# Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules



## asp3 (Jun 15, 2020)

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/15/21291515/supreme-court-bostock-clayton-county-lgbtq-neil-gorsuch

The decision was 6-3 with Gorsuch and Roberts joining the liberal side of the court.

I myself think this was the correct decision and I'm glad this is the law of the land now.


----------



## PopsnTuff (Jun 15, 2020)

This topic might fall under "No Politics Allowed" in this forum @asp3....check with the moderators.


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

I don't know how I blew this, but I thought this always was the law.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 15, 2020)

PopsnTuff said:


> This topic might fall under "No Politics Allowed" in this forum @asp3....check with the moderators.



I don't think it's politics.  It's big news and a landmark decision.  The Supreme Court is not a political arm.  It is the third independent entity in our government structure  and the justices are expected to leave their politics at the door; whether or not they do might be arguable, but the simple fact that they have made a decision certainly is not politics.  It's news.

And I don't  think asp3's opinion that he agrees is politics, either, any more than someone's opinion on riots or covid-19 or whatever else is political unless they say it's all the fault of those lousy [whatever party] or some such.


----------



## raybar (Jun 15, 2020)

This decision confirms my long held view that such discrimination has been illegal since 1964, and that people who feel they have been discriminated against should have been filing law suits rather than protesting for the last 56 years.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 15, 2020)

raybar said:


> This decision confirms my long held view that such discrimination has been illegal since 1964, and that people who feel they have been discriminated against should have been filing law suits rather than protesting for the last 56 years.




Actually, they have been filing lawsuits left and right.  That's how the issue finally got to the Supremes.


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> Actually, they have been filing lawsuits left and right.  That's how the issue finally got to the Supremes.


Unless you're referring to Diana Ross's group, don't you mean _Supreme Court? ROFL  (couldn't resist that!!)  _


----------



## jerry old (Jun 15, 2020)

Janice M
The Supremes are a group of old folks dressed in black robes that make rules, which
cannot be revoked.  They haven't had a hit record, but they have made a lot of folks
bang their heads.

( 1916, i think- Congress passed income tax bill,
 the Supremes said NO, Unconstitutional-last good decisions they made. 
 Once ruled, the Supremes decision becomes the law of the land.  
 Congress can say 'you screwed up. were going to amend
the constitution to make folks pay income tax.'  They did. with the 16 amendment)

The Supremes are  bunch of crusty old rascals, they cannot sing, cannot dance, but their decisions can make you cry or cheer. They fall down a lot, catching their feet
in their long black robes.
(I wonder are they cross-dressers? )


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

Yeah sure .... A man or woman, works hard, finally takes the plunge to open their own business, handle the financing , raise money however they will , take all the risks , make all the sacrifices , etc & so-on. 

Then along comes the USSC , strips them of all THEIR rights , just to grant rights to the transgenders & queers ............ and then tell the business owner who they can or cannot fire. 

 Yeah, another great day in America ...... Not


----------



## Mr. Ed (Jun 15, 2020)

Civil Rights Law also prevents discrimination against age and health conditions.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

Mr. Ed said:


> Civil Rights Law also prevents discrimination against age and health conditions.




 I understand that, and i am old, with arthritis but ...... I still believe that an employer should have the right to hire & fire whom he/she chooses.

 IMO, the only place where the Gov should have any input is in workplace safety.


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> I understand that, and i am old, with arthritis but ...... I still believe that an employer should have the right to hire & fire whom he/she chooses.
> 
> IMO, the only place where the Gov should have any input is in workplace safety.


No, they shouldn't.  They should be obligated to hire whichever person is most qualified for the job.  
The illegal discrimination I personally encountered in this city is the reason I've been working online for the last 13+ years.  And I'm not in the "category" the OP posted about.


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

Mr. Ed said:


> Civil Rights Law also prevents discrimination against age and health conditions.


The catch, though, is even if a person is aware of the laws, if he or she is desperate for a job, hunting for an attorney or other assistance may not be an option.

Edited to add:  because it can be a time-consuming process.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> No, they shouldn't.  They should be obligated to hire whichever person is most qualified for the job.
> The illegal discrimination I personally encountered in this city is the reason I've been working online for the last 13+ years.  And I'm not in the "category" the OP posted about.




 Obligated ?! So you are saying you and others ? Should have the right to tell a business owner whom to hire / fire? Even though you have nothing invested in the business ?........

Again, that is not civil rights for all .... that is pushing aside the business owners rights, so that your rights may be granted/met ......but hey, as long as you get your way.... it's all good right ?


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> Obligated ?! So you are saying you and others ? Should have the right to tell a business owner whom to hire / fire? Even though you have nothing invested in the business ?........
> 
> Again, that is not civil rights for all .... that is pushing aside the business owners rights, so that your rights may be granted/met ......but hey, as long as you get your way.... it's all good right ?


You must have a different definition of civil rights than everyone else.  It has nothing to do with anyone "getting their own way."  If a person is qualified for a job, an employer should not be able to deny the person a job simply because the prospective employee is gay, black, female, etc.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> You must have a different definition of civil rights than everyone else.  It has nothing to do with anyone "getting their own way."  If a person is qualified for a job, an employer should not be able to deny the person a job simply because the prospective employee is gay, black, female, etc.



