ADVERTISEMENT

SCOTUS is a bunch of right wing hatemongers

Florida is a right to work state, they will just say something else and fire you. All this does is clog the system with bullshit wrongful termination suits
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
The Branch said:
In a rare occurrence, I agree with the majority decision and I agree with the points made in the dissent.

This is how the supreme court should work.
Click to expand...


I think it’s more for show. Its very Hard to prove that you got fired for being LGBT than any other reason. Unless of course the owner is a moron who says It
 
DAiello18 said:
Florida is a right to work state, they will just say something else and fire you. All this does is clog the system with bullshit wrongful termination suits
Click to expand...
As long as the scope of this ruling is relatively limited in how its administered I think its fine. The can of worms that will probably be opened is that if an employee goes trans and it affects the profitability of the company, the employer will have to weigh the sales losses vs the lawsuit. If an employee decides to change gender and that makes customers uncomfortable to the point of deciding to go elsewhere for business, the business owner is in a catch-22. How do you prove that you terminated an employee based on diminished sales when you add a protected status into the equation?
 
Crazyhole said:
As long as the scope of this ruling is relatively limited in how its administered I think its fine. The can of worms that will probably be opened is that if an employee goes trans and it affects the profitability of the company, the employer will have to weigh the sales losses vs the lawsuit. If an employee decides to change gender and that makes customers uncomfortable to the point of deciding to go elsewhere for business, the business owner is in a catch-22. How do you prove that you terminated an employee based on diminished sales when you add a protected status into the equation?
Click to expand...

like I said, I think Its more For show. Its harder To prove that you fired them for being whatever they are than anything else.

the company could adversely just say a blanket such as profits are down and we are downsizing as a company.

Florida doesn’t even need a reason in most cases. I think proving you were fired for being whatever is harder and should be harder otherwise we are going to have a million wrongful termination lawsuits by those who sneeze glitter and wonder why showing your balls in the office is frowned upon
 
DAiello18 said:
like I said, I think Its more For show. Its harder To prove that you fired them for being whatever they are than anything else.

the company could adversely just say a blanket such as profits are down and we are downsizing as a company.

Florida doesn’t even need a reason in most cases. I think proving you were fired for being whatever is harder and should be harder otherwise we are going to have a million wrongful termination lawsuits by those who sneeze glitter and wonder why showing your balls in the office is frowned upon
Click to expand...

Since when can’t you show your balls in the office? I’d find a new job if I were you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFKnightfan08 and DAiello18
I disagree not for the fact I think someone should be fired on their sexual preference.

I disagree because of the vague wording that will hinder businesses who are trying to sustain a profit and run the risk of wrong lawsuits clogging them and damaging reputations. I think there’s a case to be made that the more open members of the community will not be hired with the foresight that if they need to be fired for any reason, a company doesn’t want the headache.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
What this really boils down to is appearance.

Imagine a scenario where a Muslim business that has a strict dress code for female employees hires a woman that is a practicing Muslim. Hijab, etc.

Then that woman converts to Christianity and loses the hijab. She doesn't demonstrate her faith to customers in any way other than not covering her face. The traditional customers of the business become uncomfortable and stop patronizing that business, which lead to a drop in sales. Is it her faith, which is protected, that led to her termination or the loss in sales? How do you prove or disprove it either way?

Or a more direct analogy: a woman is hired to help female customers pick out lingerie, then decides to transition to a man. Sales drop because female customers don't want a guy helping them pick out g-strings. Gotta fire that employee, but now they have a protected status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAiello18
Crazyhole said:
What this really boils down to is appearance.

Imagine a scenario where a Muslim business that has a strict dress code for female employees hires a woman that is a practicing Muslim. Hijab, etc.

Then that woman converts to Christianity and loses the hijab. She doesn't demonstrate her faith to customers in any way other than not covering her face. The traditional customers of the business become uncomfortable and stop patronizing that business, which lead to a drop in sales. Is it her faith, which is protected, that led to her termination or the loss in sales? How do you prove or disprove it either way?

