Atlanta court says gays, lesbians not a protected class

[Islam Imamate]

Of course not. By the letter of the law, we really don't. White makes just don't generally run to the eeoc when they get fired.

By the letter of the law we do, specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If you don't believe in protected classes then what do you mean by protection for everyone? Getting rid of right to work?

 

[Edgy Brah]

Well, if they aren't a protected class then I hope they don't have an open season like Florida did a while back.

 

[sub_thug]

It's unceasingly annoying that people refer to gays and lesbians as a "class" in this way. It may not seem like much but it completely poisons the conversation by implying that special protection is given based on race/sex/religion, etc.

Unfortunately, this seems to be an inherent reality by virtue of having protected classes at all. Invariably, in some cases, it's just one more thing that can be corrupted, and in other cases, it's used as a justification for someone to say that there is reverse discrimination going on. For us to actually cross the threshold into a society that's blind to race/sex/religion/sexual orientation, eventually, we're going to have to get rid of these things. I remember reading an opinion from Sandra Day O'Connor where she said the same thing actually.

 

[TheBlondBomber]

I’d prefer if one day they didn’t need protection

We’re still very shortly removed from right to marry from them, and sadly many Christians are not going the route of hating the sin and loving the sinner and are instead condemning everything about a gay person simply because it’s a particular sin they don’t struggle with and can therefore falsely feel better about how they’re living (still in sin)

I think they need to remain a protected class. Especially in GA. Without, an employer can legally refuse to even interview a candidate they know is gay for the reason being that they’re gay

Just Christians? Do you think they would get a warmer response if gays demonstrated in front of a mosque in the same say they demonstrated in front of mike pence’s house?

 

[Amerikuracana]

By the letter of the law we do, specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If you don't believe in protected classes then what do you mean by protection for everyone? Getting rid of right to work?

It's illegal to discriminate based on race; Does that define a race? It's illegal to discriminate based on sex; does that denote a sex/gender?

Segregation is illegal. For everybody.

And yes, union like protections for everybody would be more fair.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Not a bad ruling per se. But I don't know that there is a truly wrong ruling here either. I think it should be a legislated thing. Both at the state level and the federal level. If that happens then I'd support it but I don't know that I'd always support court rulings for it. I think it's a tricky space for the judiciary to read in new definitions of protected classes. I think the EEOC considers it the same as discrimination on the basis of sex but that's a bit of a stretch for me mentally.

I think this is going to SCOTUS?

Yeah that's how I felt about it at first. Some people are too quick to cry about activist judges and legislating from the court but in this case ruling that they are a federally protected class might be a legit example of that. But I'm not that informed on the nuances of the law so I prefer to defer to the likes of you or @Quipling

It's illegal to discriminate based on race; Does that define a race? It's illegal to discriminate based on sex; does that denote a sex/gender?

Segregation is illegal. For everybody.

Okay so what's your point? Everyone is protected under these laws. There are exceptions such as sex discrimination in hiring by companies like Hooter's but even they got sued and forced to limit their sex discrimination only to the hiring of the waitresses and not other staff members as they once did. I think some of those exceptions are reasonable.

 

[Islam Imamate]

And yes, union like protections for everybody would be more fair.

 

[Amerikuracana]

It's illegal to discriminate based on race; Does that define a race? It's illegal to discriminate based on sex; does that denote a sex/gender?

Segregation is illegal. For everybody.

Yeah that's how I felt about it at first. Some people are too quick to cry about activist judges and legislating from the court but in this case ruling that they are a federally protected class might be a legit example of that. But I'm not that informed on the nuances of the law so I prefer to defer to the likes of you or @Quipling

Okay so what's your point? Everyone is protected under these laws. There are exceptions such as sex discrimination in hiring by companies like Hooter's but even they got sued and forced to limit their sex discrimination only to the hiring of the waitresses and not other staff members as they once did. I think some of those exceptions are reasonable.

My point is PCness is distorting the actual law and giving certain people extra rights, and that is what needed to end.

 

[sub_thug]

I misread your post so that is true but pan's point is also true, in many cases you might be able to tell if they are gay from their social media accounts. Also a gay guy doesn't have to be very extra to come off as gay. There are studies that suggest that people are actually pretty good at judging whether or not someone is gay based off of their mannerisms.

What studies are these? I have a very bad "gaydar," so it's not something I pick up easily. As for social media accounts, don't many people make them set as private or change the names?

 

[HockeyBjj]

Why on earth would that come up before a job interview? Are gays including that on their resume?