 If the hiring employer sees those issues as a negative ? or in his / her mind disqualifies a person for a job ? Then that is all that should matter. Are you saying you and others should be permitted to now think for an employer ? Or decide how he / she should think ?


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> If the hiring employer sees those issues as a negative ? or in his / her mind disqualifies a person for a job ? Then that is all that should matter. Are you saying you and others should be permitted to now think for an employer ? Or decide how he / she should think ?



"If the hiring employer sees those issues as negative," then there's something wrong with his thinking.  
If individuals with your viewpoint were still running the show, we'd still be seeing signs "No Coloreds," "No Irish Need Apply," etc.  And in the United States of America, that's *not *o.k.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

OK , my turn for a ridiculous [but possible] scenario.......

 You own an office type business, say 3-6 people. Along comes a guy that weighs near 400 pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day....But he is qualified for the job.

 Should you not be permitted to decline hiring him, or dismiss him after ..... say a weeks trial ?


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

If I have a small business going, like an insurance office and I have 3 or 4 people working in my office, I am entitled to hire who I wish. No ifs, ands or buts. However, if one of the people that I hired comes out of the closet or tells me that he wants to become a she, I can’t fire them just because of that reason.

This is what I think the law is meant to protect.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> "If the hiring employer sees those issues as negative," then there's something wrong with his thinking.
> If individuals with your viewpoint were still running the show, we'd still be seeing signs "No Coloreds," "No Irish Need Apply," etc.  And in the United States of America, that's *not *o.k.




 But is not 'permitted' to think as he pleases? And again are you now doing the thinking for him ? Even though you have no skin in the game, that is his/her business ?

 If you see such an un-justice ? Go open your own business, and operate it your way. Or is that too much hard work ? Just eaiser to tell someone else what to do  / what they should do ?


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

Been There said:


> If I have a small business going, like an insurance office and I have 3 or 4 people working in my office, I am entitled to hire who I wish. No ifs, ands or buts. However, if one of the people that I hired comes out of the closet or tells me that he wants to become a she, I can’t fire them just because of that reason.
> 
> This is what I think the law is meant to protect.




 It may be ? But it is too broad brush .... IMO


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> OK , my turn for a ridiculous [but possible] scenario.......
> 
> You own an office type business, say 3-6 people. Along comes a guy that weighs near 400 pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day....But he is qualified for the job.
> 
> Should you not be permitted to decline hiring him, or dismiss him after ..... say a weeks trial ?


His _behavior _is having a negative effect on the workplace.. entirely different situation.


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> OK , my turn for a ridiculous [but possible] scenario.......
> 
> You own an office type business, say 3-6 people. Along comes a guy that weighs near 400 pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day....But he is qualified for the job.
> 
> Should you not be permitted to decline hiring him, or dismiss him after ..... say a weeks trial ?


There is a process that you must follow here in Virginia. You must have given that person a verbal warning, then a written warning, then time off without pay, probation and then termination, if that person never made any attempt to improve his hygiene situation I think he can be terminated. If he is a member of a union, then that changes the landscape.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

Been There said:


> If I have a small business going, like an insurance office and I have 3 or 4 people working in my office, I am entitled to hire who I wish. No ifs, ands or buts. However, if one of the people that I hired comes out of the closet or tells me that he wants to become a she, I can’t fire them just because of that reason.
> 
> This is what I think the law is meant to protect.




 I'll bet you couldn't fire the fat smelly guy .


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> But is not 'permitted' to think as he pleases? And again are you now doing the thinking for him ? Even though you have no skin in the game, that is his/her business ?
> 
> If you see such an un-justice ? Go open your own business, and operate it your way. Or is that too much hard work ? Just eaiser to tell someone else what to do  / what they should do ?



Sure, any person has the right to think as he or she chooses.  Doesn't always mean they're entitled to act on it, though.  

(I'm self-employed.  That _is _"hard work.")


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> His _behavior _is having a negative effect on the workplace.. entirely different situation.




 No difference , at all, the negative effect all depends on who is doing the talking? If the owner & a majority of the other other employees don't care for the gay-guy ?... it is the same thing.


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

Been There said:


> If I have a small business going, like an insurance office and I have 3 or 4 people working in my office, I am entitled to hire who I wish. No ifs, ands or buts. However, if one of the people that I hired comes out of the closet or tells me that he wants to become a she, I can’t fire them just because of that reason.
> 
> This is what I think the law is meant to protect.


I'm not familiar with your location, but you might want to check your state's laws and see what they say. 

On a personal note, none of the places I went to were small businesses, privately-owned, etc.


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> It may be ? But it is too broad brush .... IMO


I think that according to the new 175 page law that I tried to read, as a small business owner, you may hire who you wish, but once hired, then they will fall under this new part to the civil rights law. Of course, as we all know, there is always a way out if you find the loopholes and there is most always a loophole in any law.


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> No difference , at all, the negative effect all depends on who is doing the talking? If the owner & a majority of the other other employees don't care for the gay-guy ?... it is the same thing.


No, it isn't.  What a person "is" and what a person "does" are two entirely different subjects.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> Sure, any person has the right to think as he or she chooses.  Doesn't always mean they're entitled to act on it, though.
> 
> (I'm self-employed.  That _is _"hard work.")




 But in the case a business being their own.   They should IMO have every right to act on it. 

  Should I have the right to basically destroy _your_ business ? Just because I demand _you_ hire me ?