Or a more direct analogy: a woman is hired to help female customers pick out lingerie, then decides to transition to a man. Sales drop because female customers don't want a guy helping them pick out g-strings. Gotta fire that employee, but now they have a protected status.
Click to expand...

Yup what It boils down to is protecting everything but the business is what one side wants. And Its great To protect people, in theory. The problem is with that theory, you don’t account for the business closing and all those protected people losing their jobs anyway.
 
UCFWayne said:
this was a good decision.
Click to expand...
Agree. Frankly, one might have expected it to be a bigger majority even with it being a conservative court.

The very notion that Gay marriage is legal but it would somehow be okay for an employer to fire someone on the basis of his or her sexual preference would be as schizophrenic as the SCOTUS could ever get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
DaShuckster said:
Agree. Frankly, one might have expected it to be a bigger majority even with it being a conservative court.

The very notion that Gay marriage is legal but it would somehow be okay for an employer to fire someone on the basis of his or her sexual preference would be as schizophrenic as the SCOTUS could ever get.
Click to expand...

Once again, how do you prove this in court though? Its a Great dog and pony show. Truly Great headlines. Proving you were fired for being whatever is nearly impossible.
 
DAiello18 said:
Once again, how do you prove this in court though? Its a Great dog and pony show. Truly Great headlines. Proving you were fired for being whatever is nearly impossible.
Click to expand...
If it wasn't "a thing," there wouldn't have been a SCOTUS case to decide.
 
DaShuckster said:
If it wasn't "a thing," there wouldn't have been a SCOTUS case to decide.
Click to expand...

you didn’t answer anything I said. I asked how does one prove this in court? I can claim that’s why they fired me. Unless they flat out say I fired you for your sexual preference, how do I prove It?
 
DAiello18 said:
you didn’t answer anything I said. I asked how does one prove this in court? I can claim that’s why they fired me. Unless they flat out say I fired you for your sexual preference, how do I prove It?
Click to expand...
The same way women and people of color do.

If employers are stupid enough to fire someone on the basis of their gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual preference, it's not beyond the realm of possibility for them to also be stupid enough to leave a paper trail.
 
DaShuckster said:
The same way women and people of color do.

If employers are stupid enough to fire someone on the basis of their gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual preference, it's not beyond the realm of possibility for them to also be stupid enough to leave a paper trail.
Click to expand...

You don’t think for every 1-2 rightful suits we will have 15-20 ones just clogging the system? Or less people of the community being hired now?
 
DAiello18 said:
You don’t think for every 1-2 rightful suits we will have 15-20 ones just clogging the system?
Click to expand...
Excellent point. We should be very careful using the judiciary to establish what's right for fear of clogging up the system. :)
 
DaShuckster said:
Excellent point. We should be very careful using the judiciary to establish what's right for fear of clogging up the system. :)
Click to expand...

actually you should be concerned with the further lack of hiring of LGBTQ members due to their protected status and the businesses fear of lawsuits should they ever need to terminate them.
 
DAiello18 said:
actually you should be concerned with the further lack of hiring of LGBTQ members due to their protected status and the businesses fear of lawsuits should they ever need to terminate them.
Click to expand...
Yet another excellent point. The real message the SCOTUS ruling was sending to the American business community was: Don't hire LGBTQ people in the first place 'cause you might decide you want to fire them because of it later. :rolleyes:
 
DAiello18 said:
actually you should be concerned with the further lack of hiring of LGBTQ members due to their protected status and the businesses fear of lawsuits should they ever need to terminate them.
Click to expand...
Shuckster is trolling you. He doesn't care about the LGBT community and whether they have jobs.
 
DaShuckster said:
Yet another excellent point. The real message the SCOTUS ruling was sending to the American business community was: Don't hire LGBTQ people in the first place 'cause you might decide you want to fire them because of it later. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


You love twisting words man. Its kind of funny. It means you have nothing logical or rational to bring to the conversation. Which is fitting given 48 hours or so if watching the posts you make.

If you don’t think businesses will naturally shy away from hiring them to avoid backlash and protect their profit margin you are shocking naive.
 
