posted August 23, 2019 07:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
But dont you want the right to fire Trump supporters?

---

posted August 23, 2019 07:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
I'm sure teasel would advocate the firing of anyone supporting President Trump.

---

posted August 23, 2019 07:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumuzi:
that is legal in some states to begin with you know that right?

---

posted August 23, 2019 07:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
They went to the Supreme Court, wanting to make it legal throughout the country.

---

well life should be fun then

edit: though reading the article it seems like it's a matter of using a specific court case as a means to fight against discrimination, i'm fairly sure individual states that already have laws protecting lgbt workers have more specific legislature than that

posted August 23, 2019 07:25 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
It wasnt an assumption. It was a question. If you owned rental property and a white supremacist applied, would you accept him? If it came to light that your employee marched in Charlottesville, would you fire him? If a college applicant used a racial slur on FB, would you accept her?

---

A white supremacist is different. Interesting that you associate that (racism) with Trump, when people like Randall repeatedly tell the rest of us that he isn't racist.

posted August 23, 2019 07:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
I'm listing the sorts I know you disapprove of

How is a white supremacist different? Are all Trump supporters white supremacist?

---

posted August 23, 2019 07:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by teasel:
You're the one who made the association, and why are you taking this away from the main post? Do you think that companies should be allowed to fire people for being gay or trans?

---

posted August 23, 2019 07:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
It wasnt an assumption. It was a question. If you owned rental property and a white supremacist applied, would you accept him? If it came to light that your employee marched in Charlottesville, would you fire him? If a college applicant used a racial slur on FB, would you accept her?

---

being lgbt isnt the equivalent to holding particular views, just saying

posted August 23, 2019 07:38 PM            

What would McCarthy say? lol

posted August 23, 2019 08:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
ok what's the difference?

What would McCarthy say? lol

---

well first off on a personal level i disagree with discrimination based on views to begin with though i find government intervention questionable at the same time on both fronts (views or something like sexual orientation or a medical issue which is where being trans falls since it's highly likely comparable to a neurological disorder based on some current research)

on one hand i see it as morally wrong on the other i find it questionable to give the government power when it comes to dictating indvidual morality which is what those laws do

that being said who someone has sex with and is attracted to or whether or not they have a mental/neurological issue (whichever it is research is in a poor state with that right now when it comes to people being trans so i wont make claims that it's fully understood) isn't the same as an opinion

opinions can be a matter of education, exposure etc filtered through individual perspective whereas being lgbt just is and has nothing to do with views

my views and opinions came about through experience and life etc whereas me being bi and fairly effeminate just kind of has always been even as a kid when it didnt serve me well

posted August 23, 2019 11:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dumuzi:
well first off on a personal level i disagree with discrimination based on views to begin with though i find government intervention questionable at the same time on both fronts (views or something like sexual orientation or a medical issue which is where being trans falls since it's highly likely comparable to a neurological disorder based on some current research)

on one hand i see it as morally wrong on the other i find it questionable to give the government power when it comes to dictating indvidual morality which is what those laws do

---

Ok so here we are riding the fence between opposition to immoral behavior and the government's responsibility to legislate against imorality. Yes?

quote:

---

that being said who someone has sex with and is attracted to or whether or not they have a mental/neurological issue (whichever it is research is in a poor state with that right now when it comes to people being trans so i wont make claims that it's fully understood) isn't the same as an opinion

opinions can be a matter of education, exposure etc filtered through individual perspective whereas being lgbt just is and has nothing to do with views

my views and opinions came about through experience and life etc whereas me being bi and fairly effeminate just kind of has always been even as a kid when it didnt serve me well

being lgbt is more comparable to being a particular race than it is to being racist

---

posted August 23, 2019 11:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
This is about the law and separation of powers. The courts don't write laws--the legislature does. The SCOTUS will likely agree. The courts interpret the law as written and as the legislature intended. If Congress currently has a different opinion, they should change the law, but the courts cannot do so. If you cut through the overt anti-Trump sentiment in the article and read the actual facts and legal reasoning, you will understand.

---

yeah its buzzfeed. Obviously it's going to be a worse than usual article.

posted August 23, 2019 11:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
And here we are differentiating between identity and opinion with the former being protected and the latter not. Is that correct?

---

no, i was saying i find giving the government power to protect either (opinion or identity) questionable because discrimination is a morality judgement and i find government interference problematic as such

my point was only comparing being lgbt to being racist is an unfair comparison because like i said it's more comparable to race

i just found your comparison to be poor so i commented on it

but i think government interference in who does or doesnt get hired is problematic at the same time, because i think discrimination is a morality issue which i think would be better left to individuals in most cases

my thoughts are if someone chooses to discriminate as a business then consumers can choose to not support those practices and the government doesn't need to interfere, however if people choose to continue then the service provided overrides people's moral judgements (or goes with them) and that's just life

i think most issues like that would be better left in the hands of consumers rather than government

in the case of most businesses

posted August 23, 2019 11:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Randall:
This is about the law and separation of powers. The courts don't write laws--the legislature does. The SCOTUS will likely agree. The courts interpret the law as written and as the legislature intended. If Congress currently has a different opinion, they should change the law, but the courts cannot do so. If you cut through the overt anti-Trump sentiment in the article and read the actual facts and legal reasoning, you will understand.

---

i found the article extremely hard to read personally, but it seemed skewed

that's why i was thinking about how there's actual legislature existing in states where it is protected (and not in states where people being fired for that just happens) while simultaneously wondering if i was just reading about a single court case and how irrelevant it seemed ultimately given the laws already existing in individual states and so on