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> No, it isn't.  What a person "is" and what a person "does" are two entirely different subjects.




  Not sure I follow ?


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

I remember a friend of mine who also graduated from the Naval Academy and went onto being a VP of a major international corporation applied for the CEO position of another large international corporation. He was listed as one of three candidates, but had the most experience overall. When he didn’t get the job, he inquired why because he wanted to improve upon what his deficiencies were. The HR person told him that it didn’t have anything to do with his qualifications, but another candidate was a member of the same fraternity as the HR manager. So, he felt obligated to hire him as that was part of their fraternity’s creed. It was a national fraternity.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> I'm not familiar with your location, but you might want to check your state's laws and see what they say.
> 
> On a personal note, none of the places I went to were small businesses, privately-owned, etc.




 I really do not & would not care, what the laws says. If I cannot run my business my way ? then i will not open it, or will close it, if already opened.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

Been There said:


> I remember a friend of mine who also graduated from the Naval Academy and went onto being a VP of a major international corporation applied for the CEO position of another large international corporation. He was listed as one of three candidates, but had the most experience overall. When he didn’t get the job, he inquired why because he wanted to improve upon what his deficiencies were. The HR person told him that it didn’t have anything to do with his qualifications, but another candidate was a member of the same fraternity as the HR manager. So, he felt obligated to hire him as that was part of their fraternity’s creed. It was a national fraternity.




 Under your explanation , I have no problem with that. If [for example] I had a brother ... he would be my first choice.


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> I'll bet you couldn't fire the fat smelly guy .


It’s been done, but not since the law changed today. It was done to a lady in our office with wearing perfume that arrived well before she did. Another person was allergic to the scent. She was told and given several warnings and then terminated. She sued and lost, but did collect unemployment.


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> Under your explanation , I have no problem with that. If [for example] I had a brother ... he would be my first choice.


Agree.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

Been There said:


> It’s been done, but not since the law changed today. It was done to a lady in our office with wearing perfume that arrived well before she did. Another person was allergic to the scent. She was told and given several warnings and then terminated. She sued and lost, but did collect unemployment.


 See that IMO, should not be....She was a disruption to the work place period ! 

 Again, a person wants the job ? Comply with the workplace harmony .


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> But in the case a business being their own.   They should IMO have every right to act on it.
> 
> Should I have the right to basically destroy _your_ business ? Just because I demand _you_ hire me ?


I think the issue is not what individuals think but what the judgment of SCOTUS determines is the law of the land. That is their function and they have determined that a civil rights law passed years ago applies to gays and transgender people as well as heterosexual men and women. The ruling brings clarity to employers and employees.


----------



## rgp (Jun 15, 2020)

Warrigal said:


> I think the issue is not what individuals think but what the judgment of SCOTUS determines is the law of the land. That is their function and they have determined that a civil rights law passed years ago applies to gays and transgender people as well as heterosexual men and women. The ruling brings clarity to employers and employees.



 Well, that may be but .... If it is my business we are talking about? Then I would close my doors.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 15, 2020)

I wonder if "employment discrimination" also applies to discrimination in hiring, or if it only applies to firing or otherwise discriminating against people already working.

Also, what about hiring just a single person as a landscaper, maid, nanny, etc.?  Does this decision apply to that kind of situation?


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

Sunny said:


> I wonder if "employment discrimination" also applies to discrimination in hiring, or if it only applies to firing or otherwise discriminating against people already working.
> 
> Also, what about hiring just a single person as a landscaper, maid, nanny, etc.?  Does this decision apply to that kind of situation?


I seriously doubt if gig workers would be included due to them not being considered employees, but independent contractors. 
JMO


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> Well, that may be but .... If it is my business we are talking about? Then I would close my doors.


You are speaking hypothetically, of course, since you don't have your own business. Neither do I.

However, I think the ruling goes beyond employment. I assume it means a person cannot be refused health services because of their ****** identification or orientation. Or education. How wide sweeping is this ruling? Does anyone know?


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

Warrigal said:


> You are speaking hypothetically, of course, since you don't have your own business. Neither do I.
> 
> However, I think the ruling goes beyond employment. I assume it means a person cannot be refused health services because of their ****** identification or orientation. Or education. How wide sweeping is this ruling? Does anyone know?


What I have read of the law, it’s like 175 pages, it only refers to employment, unless I missed it.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 15, 2020)

Thanks for the clarification, Been There.


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

An employer can still hire who they want for the job, BUT they cannot state the reason as being LGBTQ (one of those). They can say “We were looking for someone more qualified.” Or, “We wanted someone that lived in the county.” Anything, except it can’t deal with the usual civil liberties of race, religion, etc. and now the new law.

Some of the language is ambiguous, but I have limited legal expertise. Working in the Pentagon for the military, I never had to deal with the DOJ.

I am going to read it again later tonight.


----------



## Been There (Jun 15, 2020)

Warrigal said:


> Thanks for the clarification, Been There.


Maybe you are thinking of the new law that the President signed last week giving added protection to the LGBTQ community.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 15, 2020)

Perhaps. I woke this morning in Sydney Australia and the radio was playing with news of the SCOTUS 6 to 3 decision. I am not entirely sure what I heard and am trying to catch up from afar.