Employers in many situations do check out a potential candidate a variety of ways before even interviewing including social media. Even if you have your privacy settings on ok, a past profile pic of you and a gay lover holding hands can show up

Just one way it applies. Likely I’d think it’d happen in the interview and setting gaydars off with a lisp

 

[jamel]

Welp... 75% of Atlanta just let out a sassy "aint this bouta bitch?"

ATL is Mecca for homosexuals.

 

[HockeyBjj]

Just Christians? Do you think they would get a warmer response if gays demonstrated in front of a mosque in the same say they demonstrated in front of mike pence’s house?

I’m Christian myself, and due to a much larger population of Christians in America than Muslims the majority of gay pushback has come from the Christian side as it has a louder voice so I used it in my example

You’re exactly right though. Without lgbt being a protected class, a Muslim business owner could just as easily and legally refuse to hire anyone gay even if qualified and wouldn’t even have to hide the reason behind some other twisted justification

The church I attend has views on homosexuality I feel are biblical and I agree with. I don’t think I’ll need to find examples to prove to you that many do not unfortunately

 

[Cake4Breakfast]

Why on earth would that come up before a job interview? Are gays including that on their resume?

You are assuming that companies are just interviewing based on resumes without doing social media searches and background checks, or talking to people within an industry when a headhunter provides a name of a good candidate. That isn't an issue for jobs at Walmart, but let's not pretend like this can't happen.

 

[Islam Imamate]

What studies are these? I have a very bad "gaydar," so it's not something I pick up easily. As for social media accounts, don't many people make them set as private or change the names?

Here's what I was thinking about


There was also a controversial study done in Standford where an AI was programmed to identify gays based off their profile pictures and did so with over 90%

 

[Fawlty]

Unfortunately, this seems to be an inherent reality by virtue of having protected classes at all. Invariably, in some cases, it's just one more thing that can be corrupted, and in other cases, it's used as a justification for someone to say that there is reverse discrimination going on. For us to actually cross the threshold into a society that's blind to race/sex/religion/sexual orientation, eventually, we're going to have to get rid of these things. I remember reading an opinion from Sandra Day O'Connor where she said the same thing actually.

I reject the argument that class protection creates inequity (it definitely decreases it, significantly). So, the proposition that a blind society doesn't need these laws is guilty of putting the cart before the horse if it is used to criticize civil rights.

 

[sub_thug]

I reject the argument that class protection creates inequity (it definitely decreases it, significantly). So, the proposition that a blind society doesn't need these laws is guilty of putting the cart before the horse if it is used to criticize civil rights.

I don't deny the virtue of those protections in 1964, but I think, as a society, these kinds of protections are largely antiquated. At this point, I don't think legal protections are the source of problem, although individual beliefs and attitudes can still change for the better. But that's not going to be accomplished through law though, as that's going to be accomplished by individual people.

 

[BudKing8806]

Not a bad ruling per se. But I don't know that there is a truly wrong ruling here either. I think it should be a legislated thing. Both at the state level and the federal level. If that happens then I'd support it but I don't know that I'd always support court rulings for it. I think it's a tricky space for the judiciary to read in new definitions of protected classes. I think the EEOC considers it the same as discrimination on the basis of sex but that's a bit of a stretch for me mentally.

I think this is going to SCOTUS?

I believe so

 

[Fawlty]

I don't deny the virtue of those protections in 1964, but I think, as a society, these kinds of protections are largely antiquated. At this point, I don't think legal protections are the source of problem, although individual beliefs and attitudes can still change for the better. But that's not going to be accomplished through law though, as that's going to be accomplished by individual people.

If we conducted the experiment of eliminating the concept of legal protection for race, religion, and sex, what do you think the results of the experiment would be?

The answer to that is the answer to your suspicion that civil rights are outdated.

 

[Darth_Inv1ctu5]

I’d prefer if one day they didn’t need protection

We’re still very shortly removed from right to marry from them, and sadly many Christians are not going the route of hating the sin and loving the sinner and are instead condemning everything about a gay person simply because it’s a particular sin they don’t struggle with and can therefore falsely feel better about how they’re living (still in sin)

I think they need to remain a protected class. Especially in GA. Without, an employer can legally refuse to even interview a candidate they know is gay for the reason being that they’re gay

Until the whole generation(s) of retards who believe that religion should inform law die out, they should remain protected. We have, unfortunately, not outgrown idiocy of the religious origin just yet...

 

[hillelslovak87]

I was thinking more of our natural "gaydar" but that's also a great point.

Back in my day, men were men, and could tell other men were gay using their intuition alone!!