Posts: 327
Threads: 0
Joined: June 2, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 19, 2015 at 10:16 pm
(This post was last modified: July 19, 2015 at 11:33 pm by Ace.)
Anima, I must apologies in assuming that the both of us where possible being ousted for our not so majority position in our responses. However, it seems that it was never us but more of me. As it seems more are engaging and acknowledging your post.
Oh well such is life :-)
I do thank you for your mutual respect for addressing and wiliness to discuss my posts. Truly, It is greatly appreciated. 
Change of subject.
See if I am understanding the end conclusion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's recent ruling of homosexuality in the work force.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under title 7 has stated that the prohibiting of employment, promotion, and firing on the ground of an individual’s sexual orientation as discriminatory.
Ok, got it. Agree.
However, homosexual discrimination is under S. E. X. discrimination, not a new anti-discrimination section but, a current one. In doing this the protected statues of another minority is extinguished, (i.e. WOMEN).
Sex discrimination, birthed from the women’s liberation movement of the 60’s & 70’s, is meant to aid/create an equal treatment and opportunity in the work force for women who were overlooked for men in employment. In that time, before and even today, men dominate in employment, managerial positions, and payed higher than women.
Contrary to assumed knowledge, S.E.X. discrimination allocation is only WOMEN in the work force, not men! The team S. E. X. is in references to the sex one is born as , NOT what you are fucking!
The term Homosexuality argued to the commission, consist of both Lesbians (WOMEN) and Gay’s (MEN).In the EEOC ruling the term homosexuality is what the commission placed under the protection of sex discrimination. Now that men (gay or not) have been given a protected position under sex discrimination, women’s protected classes under Title 7 and sex discrimination has now just be eliminated!
Because now men can use sex discrimination to protect their position and dominates in the work force. In other words ones sex is obsolete in any consideration in the workforce. Now both sex’s are defined to be equal this nether need for any protection from the strong presents of the other in the workforce, because now there is no one sex dominate the other.
(But we know this is not even remotely true!!!)
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 20, 2015 at 12:06 pm
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 20, 2015 at 12:16 pm
(July 19, 2015 at 10:16 pm)Ace Wrote: Anima, I must apologies in assuming that the both of us where possible being ousted for our not so majority position in our responses. However, it seems that it was never us but more of me. As it seems more are engaging and acknowledging your post.
Oh well such is life :-)
I do thank you for your mutual respect for addressing and wiliness to discuss my posts. Truly, It is greatly appreciated.
Change of subject.
See if I am understanding the end conclusion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's recent ruling of homosexuality in the work force.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, under title 7 has stated that the prohibiting of employment, promotion, and firing on the ground of an individual’s sexual orientation as discriminatory.
Ok, got it. Agree.
However, homosexual discrimination is under S. E. X. discrimination, not a new anti-discrimination section but, a current one. In doing this the protected statues of another minority is extinguished, (i.e. WOMEN).
Sex discrimination, birthed from the women’s liberation movement of the 60’s & 70’s, is meant to aid/create an equal treatment and opportunity in the work force for women who were overlooked for men in employment. In that time, before and even today, men dominate in employment, managerial positions, and payed higher than women.
Contrary to assumed knowledge, S.E.X. discrimination allocation is only WOMEN in the work force, not men! The team S. E. X. is in references to the sex one is born as , NOT what you are fucking!
The term Homosexuality argued to the commission, consist of both Lesbians (WOMEN) and Gay’s (MEN).In the EEOC ruling the term homosexuality is what the commission placed under the protection of sex discrimination. Now that men (gay or not) have been given a protected position under sex discrimination, women’s protected classes under Title 7 and sex discrimination has now just be eliminated!
Because now men can use sex discrimination to protect their position and dominates in the work force. In other words ones sex is obsolete in any consideration in the workforce. Now both sex’s are defined to be equal this nether need for any protection from the strong presents of the other in the workforce, because now there is no one sex dominate the other.
(But we know this is not even remotely true!!!)
Whoa! When did this happen? I have not heard about this? How in the heck did they extend sex protections to men? The whole point of sex protections where in regards to gender to establish fairness for women in the work force.
I need to look this up? If what you are saying is right and gay men qualify for protections than it is discriminatory to deny hetero men the same protections. This subsequently deprives women and minorities of the protections intended to make the playing field fair for disadvantaged groups as the ruling incorporates all groups.