This is the decision I heard about



> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06...-discrimination-against-lgbt-workers/12358502
> 
> The US Supreme Court has delivered a watershed victory for LGBT rights by ruling that a longstanding law barring workplace discrimination also protects gay and transgender employees.
> 
> ...


----------



## asp3 (Jun 15, 2020)

Been There said:


> Maybe you are thinking of the new law that the President signed last week giving added protection to the LGBTQ community.



Been There, do you have a link to the legislation.  The only thing I found that he signed last week was the H.R. 7010: Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr7010 .

I briefly looked at the description of the law and didn't see anything mentioned about LBGTQ community.

What I heard about last week was the administration removing healthcare protections from transgendered individuals https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration .


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> See that IMO, should not be....She was a disruption to the work place period !
> 
> Again, a person wants the job ? Comply with the workplace harmony .


What you quoted answered your question (where you said you don't follow).  The person was told to not do something that was a hassle to others in the workplace, she didn't comply, and was fired.  I agree that that's fair.  That's an example of what a person "does."  

However, what a person "is" is an entirely different subject.  "Women cannot wear obnoxious perfume in the workplace" is much different from "We won't hire women."


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

rgp said:


> Obligated ?! So you are saying you and others ? Should have the right to tell a business owner whom to hire / fire? Even though you have nothing invested in the business ?........
> 
> Again, that is not civil rights for all .... that is pushing aside the business owners rights, so that your rights may be granted/met ......but hey, as long as you get your way.... it's all good right ?


Furthermore, it's gotta be one of the oddest viewpoints ever to consider individuals needing to work to support themselves and/or provide for their families/households as 'getting their own way.'


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 15, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> Unless you're referring to Diana Ross's group, don't you mean _Supreme Court? ROFL  (couldn't resist that!!)  _




I worked in law for 50+ years and we always called them the Supremes -- just shorthand and jargon.


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 15, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> I worked in law for 50+ years and we always called them the Supremes -- just shorthand and jargon.



Cool!  I'd never heard that before!


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 15, 2020)

Sunny said:


> I wonder if "employment discrimination" also applies to discrimination in hiring, or if it only applies to firing or otherwise discriminating against people already working.
> 
> Also, what about hiring just a single person as a landscaper, maid, nanny, etc.?  Does this decision apply to that kind of situation?



I don't really know, but I'd bet it applies to discrimination in hiring, as well.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 15, 2020)

asp3 said:


> Been There, do you have a link to the legislation.  The only thing I found that he signed last week was the H.R. 7010: Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act of 2020 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr7010 .
> 
> I briefly looked at the description of the law and didn't see anything mentioned about LBGTQ community.
> 
> What I heard about last week was the administration removing healthcare protections from transgendered individuals https://www.npr.org/sections/health...-protections-reversed-by-trump-administration .



This is what I've read, too.  What was done last week (I believe it was an executive order or some such) actually REMOVED protections, as you've said.  I'm going to scrounge around on the net and see what I can find out -- you've piqued my curiousity.


----------



## RadishRose (Jun 15, 2020)

Been There said:


> I remember a friend of mine who also graduated from the Naval Academy and went onto being a VP of a major international corporation applied for the CEO position of another large international corporation. He was listed as one of three candidates, but had the most experience overall. When he didn’t get the job, he inquired why because he wanted to improve upon what his deficiencies were. The HR person told him that it didn’t have anything to do with his qualifications, but another candidate was a member of the same fraternity as the HR manager. So, he felt obligated to hire him as that was part of their fraternity’s creed. It was a national fraternity.


Isn't that nepotism?  don't know if that's illegal, but I consider it bad form.


----------



## win231 (Jun 15, 2020)

The restrooms will have to be remodeled.


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 15, 2020)

Smelly urinals should be abolished anyway.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 16, 2020)

Asp3, it looks to me like, from what I've read on the subject, the previous administration's rule that prevented discrimination in healthcare based on sex included protections regarding "sex" encompass those based on gender identity, which it defined as "male, female, neither, or a combination of male and female."  The new HHS rule of the present administration removed those protections. (this from the article you cited from NPR).

I haven't read the whole opinion, of course, but 

"Discrimination against LGBT employees, Gorsuch made clear, 'necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.'"  (this from scotusblog.com - for some reason I cannot copy and paste the exact citation) 

Anyway, based on the above quote from scotusblog, which evidently is a quotation from today's opinion, it seems to me a pretty sure thing that in light of this redefinition of sex discrimination, this administration's new HHS rule will be struck down or just become moot, because it seems unlikely that one definition of sex discrimination (the one by the Supremes yesterday) can stand in employment discrimination and a totally opposite one stand in HHS discimination.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Jun 16, 2020)

rgp said:


> OK , my turn for a ridiculous [but possible] scenario.......
> 
> You own an office type business, say 3-6 people. Along comes a guy that weighs near 400 pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day....But he is qualified for the job.
> 
> Should you not be permitted to decline hiring him, or dismiss him after ..... say a weeks trial ?


You can not fail to hire him for the reasons you stated.  But this is silly because unless you were stupid enough to say I am not hiring you because you weigh “near 400 
pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day”, he wouldn’t know why he wasn’t beginning hired.

If you were that stupid, then you deserve to be sued.

What is it about people on this forum that they dislike overweight people?  As for people who fail to bathe and sink as a result, no job, no money, no soap, no water, no ability to wash clothes.  As for farting all day, hate to break it to you but all humans and many animals fart all day.


