Meatflap
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | Houston, TX |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | Manufacturer |
| Number of Posts: | 70 |
| Registered on: | 6/10/2014 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: College football is broken. Here's how it can be fixed.
Posted by Meatflap on 12/30/20 at 11:31 am
The issue with this is that these are students. It isn't the NFL draft where they have to play for whoever chooses them. The students are the ones doing the choosing.
1
re: Why does fentanyl even exist
Posted by Meatflap on 8/7/20 at 11:45 pm
Muh-knee.
re: WTF do people keep getting tested?
Posted by Meatflap on 7/25/20 at 6:29 pm
I can tell you that my job often has me traveling to other job sites to do my work. On one particular job, someone from another company got sick and tested positive. The general contractor on that job insisted that we couldn't go back to that job site until we had been tested negative.
Some people are being asked to get tested to remain working, not just for the fun of it.
Some people are being asked to get tested to remain working, not just for the fun of it.
re: SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted by Meatflap on 6/16/20 at 5:19 pm
Do you think that the writers of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 deliberately left out gay people? Were they not people that deserve protection from discrimination too?
Homosexuality just wasn't talked about that much but it doesn't mean that it didn't exist. There are plenty of stories where gay people were lynched or beaten simply because they were queer or weird and it still goes on today. Not a good look.
I hear what you're saying about the SC not making legislation but I think it's been quite clear for the last 60 years that the LGBTQ population has been trying to get heard by Congress and it hasn't been happening. So where that legislation should "live" wasn't listening to its constituency. Those people were ostracized for their sexual orientation and SCOTUS said that was illegal.
It is unlikely that we'll see eye to eye on this ruling but I appreciate your willingness to express your views and keep it civil. I tend to side with the majority on this one and think that if there was any legislating from the bench as Alito claims, then maybe it was worth it to extend some protection to an alienated group of people who deserve the same rights as everyone else. Just because they are LGBTQ doesn't mean they aren't human.
I'm going to go throw a pork loin on the BBQ. I hope all of you folks have a great evening. I appreciate the discourse! :cheers:
Homosexuality just wasn't talked about that much but it doesn't mean that it didn't exist. There are plenty of stories where gay people were lynched or beaten simply because they were queer or weird and it still goes on today. Not a good look.
I hear what you're saying about the SC not making legislation but I think it's been quite clear for the last 60 years that the LGBTQ population has been trying to get heard by Congress and it hasn't been happening. So where that legislation should "live" wasn't listening to its constituency. Those people were ostracized for their sexual orientation and SCOTUS said that was illegal.
It is unlikely that we'll see eye to eye on this ruling but I appreciate your willingness to express your views and keep it civil. I tend to side with the majority on this one and think that if there was any legislating from the bench as Alito claims, then maybe it was worth it to extend some protection to an alienated group of people who deserve the same rights as everyone else. Just because they are LGBTQ doesn't mean they aren't human.
I'm going to go throw a pork loin on the BBQ. I hope all of you folks have a great evening. I appreciate the discourse! :cheers:
re: SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted by Meatflap on 6/16/20 at 2:49 pm
The paragraph directly before the one that includes your quote, defines "sexual orientation discrimination" and makes the connection as to why it is "because of sex".
It might sound murky, but until they invent new language for this situation, we're stuck with this choppy legalese.
It might sound murky, but until they invent new language for this situation, we're stuck with this choppy legalese.
re: SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted by Meatflap on 6/16/20 at 2:00 pm
It is pretty strange how language evolves from one generation to the next, and I agree that in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights Act was written, they may not have considered LGBTQ people as needing protection from discrimination. But sixty years later, those people who are charged with interpreting those words, do.
re: SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted by Meatflap on 6/16/20 at 1:46 pm
eeoc.gov
On March 1, EEOC filed the U.S. government's first sex discrimination lawsuit based on sexual orientation, U.S. EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center (Case 2:16-cv-00225-CB), in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. In its complaint, EEOC charged that a gay male employee was subjected to sex discrimination in the form of harassment because of his sexual orientation and then forced to quit his job rather than endure further harassment. In response to EEOC's lawsuit, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case.