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 20, 2015 at 3:36 pm
(This post was last modified: July 20, 2015 at 3:37 pm by Anima.)
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 20, 2015 at 3:40 pm
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 20, 2015 at 3:52 pm
"Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is premised on sex-based preferences,
assumptions, expectations, stereotypes, or norms. “Sexual orientation” as a concept cannot be
defined or understood without reference to sex. A man is referred to as “gay” if he is
physically and/or emotionally attracted to other men. A woman is referred to as “lesbian” if
she is physically and/or emotionally attracted to other women. Someone is referred to as
“heterosexual” or “straight” if he or she is physically and/or emotionally attracted to someone
of the opposite-sex."
I believe this is in stark contrast to what same sex and trans persons argue. I also suspect they are not going to dispute this as it serves their interests not to.
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 20, 2015 at 3:55 pm
"Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an
employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex. For example, assume that an
employer suspends a lesbian employee for displaying a photo of her female spouse on her
desk, but does not suspend a male employee for displaying a photo of his female spouse on his
desk. The lesbian employee in that example can allege that her employer took an adverse
action against her that the employer would not have taken had she been male. That is a
legitimate claim under Title VII that sex was unlawfully taken into account in the adverse
employment action. See Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 711
(1978) (“Such a practice does not pass the simple test of whether the evidence shows
‘treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be different.’”). The
same result holds true if the person discriminated against is straight. Assume a woman is
suspended because she has placed a picture of her husband on her desk but her gay colleague is
not suspended after he places a picture of his husband on his desk. The straight female
employee could bring a cognizable Title VII claim of disparate treatment because of sex."
Ace. This is what you are talking about. I am still reading but this portion right here is now extending the same protection of sex to heteros as well as homos. So if they go on to confer it to gay men than it becomes available to straight men as well.
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 20, 2015 at 4:01 pm
"Sexual orientation discrimination is also sex discrimination because it is associational
discrimination on the basis of sex. That is, an employee alleging discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation is alleging that his or her employer took his or her sex into account by
treating him or her differently for associating with a person of the same sex. For example, a
gay man who alleges that his employer took an adverse employment action against him because
he associated with or dated men states a claim of sex discrimination under Title VII; the fact
that the employee is a man instead of a woman motivated the employer’s discrimination against
him. Similarly, a heterosexual man who alleges a gay supervisor denied him a promotion
because he dates women instead of men states an actionable Title VII claim of discrimination
because of his sex"
Holy shit! They did extend the gender discrimination category to heterosexual men as well. Wow! So whatever protections were being received by women to bring about fairness in the work place are effectively rendered void. He may now claim just as she does that him not getting the job is due to sex discrimination.
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 20, 2015 at 4:12 pm
"Therefore, Title VII similarly prohibits employers from treating an employee or applicant
differently than other employees or applicants based on the fact that such individuals are in a
same-sex marriage or because the employee has a personal association with someone of a
particular sex. Adverse action on that basis is, “by definition,” discrimination because of the
employee or applicant’s sex. Cf. Parr v. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Co., 791 F.2d 888,
892 (11th Cir. 1986) (“Where a plaintiff claims discrimination based upon an interracial
marriage or association, he alleges, by definition, that he has been discriminated against
because of his race [in violation of Title VII].”); Schroer v. Billington, 577 F. Supp. 2d 293,
307 n.8 (D.D.C. 2008) (“Discrimination because of race has never been limited only to
discrimination for being one race or another. Instead, courts have recognized that Title VII’s
prohibition against race discrimination protects employees from being discriminated against
because of an interracial marriage, or . . . friendships.”).
Interesting. So one does not even have to be LGBTQ... to enact the protections afforded by EEOC. They need only raise a claim they were fired or denied a promotion because they associated with someone who is or may not be considered to conform to the norms of heterosexual genders. Hmm? No possible way that can be abused.
Posts: 443
Threads: 3
Joined: May 21, 2015
Reputation:
6
RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
July 20, 2015 at 4:15 pm
Expressly stated even.
"An employee could show that the sexual orientation
discrimination he or she experienced was sex discrimination because it involved treatment that
would not have occurred but for the individual’s sex; because it was based on the sex of the
person(s) the individual associates with; and/or because it was premised on the fundamental
sex stereotype, norm, or expectation that individuals should be attracted only to those of the
opposite sex."
|