----------



## rgp (Jun 16, 2020)

Aneeda72 said:


> You can not fail to hire him for the reasons you stated.  But this is silly because unless you were stupid enough to say I am not hiring you because you weigh “near 400
> pounds, seldom bathes, stinks to high heaven with BO, and farts all day”, he wouldn’t know why he wasn’t beginning hired.
> 
> If you were that stupid, then you deserve to be sued.
> ...




 Yes i see your humor but, once again a business owner should IMO be permitted to hire & or fire as he/she sees fit. 'How is Mr. stinky' ever going to learn that maybe he needs to clean up his act ? So that perhaps he will present himself in a more attractive manner the next time ?


----------



## Aneeda72 (Jun 16, 2020)

rgp said:


> Yes i see your humor but, once again a business owner should IMO be permitted to hire & or fire as he/she sees fit. 'How is Mr. stinky' ever going to learn that maybe he needs to clean up his act ? So that perhaps he will present himself in a more attractive manner the next time ?


Let’s say you hire him or her cause their qualifications are great.  This person has BO, employees complain.  You ask what’s the problem?  Response:  I live in a car when I have enough saved I’ll get an apartment.  Do you fire the employee or brainstorm for a way for them to clean up?

Response:  I have no control over bodily functions.  I wear a diaper, pad, whatever, due to cancer, surgery, whatever.  Do you give them extra time for change their pads etc?  ADA issue, btw.  Anything can be worked out.

There are many reasons why people are overweight, psychological and/or medical.  Same for BO.  I worked for a major company in a call center with a person who “smelled” due to the above issues.  She was placed at the end of a row and I volunteered to sit next to her since I had a total care son who was diapered, and smelled.

Frankly, you get used to the smell and, like any smell, after a while it’s just not as noticeable.  Like working in a nursing home or group home, or, perhaps, your own house, you get used to the smell.  In reverse, IMO, there is nothing worst than a man or woman who douses themselves in perfume.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 16, 2020)

rpg,, explain why you should fire a long time, competent, able, cooperative employee if he comes to you with a marriage license with his male partner?


----------



## asp3 (Jun 16, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> Anyway, based on the above quote from scotusblog, which evidently is a quotation from today's opinion, it seems to me a pretty sure thing that in light of this redefinition of sex discrimination, this administration's new HHS rule will be struck down or just become moot, because it seems unlikely that one definition of sex discrimination (the one by the Supremes yesterday) can stand in employment discrimination and a totally opposite one stand in HHS discimination.



Thanks for your reply (even though I've only included a small portion here.  I agree that it will be difficult to enforce the HHS rule considering the new SCOTUS ruling.  However there may be a number of people harmed by the rule before it is challenged in court to the point of waiving it until a final judgement is made.


----------



## Mr. Ed (Jun 16, 2020)

Reverse Discrimination is as indicated hiring non-mainstream candidates in favor of mainstream candidates


----------



## rgp (Jun 16, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> rpg,, explain why you should fire a long time, competent, able, cooperative employee if he comes to you with a marriage license with his male partner?




 I never mentioned anything about this.

 My only point is, the business owner should be able to hire/fire whom they choose....... period.


Aneeda72 said:


> Let’s say you hire him or her cause their qualifications are great.  This person has BO, employees complain.  You ask what’s the problem?  Response:  I live in a car when I have enough saved I’ll get an apartment.  Do you fire the employee or brainstorm for a way for them to clean up?
> 
> Response:  I have no control over bodily functions.  I wear a diaper, pad, whatever, due to cancer, surgery, whatever.  Do you give them extra time for change their pads etc?  ADA issue, btw.  Anything can be worked out.
> 
> ...




 I'll word it differently ....... the business owner should be able to run his/her business, as they please.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 16, 2020)

asp3 said:


> Thanks for your reply (even though I've only included a small portion here.  I agree that it will be difficult to enforce the HHS rule considering the new SCOTUS ruling.  However there may be a number of people harmed by the rule before it is challenged in court to the point of waiving it until a final judgement is made.



I'm pretty sure I've read that it doesn't take effect until August 1, so that may give time for the ACLU or whoever to get a TRO before it goes into effect.


----------



## Gaer (Jun 16, 2020)

I agree with RGP completely!  I applaud his unwavering judgement.  The rights of the individual must always be upheld!  Why should anyone be able to tell a person how to run his own business?


----------



## Warrigal (Jun 16, 2020)

Gaer said:


> I agree with RGP completely!  I applaud his unwavering judgement.  The rights of the individual must always be upheld!  Why should anyone be able to tell a person how to run his own business?


Surely all businesses are subject to all sorts of laws and regulations ?


----------



## Sunny (Jun 16, 2020)

This kind of discrimination goes way back in this country. In the 19th century, Irish immigrants trying to get work were met with signs saying, "No Irish need apply."  And it seems that unfortunately, that mindset still exists.


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 16, 2020)

rgp said:


> I never mentioned anything about this.
> 
> My only point is, the business owner should be able to hire/fire whom they choose....... period.
> 
> ...



quick question about this...

i agree business owners have a right to run things as they see fit, however, if they all did that and fired everyone who wanted to marry same sex partners, does that mean these folks should have to go without jobs? they don't have the right to work and take care of themselves because of who they choose to love?


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 16, 2020)

Gaer said:


> I agree with RGP completely!  I applaud his unwavering judgement.  The rights of the individual must always be upheld!  Why should anyone be able to tell a person how to run his own business?


well because for one thing what if the tables were turned? what if you wanted to work in a clothing store and when they found out you were married to a man they decided to fire you because they prefer people in same sex marriages. so now you have no job. wouldn't that make you just a little mad? especially given how difficult getting a job can be? as long as they are doing their job and doing it well, who cares who they love? when do business owners get to decide who we can or can not love? that they have no right to do.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 17, 2020)

Warrigal said:


> Surely all businesses are subject to all sorts of laws and regulations ?



Of course they are.  Health and safety, licensing regs, tax regs, zoning regs, employment regs, local law and ordinances, etc., _ad infinitum_.


----------



## Butterfly (Jun 17, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> well because for one thing what if the tables were turned? what if you wanted to work in a clothing store and when they found out you were married to a man they decided to fire you because they prefer people in same sex marriages. so now you have no job. wouldn't that make you just a little mad? especially given how difficult getting a job can be? as long as they are doing their job and doing it well, who cares who they love? when do business owners get to decide who we can or can not love? that they have no right to do.



I don't really see how it is any of the employer's (or anybody else's) business who we love, marry or cohabit with, or even have wild and crazy one-nighters with.  The employer is employing us to do a job, period.


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 17, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> I don't really see how it is any of the employer's (or anybody else's) business who we love, marry or cohabit with, or even have wild and crazy one-nighters with.  The employer is employing us to do a job, period.


exactly


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 17, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> well because for one thing what if the tables were turned? what if you wanted to work in a clothing store and when they found out you were married to a man they decided to fire you because they prefer people in same sex marriages. so now you have no job. wouldn't that make you just a little mad? especially given how difficult getting a job can be? as long as they are doing their job and doing it well, who cares who they love? when do business owners get to decide who we can or can not love? that they have no right to do.



and also, what if that 'disapproval' of gay marriage was so common in that area that _nobody _wanted to hire the person solely for that reason..  'the right' to not hire individuals employers 'disapprove' of would mean many many people without jobs.  

So basically what these members are saying to anyone in categories they disapprove of:  'Sucks to be you- go live under a bridge.'


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 17, 2020)

You  own a business. You decide that employee X has to marry employee Y or both get fired. So according to some, a business owner has the right to do whatever he wishes with his employees.
Just because someone owns a business does not mean that he can discriminate to his heart's content. His bigotry, and hate is no longer allowed in the United States Of America.


----------



## rgp (Jun 17, 2020)

Sunny said:


> This kind of discrimination goes way back in this country. In the 19th century, Irish immigrants trying to get work were met with signs saying, "No Irish need apply."  And it seems that unfortunately, that mindset still exists.




 Frankly, if a stand alone business owner does not wish to hire Irish ? There is not one thing wrong with that. His/her business , his/her choice ..... And my mother was absolute Irish BTW.


----------



## rgp (Jun 17, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> well because for one thing what if the tables were turned? what if you wanted to work in a clothing store and when they found out you were married to a man they decided to fire you because they prefer people in same sex marriages. so now you have no job. wouldn't that make you just a little mad? especially given how difficult getting a job can be? as long as they are doing their job and doing it well, who cares who they love? when do business owners get to decide who we can or can not love? that they have no right to do.




 They don't get to decide who a person loves ..... but they _*should*_ get to decide who they hire/fire.


----------



## rgp (Jun 17, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> I don't really see how it is any of the employer's (or anybody else's) business who we love, marry or cohabit with, or even have wild and crazy one-nighters with.  The employer is employing us to do a job, period.




 Exactly .... and he/she should have the complete & absolute right to hire whom they choose.


----------



## rgp (Jun 17, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> You  own a business. You decide that employee X has to marry employee Y or both get fired. So according to some, a business owner has the right to do whatever he wishes with his employees.
> Just because someone owns a business does not mean that he can discriminate to his heart's content. His bigotry, and hate is no longer allowed in the United States Of America.




   No longer allowed ? Who are you to tell me, or anyone else, who they should like , do like, or do not like ?


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 17, 2020)

They don't have to hire people with disabilities either but, if they don't hire these people for those reasons and those alone then they are basically saying they don't have the right to work because there's something wrong with them. That goes against civil rights IMO.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 17, 2020)

Gaer said:


> I agree with RGP completely!  I applaud his unwavering judgement.  The rights of the individual must always be upheld!  Why should anyone be able to tell a person how to run his own business?


It wasn't so long ago that women bumped their heads against a much, much lower glass ceiling. Perhaps all those employers should have been legally permitted to pay women 50% of men's wages? Or to refuse to hire women at all? Or to only hire very young women and terminate them when they looked less like Barbie Dolls?

We owned a small business for over 40 years. Trust me, everyone weighs in on how businesses must be run including federal, state and local governments, tax authorities, health and safety departments, landlords, your vendors and your employees. Plus your customers, of course.

Displease any one of those sectors and you'll be out of business in nothing flat.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 17, 2020)

No longer allowed ? Who are you to tell me?
The Supreme Court just did.


----------



## rgp (Jun 17, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> No longer allowed ? Who are you to tell me?
> The Supreme Court just did.