In a decision issued on Nov. 4 by U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, the court denied Scott Medical Health Center's motion to dismiss EEOC's case. In its ruling, the court found that sexual orientation discrimination is a type of discrimination "because of sex," which is barred by Title VII. Applying decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court finding that Title VII's ban on sex discrimination includes adverse treatment of workers based on "sex stereotypes," i.e. pre-conceived ideas of how a man or a woman should act or think, the federal court stated, "There is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality."
The court's decision is consistent with EEOC's reading of Title VII's sex discrimination ban. As the federal law enforcement agency charged with interpreting and enforcing Title VII, EEOC has previously concluded that harassment and other discrimination because of sexual orientation is prohibited sex discrimination. On July 15, 2015, EEOC, in a federal sector decision, determined that sexual orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination because of sex. See Baldwin v. Dep't of Transp., Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015).
In that case, EEOC explained the reasons why Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination includes discrimination because of sexual orientation: (1) sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves treating workers less favorably because of their sex because sexual orientation as a concept cannot be understood without reference to sex; (2) sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in non-compliance with sex stereotypes and gender norms, and employment decisions based in such stereotypes and norms have long been found to be prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII; and (3) sexual orientation discrimination punishes workers because of their close personal association with members of a particular sex, such as marital and other personal relationships.
This sounds almost exactly like the language used by Gorsuch on Monday but this ruling was a few years ago.
On March 1, EEOC filed the U.S. government's first sex discrimination lawsuit based on sexual orientation, U.S. EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center (Case 2:16-cv-00225-CB), in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. In its complaint, EEOC charged that a gay male employee was subjected to sex discrimination in the form of harassment because of his sexual orientation and then forced to quit his job rather than endure further harassment. In response to EEOC's lawsuit, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case.
In a decision issued on Nov. 4 by U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, the court denied Scott Medical Health Center's motion to dismiss EEOC's case. In its ruling, the court found that sexual orientation discrimination is a type of discrimination "because of sex," which is barred by Title VII. Applying decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court finding that Title VII's ban on sex discrimination includes adverse treatment of workers based on "sex stereotypes," i.e. pre-conceived ideas of how a man or a woman should act or think, the federal court stated, "There is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality."
The court's decision is consistent with EEOC's reading of Title VII's sex discrimination ban. As the federal law enforcement agency charged with interpreting and enforcing Title VII, EEOC has previously concluded that harassment and other discrimination because of sexual orientation is prohibited sex discrimination. On July 15, 2015, EEOC, in a federal sector decision, determined that sexual orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination because of sex. See Baldwin v. Dep't of Transp., Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015).
In that case, EEOC explained the reasons why Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination includes discrimination because of sexual orientation: (1) sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves treating workers less favorably because of their sex because sexual orientation as a concept cannot be understood without reference to sex; (2) sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in non-compliance with sex stereotypes and gender norms, and employment decisions based in such stereotypes and norms have long been found to be prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII; and (3) sexual orientation discrimination punishes workers because of their close personal association with members of a particular sex, such as marital and other personal relationships.
This sounds almost exactly like the language used by Gorsuch on Monday but this ruling was a few years ago.
re: SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted by Meatflap on 6/16/20 at 12:22 pm
Although the original person I responded to and I were discussing a different aspect of this ruling, I can see your point. I do however disagree that the Supreme Court made law. It is their job to interpret law as it says on their own website. First paragraph:
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
Supremecourt.gov
It would be their job to interpret existing laws and draw deductions from those laws and apply them to situations which have no prior ruling. The buck has to stop somewhere and since there wasn't any language specifically calling out LGBTQ people, the supreme court had to deduce from already established law.
I would ask though that if the SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, under whose purview would it be to say whether or not these people were protected from discrimination?
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
Supremecourt.gov
It would be their job to interpret existing laws and draw deductions from those laws and apply them to situations which have no prior ruling. The buck has to stop somewhere and since there wasn't any language specifically calling out LGBTQ people, the supreme court had to deduce from already established law.
I would ask though that if the SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, under whose purview would it be to say whether or not these people were protected from discrimination?
re: SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted by Meatflap on 6/16/20 at 11:16 am
I don't disagree with you there, but the government isn't telling me that I can't hire people that are going to help my business, they are saying that I can't fire them based on their sexual orientation.
I'm also aware that lawsuits happen daily and thankfully I haven't been sued by any employee for any reason. I feel good that even though we have let people go in the past, it was usually amicable and occasionally I've hired them back on.
Ultimately, I tend to try and treat my employees with respect no matter their life choices and as long as they perform their jobs well, they will continue to remain in my employ.
I'm also aware that lawsuits happen daily and thankfully I haven't been sued by any employee for any reason. I feel good that even though we have let people go in the past, it was usually amicable and occasionally I've hired them back on.
Ultimately, I tend to try and treat my employees with respect no matter their life choices and as long as they perform their jobs well, they will continue to remain in my employ.
re: SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted by Meatflap on 6/16/20 at 8:57 am
If an employee I hire sucks, I let them go based on their performance, not because they are gay or transexual. I have a gay employee right now and he is a very good craftsman. I have no problem with his orientation and it doesn't reflect poorly on my business.
My criteria is that I hire the people that I think are going to help my business become successful. Nothing else. Sometimes that doesn't work out and I have to let them go but it isn't ever because of their sexual orientation or their race.
To date, the only person who has ever raised a stink over being let go was a white woman. It went nowhere.
My criteria is that I hire the people that I think are going to help my business become successful. Nothing else. Sometimes that doesn't work out and I have to let them go but it isn't ever because of their sexual orientation or their race.
To date, the only person who has ever raised a stink over being let go was a white woman. It went nowhere.
re: SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted by Meatflap on 6/16/20 at 8:22 am
If they were a good and valued employee, why would it matter? I don't hire my employees based on their sexual orientation. I hire them based on their potential to earn or produce for my business.
re: This Is How You Cuck!
Posted by Meatflap on 5/15/20 at 8:52 pm
It might be factual, but to wish that violence upon anyone is pretty vile.
re: This Is How You Cuck!
Posted by Meatflap on 5/15/20 at 8:43 pm
Good gravy, man. Hoping all their women get raped is a bit much.
re: What’s your thoughts when you roll by a construction site and see a male flagger?
Posted by Meatflap on 4/30/20 at 4:45 pm
OSHA requires that work done with heavy machinery and definitely those working in operable roadways, be done with a traffic flagger. I'm thinking that his boss put him in a position that is required by law and if he's doing his job correctly, I usually give him a nod of appreciation because he's taking the thinking away from the usually uninformed driving public. Cheers to the flaggers! :cheers:
re: What a Cool Ice Chest with the MAGA sticker. I want one.
Posted by Meatflap on 4/20/20 at 10:24 pm
What pound test is that?
re: How many baws listen to this in their trucks?
Posted by Meatflap on 3/11/20 at 8:48 am
How does one even find this stuff?
Also my favorite comment: "This is what Dr. Martin Luther King wanted". :lol:
Also my favorite comment: "This is what Dr. Martin Luther King wanted". :lol:
re: Denmark is often cited as the socialist model
Posted by Meatflap on 2/27/20 at 10:48 pm
Where do you figure they'd go?
re: Why are we afraid of Democratic Socialism?
Posted by Meatflap on 2/17/20 at 1:30 pm
No sweat! :cheers:
re: Why are we afraid of Democratic Socialism?
Posted by Meatflap on 2/17/20 at 1:03 pm
I think you may have replied to the wrong person.
re: Why are we afraid of Democratic Socialism?
Posted by Meatflap on 2/16/20 at 9:03 pm
You're right, I don't know the inner workings of your employee benefit structure but it sounds like it's fantastic for you. Not everyone can work for your company, not everyone can work for a large company and furthermore, they might not want to.
So I'm glad that you are happy with your setup and I hope you live a long, wonderful life.
:cheers:
So I'm glad that you are happy with your setup and I hope you live a long, wonderful life.
:cheers:
Popular
34
