorative language, he didn't talk like a 14 year old taking a day off from middle school. That's what he really believes. Bizarre, at least to me, but it is still a free country. Not for long, I fear, if Mr. trump and conservative extremists have their way. As for your last comment, I have to laugh.

 

But, we went a different direction and how the law actually is, you can't do that. And, given that we do have the 14th Amendment and that we do have the Civil Rights Act, it is an easy deduction from the protections provided there to see discrimination against homosexuals is discrimination on the basis of sex, and should be protected. I get the logic of your point of view. This is one of the few places where a Constitutional protection puts an onus on institutions in addition to the government. Our obligation to protect speech or religion or due process or arms doesn't extend to the public sphere this way. It's incongruent. But, that's what we've elected to do, and I think it was a good idea, and I'd fight any reversal on this path we've gone down.

 

I agree, and said as much (though I don't think homosexuality is a protected class under the CRA of 1964, they weren't really protecting gays back then and they didn't mention it in the list).

That would be fine, if the Constitution a) didn't specifically forbid the government from things like interference with contract, and b) provided the Congress with the power to mandate that individuals associate with other individuals despite their personal preferences, and c) didn't specifically forbid the government from treating people differently based on such characteristics as skin color. Given that the Constitution does have those points of conflict with the Civil Rights Act, I think it should be repealed. If the government wants to do those things, the mechanism to allow it is a Constitutional Amendment. What we got instead was the expansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause to the point where it now means Congress can pass a law regulating non-commercial activity taking place entirely within one state as interstate commerce. I think we should follow what the Constitution plainly says, not what we want it to mean.

 

This country was founded on the rejection of taxation without representation. Try harder, bud. And the first amendment prevents establishment of religion and the inhibition or advancement of religion..its silly to justify blatant discrimination against classes of people because some hick interprets their religion that way. All such beliefs should be disregarded and that should be obvious to anyone living in the 21st century.

TLDR: reasonable theists reject that their religion calls for employment discrimination against classes of people with immutable traits; unreasonable theists should be legislated against. Wacky religious beliefs have no business being catered to in a sane society. There is no all-encompassing standard of permissibility

 

I see your logic. Let's make the Constitutional Amendment first. I'm not interested in re-sanctioning discrimination and social injustice just because our forefathers didn't have the foresight to guard against it. If we take the lawyerly approach and apply what it says on paper, it's not like Congressional Republicans are going to come to the rescue with a Constitutional fix. They'll throw their hands up and say 'nothing we can do!' and back comes egregious discrimination in employment, in housing, in commerce and every other facet of modern life. I prefer to keep the unConstitutional CRA to that alternative. It's the same with the Republican ideological opposition to the individual mandate in Obamacare, also on shaky Constitutional ground. Republicans would say we can't do it as a result. I'm more inclined to say our Constitution is inadequate because it repeatedly gets in the way of us taking corporate action that is in our self-interest. If doing these things are not provided for, let's make provision for them.

 

Wait, you don't double space after periods?!?!?!