https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1618_hfci.pdf
Printable View
Hooray for our side! :grouphug::bibounce::rainbow::color::wiggle2:Quote:
Originally Posted by jamie.knyc
frankly , i thought this was done a long time ago.
Laws vary from state to state. In many states the same protections already exist under state law. This decision makes it nationwide under federal law even in states that do not protect it.
This is a big day for us LGBT* folks.
Some of us will breathe easier tonight.
Now they will give you (and put on internal records) another reason your fired.
Sort of like age discrimination. Your gone either way with no go options to address the problem.
Employers will do as u say. They always do when something changes, and very often they will get away with it, but their cover stories are often rumbled as the tripe they are and bosses will come a cropper. Time, education, a few well publicised won cases and increased acceptance of our kind in society will help.Quote:
Originally Posted by jem_is_bi
It doesn't help that Texas is a "right to work" state. And yes, that means exactly the opposite of what it sounds like.
Wrongful termination cases are time-consuming and rarely end well for either side. For the employee, it is a long, drawn-out struggle that the employee rarely wins, and only makes sense for employees who are highly paid executives and have significant lost income at stake. For employers, they are expensive to defend even though the employers usually win, not covered by insurance, and have to be contested rather than settled for fear of water-cooler gossip among other employees. Large companies have cut down on the expense by taking hiring and firing away from little supervisors and doing it by human-resources departments than can manage all the legal compliance. In fairness to the employers, though, most employee litigation is not brought by people who work there who want to change the system but by former employees hoping to shake the tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeyes
Thats moreso for gays and lesbians.
I think this is a disaster for our country. The Court has no business making law. This should have been address through a legislative process. I actually agree that sexual orientation should not be a basis for job termination.
They did not make the law, they clearly defined the law that was created in the 60s, as covering LGBTQIA people as well....... in new zealand, when we were fighting for same sex marriage rights, out of the LGBTQIA, only the gays and lesbians were consulted and the original wording of the same sex marriage law, excluded trans / non binary from marrying their same sex partners, it was actually intentionally done by the gays and lesbians....luckily that was caught and changed before the law was passed.......Quote:
Originally Posted by MorThan7
In another forum some people argued that the law created in 1963, that the supreme court ruled on, was originally created only for cis gender people and not LGBTQIA but cis gender was a term that did not exist until the early 2000s and stonewall did not happen until 1969 so the LGBT did exist but were not considered to be anything other than a perverted very small minority that did not need job protection......all that those people were doing, was applying 2020 knowledge and understanding of sex, sexuality and gender to 1960s society and saying that the law as it was written back then, should have protected people such as trans and non binary, even tho the term non binary did not exist back then
:bibounce::bibounce: