What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Status
Not open for further replies.
joecct said:
So now they'll be treated just like everyone else? Isn't that the goal?
Click to expand...

Funny how only protections for gay people are removed and he's not calling for all anti discrimination laws to be repealed.

I have a feeling you'd sing a different tune if he revoked the protections against religious discrimination.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

This is why I didn't vote for a single Republican last election. They just don't get it.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

dxmnkd316 said:
This is why I didn't vote for a single Republican last election. They just don't get it.
Click to expand...

To paraphrase an old joke,

Either you're a Democrat and have no brain, or you're a Republican and have no heart.

Party affiliation is declining on both "sides" as each becomes dominated more and more by extremists at either fringe of the spectrum.


It's kind of funny where we live, though. All the true Republicans have already left the state. We are left with centrist Democrats and left-wing nut job Democrats. Since the latter have basically expelled the former from the Party, the former call themselves "Republicans" primarily due to a lack of imagination.
 
Kepler said:
So you're OK with my firing an employee for being heterosexual, right?
Click to expand...

No, But heteros are not a protected class. People should get fired for lack of performance, corruption or lack of money. If you fire a person because of who they are, regardless of who or what they are, it's wrong.

But we've become a culture of victims.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Wanting to prevent terminations for being gay is playing the victim card? I just...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

joecct said:
No, But heteros are not a protected class. People should get fired for lack of performance, corruption or lack of money. If you fire a person because of who they are, regardless of who or what they are, it's wrong.

But we've become a culture of victims.
Click to expand...

Those two paragraphs don't follow. You admit in the first paragraph that firing somebody because of who they are is wrong. That means somebody who has that happen to them is a victim, and the purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to protect people from that wrong.

I'm actually surprised it has any teeth because I thought most states were At-Will, and an employer has to be a complete moron to get in any trouble with his firings-on-whim in those states. If challenged he can just say "performance," and unless he scrawled a racial slur on the termination letter, signed it and dated it, he's home free to fire people for whatever dumb reason he wants.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Federal judge orders Alabama to start issuing same-sex couples marriage licenses

Four same-sex couples requested a hearing with Granade to clear up the confusion over the issue in the state. Her order came a few hours after the hearing concluded Thursday afternoon. Granade's order was directed specifically at Mobile County Probate Court Judge Don Davis, who has refused to give licenses to same-sex couples, but it also negates the arguments of other probate judges who have been refusing to follow her earlier decision.

In her order, Granade said Davis may not deny marriage licenses "on the ground that Plaintiffs constitute same-sex couples or because it is prohibited by the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and the Alabama Marriage Protection Act or by any other Alabama law or Order pertaining to same-sex marriage." In other words, the federal decision trumps the state laws.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

ScoobyDoo said:
I haven't been fired for being heterosexual ever so I don't know. I'm guessing it's not the same.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the essence of sexual harassment wrongful termination suit? Male boss says to female underling, have sex with me or you are fired, and she says no to the sex and then gets fired? or am I missing something perhaps....

It will be interesting to see what happens when the first sexual harassment suit involving same-sex people hits the news. It is inevitable. Gay boss says to gay underling, etc.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

FreshFish said:
Isn't that the essence of sexual harassment wrongful termination suit? Male boss says to female underling, have sex with me or you are fired, and she says no to the sex and then gets fired? or am I missing something perhaps....

It will be interesting to see what happens when the first sexual harassment suit involving same-sex people hits the news. It is inevitable. Gay boss says to gay underling, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think that's what we're talking about here though. Were talking about being fired just for being gay. But, I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you've never been discriminated against.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

FreshFish said:
It will be interesting to see what happens when the first sexual harassment suit involving same-sex people hits the news. It is inevitable. Gay boss says to gay underling, etc.
Click to expand...

The first such case likely happened decades ago. As soon as sexual harassment hit the legal books, that became covered. The extension of marriage to gays doesn't have anything to do with the legal recognition that homosexuality is, ya know, sexual.
 
FreshFish said:
Isn't that the essence of sexual harassment wrongful termination suit? Male boss says to female underling, have sex with me or you are fired, and she says no to the sex and then gets fired? or am I missing something perhaps....

It will be interesting to see what happens when the first sexual harassment suit involving same-sex people hits the news. It is inevitable. Gay boss says to gay underling, etc.
Click to expand...

That's not being fired for being a heterosexual, that's being fired for not giving in to your boss's sexual demands. The legal term is "quid pro quo" harassment.

And same sex harassment cases have been around for decades. They're not a novelty.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Yeah, I don't think that's what we're talking about here though. Were talking about being fired just for being gay. But, I guess I wouldn't expect you to understand that since you've never been discriminated against.
Click to expand...

We've all been discriminated against in one way shape or form.

We do not live in Utopia and wishing will not make it so.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

joecct said:
No, But heteros are not a protected class. People should get fired for lack of performance, corruption or lack of money. If you fire a person because of who they are, regardless of who or what they are, it's wrong.

But we've become a culture of victims.
Click to expand...

You cant be this stupid...the amount of ignorance in the few words you posted is astounding. Like literally you astound me with your post and its stupidity.

Saying you cant fire someone because they are gay doesnt make them protected...it is putting into words what is already accepted for the other class. If I fire someone because I find out they are straight I would get sued. Brownback is trying to say the same thing doesnt apply to gays. That is called discrimination...

But hey God Hates FAGZ!1!!! so it is all good.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Please mind the ad hom. "That's a stupid thing to say." OK. "You're stupid." Not OK. /hallmonitor
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder

Good to have folks like this as the definitive authority for personal and public behavior:

In a lighthearted moment before an audience at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., Thursday night, the 81-year-old Ginsburg cracked up telling the story that she “wasn’t 100 percent sober” before going to the State of the Union.
Click to expand...

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015...percent-sober-for-state-of-the-union-address/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top