Discussion of religion in the context of LGBTQ+ rights is only allowed in the LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion Thread
.
Discussion of religion in any other context is off topic in all of the "LGBTQ+ rights..." threads.
Attempting to bait others into bringing up religion is also not allowed.
Edited by Mrph1 on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:53:59 PM
Since some landmark case that I forgot the name of. Some woman successfully sued her employer for sex discrimination on the basis that her employer mistreated her because of "sexual stereotyping". They didn't promote her because she wasn't feminine enough (she was too assertive, didn't wear makeup, etc), which was actually the reason they wrote on internal memos and whatnot. The Supreme Court decided that this falls under gender discrimination. Since then, clever lawyers have decided to use this "sexual stereotyping" loophole to protect their homosexual clients, although courts have backed away from claiming that homosexuality is per se unfeminine/unmasculine behavior (I guess that's progressive, technically).
The point though is just that sexuality as a class currently has 0 protection under US federal law, and even the most ridiculously shoehorned argument that it's not based on sexuality has a better chance of succeeding.
edited 28th Feb '16 6:02:06 AM by Clarste
Well, it usually ends up more like "They didn't actually know I was gay, they just assumed I was because of my lisp. Therefore the mistreatment couldn't have been because I was gay, but was instead sexual stereotyping." It's not like they have to play up their gayness in court or anything, they just have to establish that their mistreatment was caused by secondary traits, rather than their homosexuality itself.
I suppose this also encourages people to not come out to their coworkers when possible.
edited 28th Feb '16 6:07:48 AM by Clarste
The only thing I can think of is, let's say the Catholic-run hospital decides that Sunday should be a say for church and not one for medical emergencies. So they close their doors on Sunday. They're now legally protected from lawsuits by the families of people who died from lack of medical care, because the law says they can close on their holy day and no one can stop them.
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - SilaswIt can be argued that a hospital provides a vital public service and cannot be closed. There are other such businesses. The employees of power plants can't just pack up and go home for Christmas, for example.
There are businesses in my part of Pennsylvania that close on Monday for religious reasons. You shrug and shop somewhere else.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"This is a good point. As long as the service provided isn't strictly necessary at all times, they have a right to obey whatever religious ordinances they want to.
edited 28th Feb '16 8:21:07 AM by cake1
The ink flows into a dark puddle, just move your hand- write the way into his heartYeah laws demanding that places close on Sunday are a thing, but ones demanding that they stay open? I've never heard of them, I assume that it's a windmill law and no actual problem exists.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranI don't know if there are laws mandating that essential services stay open. I should think there are regulations on pharmacies and hospitals that say they can't keep prohibitive hours in the former case and are probably never allowed to shut down if they qualify as an emergency room in the latter case.
There's a law about closing almost everything on Sunday except some exempted stuff (which includes the pharmacie de garde du jour), bakeries (provided they're still closed two days a week) and a few other businesses (restaurants, laser tag etc. because most of their activity happens on week-ends).
Some non-exempted businesses get a limited number of sundays for opening (which they tend to spend during the soldes, the holidays period, etc.), and others can get some kind of permits, I think. There was some kind of shitstorm at some point because several hardware store chains had such permits while one did not, for reasons the state couldn't explain. This resulted in the hardware store nearest to my home closing permanently, because hardware stores make most of their business on week-ends.
Edit: Hm, this might be highly off-topic. Is there another thread that would be more appropriate if this digression ever continues?
edited 29th Feb '16 12:42:20 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."The reason this is a big deal is the EEOC, a federal anti-discrimination agency, is running on the logic that the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act both already guarantee protections to homosexuals on the grounds of anti-sex discrimination. And they want to see if Judges are willing to follow the chain of logic.
(However, this wouldn't protect for public accommodations, where there are no anti-sex discrimination provisions.) To note, the EEOC thinks these laws should cover, but they're an Expert Advisory board in the eyes of Judges. So they're filing these lawsuits for proof of concept.
Scalia must be rolling in his grave.
Took me a while to understand "against anti-gay discrimination".
So much for being an anti-discriminatory agency.

Actually, it's the other way around. If the boss says "I hate gays, so you're fired" then you have no legal recourse whatsoever because sexuality is not a legally protected class in the US and the default rule of at-will employment is that employment can be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason at all.
However, if they don't say that, then you could potentially argue that it actually had nothing to do with you being gay, and they were really discriminating against your sex for not being manly/womanly enough. Basically, the more stereotypically gay you are, the better case you have, because discriminating against people for not meeting society's standards for manliness/womanliness is legally protected.
edited 27th Feb '16 10:25:42 PM by Clarste