Crazyhole said:
Shuckster is trolling you. He doesn't care about the LGBT community and whether they have jobs.
Click to expand...

oh I’ve figured out who he is as a person. He’s someone who cherry picks a word or two to try to make a point while avoiding all areas where he can be shut down. At least Cubs has a discussion
 
DAiello18 said:
You love twisting words man. Its kind of funny. It means you have nothing logical or rational to bring to the conversation. Which is fitting given 48 hours or so if watching the posts you make.

If you don’t think businesses will naturally shy away from hiring them to avoid backlash and protect their profit margin you are shocking naive.
Click to expand...
He's a good guy, but can not have a genuine conversation about anything. Honestly he's a really good troll. You think he's being reasonable for a while and then he twists or cherry picks your words. Its frustrating but fun. Just when you think he might admit that he's wrong about something he pivots away.
 
Crazyhole said:
He's a good guy, but can not have a genuine conversation about anything. Honestly he's a really good troll. You think he's being reasonable for a while and then he twists or cherry picks your words. Its frustrating but fun. Just when you think he might admit that he's wrong about something he pivots away.
Click to expand...

Its so much fun. I give him credit. I hate that It helps me pass the work time so effectively. And the name
Itself is pretty damn good too.

also, I will never admit that again.
 
DAiello18 said:
Its so much fun. I give him credit. I hate that It helps me pass the work time so effectively. And the name
Itself is pretty damn good too.

also, I will never admit that again.
Click to expand...

Also I’d like to thank @DaShuckster for turning me into a 4 star recruit and making my posts go from 2 in 5 years to 200.
 
"Supreme Court decides gays and transgenders are actual human beings: Right-Wing Conservatives object"

That should be the real headline. Jackasses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaShuckster
chemmie said:
I've concluded DAiello is really 85 using a new name. Thinks he is funny, but really is just showing off his true colors.
Click to expand...

Have no idea who 85 is, but I love a good tin foil hat theory. What actually is quite funny, is that you post on here thinking you’re beyond educated when in fact you spew the same things in every thread with no substance. A moral high ground with no substance when It comes to different viewpoints is quite sad. Instead you spout emotional trigger words and phrases to get people to appeal to the side of logical fallacies. What’s funny is I leave the dungeon for 2 days, and have figured your little gimmick. You and Chicken are really perfect for each other. At least Cubs is rational. The two of you though? Yikes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
DAiello18 said:
Have no idea who 85 is, but I love a good tin foil hat theory. What actually is quite funny, is that you post on here thinking you’re beyond educated when in fact you spew the same things in every thread with no substance. A moral high ground with no substance when It comes to different viewpoints is quite sad. Instead you spout emotional trigger words and phrases to get people to appeal to the side of logical fallacies. What’s funny is I leave the dungeon for 2 days, and have figured your little gimmick. You and Chicken are really perfect for each other. At least Cubs is rational. The two of you though? Yikes.
Click to expand...
Do you think anyone has to try hard to take the moral high ground with someone who jokes that gay people sneeze glitter and that trans people are sexual predators?

The funny thing is that you're more likely to get fired for making fun of gay people online than you are for being gay now. Thats a good thing for America. Hope you catch up with reality at some point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaShuckster
fried-chicken said:
Do you think anyone has to try hard to take the moral high ground with someone who jokes that gay people sneeze glitter and that trans people are sexual predators?

The funny thing is that you're more likely to get fired for making fun of gay people online than you are for being gay now. Thats a good thing for America. Hope you catch up with reality at some point.
Click to expand...

please show me where I said Trans people are sexual predators? Oh wait I didn’t. As for sneeze glitter you do realize hyperbole right? Or do you actually think Its possible For a human being to sneeze glitter. Also check the comments above where I said I was all for protection but with It comes risks of isolation and lack of hiring.

hope your reading comprehension catches up with your ability to be wrong in comments sometime
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
Lol. This guy is a master at linguistics and logical argument. Smart guy.
 