 And if I owned a business , I would right now, set in place a plan of action to sell my business, for the most money possible. And close the doors . Now no one there has a job. I wish the new owner luck.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 17, 2020)

rgp said:


> And if I owned a business , I would right now, set in place a plan of action to sell my business, for the most money possible. And close the doors . Now no one there has a job. I wish the new owner luck.


Imaginary situations always work out well, don't they?  Hypothetical businesses are invariably highly profitable and fetch top dollar when the owners decide to cash out.  Of course, the pretend business collapses without the tender, unerring guidance of the founders - who are now laughing all the way to the bank with the deep satisfaction of knowing they were not only right all along, but irreplaceable as well.       

Things go very differently in the real world of owning a business.


----------



## rgp (Jun 18, 2020)

StarSong said:


> Imaginary situations always work out well, don't they?  Hypothetical businesses are invariably highly profitable and fetch top dollar when the owners decide to cash out.  Of course, the pretend business collapses without the tender, unerring guidance of the founders - who are now laughing all the way to the bank with the deep satisfaction of knowing they were not only right all along, but irreplaceable as well.
> 
> Things go very differently in the real world of owning a business.




 You can call it imaginary if you choose. But that would be, what i would do.

 No one is going to tell me how to operate my business. 

 I can sell out, get a job [if needed] and avoid all the headaches .


----------



## Old&InTheWay (Jun 18, 2020)

rgp said:


> No longer allowed ? Who are you to tell me, or anyone else, who they should like , do like, or do not like ?


I am so thankful for voices of reason like yours on this forum.


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 18, 2020)

rgp said:


> You can call it imaginary if you choose. But that would be, what i would do.
> 
> No one is going to tell me how to operate my business.
> 
> I can sell out, get a job [if needed] and avoid all the headaches .


What happens when you have to work with a gay, transgender? Gonna have a hissy and quit that job and go look for another?


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 18, 2020)

If you own a business, what "business" is yours whom an employee goes home to?


----------



## Sunny (Jun 18, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> What happens when you have to work with a gay, transgender? Gonna have a hissy and quit that job and go look for another?



Probably that's exactly what he would do. "Nobody's gonna make me work with gay people!  Eeeeew!"


----------



## StarSong (Jun 18, 2020)

All I can say is that owning a successful, profitable business is a lot like successfully raising a happy, healthy child who contributes to society.  It's a whole lot simpler from the outside looking in.

To move back to the original topic of this post, I applaud the Supreme Court decision.

In the early 1940s, my parents were a "mixed marriage" - Roman Catholic and Lutheran. Quite a scandal among many of the relatives. Marrying across faiths no longer raises eyebrows.

Interracial couples were an oddity in the 1960s, but thanks to the blessing of integrated schools and neighborhoods, they've become commonplace and well accepted.

In many parts of the country including mine, same sex couples have become such a familiar sight that most people barely notice two men or two women holding hands.

Would that transgenders soon feel the same level of acceptance.

The times they are a changin'.

_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness._    Preamble to the Declaration of Independence


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 18, 2020)

And anymore the work place has become quite the mixed bag. But I fully believe that as long as they can do the job that's all that matters.


----------



## gennie (Jun 18, 2020)

StarSong said:


> All I can say is that owning a successful, profitable business is a lot like successfully raising a happy, healthy child who contributes to society.  It's a whole lot simpler from the outside looking in.
> 
> To move back to the original topic of this post, I applaud the Supreme Court decision.
> 
> ...



Starsong, I love and respect that phrase and our Constitution as do most Americans but we must remember that it was written BY and FOR a small group of male, Caucasian, Protestants of British descent.

Since its inception, all Americans of another gender, race, skin color, religion or ethnicity have had to fight for that equality and those same rights that those men claimed for themselves.  

Just saying'.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 18, 2020)

gennie said:


> Starsong, I love and respect that phrase and our Constitution as do most Americans but we must remember that it was written BY and FOR a small group of male, Caucasian, Protestants of British descent.
> 
> Since its inception, all Americans of another gender, race, skin color, religion or ethnicity have had to fight for that equality and those same rights that those men claimed for themselves.
> 
> Just saying'.


You're absolutely correct.  My point was that the definition has broadened to include men, women & children of all races and gender/****** identity.


----------



## rgp (Jun 18, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> What happens when you have to work with a gay, transgender? Gonna have a hissy and quit that job and go look for another?



 I never mentioned anything about that. But no, .... I would do my work, without all the owner headaches.


----------



## Mr. Ed (Jun 19, 2020)




----------



## Butterfly (Jun 19, 2020)

rgp said:


> I never mentioned anything about that. But no, .... I would do my work, without all the owner headaches.



Why are you so fearful of hiring LGBTQ workers?  Is isn't catching, after all.


----------



## Keesha (Jun 20, 2020)

Old&InTheWay said:


> I am so thankful for voices of reason like yours on this forum.


What????


----------



## Keesha (Jun 20, 2020)

Mr. Ed said:


>


Yep! They sure are!


----------



## rgp (Jun 20, 2020)

Butterfly said:


> Why are you so fearful of hiring LGBTQ workers?  Is isn't catching, after all.




 I never said a thing regarding being fearful of anyone/anything .......... What i did say is, no one is going to tell me how to run my business,  I will hire & fire whom I choose.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 20, 2020)

LOL, this is what you sound like, rgp.


----------



## rgp (Jun 20, 2020)

Sunny said:


> LOL, this is what you sound like, rgp.




