The Trump Administration Asked The Supreme Court
To Legalize Firing Workers Just For Being Transgender
BuzzFeed News,
by
Dominic Holden
Original Article
Posted By: LittleHoodedMonk,
8/16/2019 7:51:26 PM
The Trump administration on Friday took one of its most aggressive steps yet to legalize anti-transgender discrimination by telling the Supreme Court that federal law allows firing workers solely for being transgender, arguing a Michigan funeral home could fire a transgender woman because she wanted to wear women’s clothing on the job.
Although the administration was expected to take the stance — and had previously said firing workers on the basis of gender identity is legal under federal law — the latest court filing asks the nation’s top court to establish federal case law in a potentially sweeping setback for LGBTQ rights nationwide.
The case is a dispute over the word “sex.”
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Corndoggies 8/16/2019 8:16:19 PM (No. 154329)
Bunch of pot stirrers. Employers should be free to hire who best represents their business. Period.
21 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
lakerman1 8/16/2019 8:29:36 PM (No. 154334)
Who knows what Chief Judas Roberts will rule?
An honest ruling from the Supreme Court would be to say 'sex' in the context of the Civil Rights Act meant sex, male female, not tranny stuff. And the Court could tell Congress if they, the Congress that if the law should include trannys, then pass a new law.
14 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
nwcudagal 8/16/2019 8:43:51 PM (No. 154341)
I don't think there needs to be a federal law, if you go into a business with employees that act like the actors from "Big Bang Theory", just go some place else. The more nose rings, ear piercings and tattoos I see, the more inclined I am to take my business elsewhere. That is my right.
13 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
zzzghy 8/16/2019 8:45:10 PM (No. 154344)
Donald Trump is bringing it, man. Never thought I'd ever see anything like this.
18 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
JL80863 8/16/2019 8:45:30 PM (No. 154345)
So what's the issue?
8 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
earlybird 8/16/2019 8:45:38 PM (No. 154347)
Who ARE these people? Dominic should be more worried about PDJT’s call for more institutions for the crazy….
5 people like this.
There is no disputing the word "sex" - with VERY rare exceptions, male and female are the only options.
9 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Nevadadad46 8/16/2019 9:42:00 PM (No. 154388)
Fatastic! This is how you not only make America Great Again, it is how you Keep America Great!
7 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
web 8/16/2019 10:09:02 PM (No. 154402)
I fail to see anything wrong with a company firing mentally ill employees. Does this article mean to say the funeral home worker was a man who pretended to be a woman and wanted to wear women's clothing to work? He can wear women's clothing at home all he wants, but it isn't appropriate to wear it at work. Why are all these leftists pretending something that isn't true? Words can mean whatever they wish them to mean, I guess.
9 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Strike3 8/16/2019 10:23:24 PM (No. 154411)
Depending upon the nature of the business, each individual worker is a representative and a public face of that business. Weirdness in any form, whether it be a man in a dress, a woman with facial hair and a deep voice, facial piercings, over-the-top tattoos, green hair, inappropriate clothing, a dirty, smelly body, all of these things that offend many customers should be firing offenses after one warning. I have a niece that dresses as a vampire, including white facial paint and bright red hair. I ignore her and she ignores me. There is mental illness at work here. If the person does a good job and is hidden from the public, fine, but all businesses are competitive and I would rather go elsewhere than be made uneasy by these cries for attention.
6 people like this.
transgenders create work place tension
7 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
anniebc 8/16/2019 11:26:33 PM (No. 154452)
They want to be normal like the rest of us, so. . .
0 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
msjena 8/16/2019 11:31:14 PM (No. 154453)
The issue is whether the statutes cover transgender—on the basis of sex. If they don’t, trans can be fired. There is no inherent right to non-discrimination in employment.
1 person likes this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
IdahoJoe 8/17/2019 12:23:04 AM (No. 154473)
When I attend a funeral for a loved one, I want it to be dignified and respectful. I want the funeral that I pay for to respect my wants. When people modify themselves or dress or act against the norms, they are making a statement. They are trying to grab attention. A funeral is no place to make a statement. Especially not if it is not in accordance with my wishes and I am paying. What's next? Funeral directors insisting on being allowed to play Black Sabbath's 'Highway to H'? Making allowances for the grief-stricken is more important than using the event as your political pulpit and opportunity to get attention. If there is an expectation of a certain attire, suck it up buttercup and dress for the job. Make your statements on your own time.
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
DVC 8/17/2019 12:36:02 AM (No. 154478)
"Just" being transgendered??....it means that they are seriously mentally ill and are going to be a problem for their employer, and probably want to get expensive mutilation paid for by somebody else.
0 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Trigger2 8/17/2019 1:47:55 AM (No. 154505)
The funeral home has skin in the game as he doesn't want his funeral home reputation ruined. Every state should have a fire at will law.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "LittleHoodedMonk"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
While BuzzFeed News is trying to "aggressively" continue its attacks against President Trump with the headline and paragraph, they slip up and show what the homosexual community really wants. In the second paragraph, they clearly state that they want some "activist" judge to bypass the Constitution and make law to protect this phony (as a three-dollar-bill) gender issue. Bueller?