DAiello18 said:
please show me where I said Trans people are sexual predators? Oh wait I didn’t. As for sneeze glitter you do realize hyperbole right? Or do you actually think Its possible For a human being to sneeze glitter. Also check the comments above where I said I was all for protection but with It comes risks of isolation and lack of hiring.

hope your reading comprehension catches up with your ability to be wrong in comments sometime
Click to expand...

if you expose your genitalia in public that's a sex crime. Is that not what you are accusing people of wanting to do here?

DAiello18 said:
...wonder why showing your balls in the office is frowned upon
Click to expand...
 
fried-chicken said:
if you expose your genitalia in public that's a sex crime. Is that not what you are accusing people of wanting to do here?
Click to expand...

now where do I say Trans people do that. No where does It say Trans people are predators. I would like evidence of your accusations.

I said by those who sneeze glitter and wonder why showing your balls in the office is frowned upon.

Also before that was important context talking about wrongful termination that is a key. If anyone were to show their balls in the office regardless of orientation they could be terminated protected or not. So please also cite the context when you’re going to be incorrect.
 
The Manhattanites twist yet again, giving perverts more room to cause problems.


Did they forget the definition?


per·ver·sion

noun
noun: perversion; plural noun: perversions

1.
the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

2.
sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable.


First the sexual perverts,


then the child molesters,


Then the murderers.


These globalists are filth and they bring filth.
 
Crazyhole said:
This is just more eroding of the rights of businesses to make decisions based on the best interests of their actual business.
Click to expand...
I disagree.

There are now 3 Pro-Choice Libertarians on the SCOTUS -- including Kavanaugh (yes, he's Pro-Choice). Kavanaugh agreed with the move, but Constitutionally said it's up to Congress to re-define the CRA of '64, which is why he voted against it.


In my view ...

Although I understand Kavanuagh's view, the reality is that the SCOTUS previously ruled in 2013 that the CRA of '64 need to be re-reviewed by Congress. But in 7 years, Congress hasn't done that. So that's why I side with the other, 2 of the 3 Libertarians.

I.e., the 6 in the 6-3 SCOTUS ruling were basically saying Congress has shown no ability to address Civil Rights at this point, as evident by the 2013 ruling to 'clean up' the voting requirements of the '64 CRA, so they are going to apply the '64 CRA to the LGBTQ+ protections, since Congress is unable to act.

So as much as it is very much 'activitism' in the fact that only US Congress can define who it's own laws cover, the SCOTUS is saying they have no faith in the US Congress to do so. I have to agree with that.

And it's better the SCOTUS does it, than the single man or woman in POTUS.


In reality ...

I wish we'd just ressurrect the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) and get this over with. Most states didn't move the ERA forward because they feared it would eventually apply to Marriage Equality.

That would be akin to Lincoln and the 13th Amendment, only it's the SCOTUS and the ERA.


I remember I scoffed at the ERA when I was 13 in school ('86), but by 17 ('90), I was a Libertarian in mindset and competely flipped. My wife 'tested me' on our first date ('94) by taking me to a Gay Club ... and was pleasantly that I had no problem with it.

We were both against what became DOMA. Unfortunately, nearly all our left-wing Democratic friends were for DOMA, especially after the Clintons gave their support. Pretty much why we fell in love ... we were extremely conservative in our lives, but ultra-liberal (beyond Democrats) in our political views when it came to Civil Liberties.
 
Last edited:
DAiello18 said:
like I said, I think Its more For show. Its harder To prove that you fired them for being whatever they are than anything else.

the company could adversely just say a blanket such as profits are down and we are downsizing as a company.

Florida doesn’t even need a reason in most cases. I think proving you were fired for being whatever is harder and should be harder otherwise we are going to have a million wrongful termination lawsuits by those who sneeze glitter and wonder why showing your balls in the office is frowned upon
Click to expand...
It really stresses the importance of code of conduct, coaching, and documentation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DAiello18
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Brandon

OT: Coach fired for having sexual relations with player, his wife is the HC: "I knew it was kind of a no-no"

Replies
98
Views
3K
The Dungeon - Knights Only
dali drama
dali drama
UCFBS

SCOTUS turns away challenge on Bump Stocks (again)

Replies
0
Views
207
The Water Cooler
UCFBS
UCFBS
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back