 Such a mature response.  No surprise though ...... considering the source.


----------



## Sunny (Jun 20, 2020)

Just holding up a mirror to you, rgp.

"What i did say is, no one is going to tell me how to run my business, I will hire & fire whom I choose."


----------



## StarSong (Jun 20, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Just holding up a mirror to you, rgp.
> 
> "What i did say is, no one is going to tell me how to run my business, I will hire & fire whom I choose."


Bear in mind, @Sunny, he's describing an imaginary business.  Many are all-powerful with immensely successful businesses, marriages, relationships with family, etc., in the hypothetical world.  Those things are a whole lot tougher to pull off on planet earth.


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 20, 2020)

So @rgp you say you don't want to be told how to run your business. So obviously you don't like the idea of being told by law that you would have to hire certain people. If I'm wrong on this then just ignore it and move on. I'm just trying to understand why someone wouldn't want to hire someone like this. So let's just take this gay/transgender as a hypothetical. He's smart, he's a workhorse, he's the best applicant you've had walk in the door since you put the help wanted sign up. May I ask what would keep you from wanting to hire such an individual?


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 20, 2020)

Nobody has yet addressed why a business owner has any "business" in whom his employees go home to.


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 20, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> Nobody has yet addressed why a business owner has any "business" in whom his employees go home to.


Some individuals are "control-freaks;"  some individuals are so miserable with themselves that they 'need' someone to look down on.  And some individuals are in both categories.


----------



## Marie5656 (Jun 20, 2020)

*Equal rights for one does not mean fewer rights for you. It is not pie.
What this is saying is, if a Gay or trans person applies for a job, and is clearly the most qualified, they can not be denied a job because the employer does not like they are gay or trans.  Often, if the person does not reveal, they cannot be asked.  And often you cannot tell.
Also, they cannot be denied service simply because of their gender, sexuality, skin color or anything.  Any of you have probably interacted with a gay or trans person and did not know it.
If there are two equally qualified people applying for a position, maybe a second interview for each is warranted, to see who is best for job.
Basically, I have gay and trans friends and family members, so I am simply going to walk away from this conversation, now that I have said my piece.
Do not mess with people I care about.*


----------



## rgp (Jun 20, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Just holding up a mirror to you, rgp.
> 
> "What i did say is, no one is going to tell me how to run my business, I will hire & fire whom I choose."




 Exactly ! ........ And where is that so wrong ? My money, my sweat & work to build it, my way *only* on how to operate it .


----------



## rgp (Jun 20, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> So @rgp you say you don't want to be told how to run your business. So obviously you don't like the idea of being told by law that you would have to hire certain people. If I'm wrong on this then just ignore it and move on. I'm just trying to understand why someone wouldn't want to hire someone like this. So let's just take this gay/transgender as a hypothetical. He's smart, he's a workhorse, he's the best applicant you've had walk in the door since you put the help wanted sign up. May I ask what would keep you from wanting to hire such an individual?




 Not saying I wouldn't ...... Only saying I will not be told I must.


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 20, 2020)

rgp said:


> Not saying I wouldn't ...... Only saying I will not be told I must.


I still want to know why?


----------



## JaniceM (Jun 20, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> I still want to know why?


Do you have any two-year-olds in your life who haven't yet learned the world doesn't revolve around them, they can't have everything they want, and can't always get their own way.  Kinda like that.


----------



## rgp (Jun 20, 2020)

Sunny said:


> Just holding up a mirror to you, rgp.
> 
> "What i did say is, no one is going to tell me how to run my business, I will hire & fire whom I choose."




 Really ? Please point to my childish/adolescent cartoon , posted in this debate.


----------



## rgp (Jun 20, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> I still want to know why?



 How many damn times do I need to say it ......... No one is going to tell me how to run my business  ........ period. There doesn't need to be a why ..... it's just the way it is.


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 20, 2020)

She's saying that the cartoon is a mirror of how she views your behavior. Don't pay her any mind.


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 20, 2020)

Well that's why you're not an owner and it's not necessary for you to swear at me.


----------



## rgp (Jun 20, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> Do you have any two-year-olds in your life who haven't yet learned the world doesn't revolve around them, they can't have everything they want, and can't always get their own way.  Kinda like that.




 When it is my business, my home , anything mine ......... it does revolve around me, & me alone......... you run yours, your way. I'll run mine my way.

 The difference is .... I have no desire to stick my nose in your business.


----------



## rgp (Jun 20, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> Well that's why you're not an owner and it's not necessary for you to swear at me.




 How do you know what i am ?


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 20, 2020)

rgp said:


> How do you know what i am ?


I don't care what you are. It makes no difference to me. These forums are for discussions and that's what we're doing is discussing. There is no reason for you to swear at me like I'm some stupid bimbo that doesn't know jack.


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 20, 2020)

Plus I don't insult you or make fun of you or try to make you feel stupid like some have. The least you could do is be courteous to those who are trying to have a decent conversation with you.


----------



## rgp (Jun 20, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> I don't care what you are. It makes no difference to me. These forums are for discussions and that's what we're doing is discussing. There is no reason for you to swear at me like I'm some stupid bimbo that doesn't know jack.




 Then don't assert that you know something that you do not.

 I didn't swear at you....it was part of a question.


----------



## rgp (Jun 20, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> Plus I don't insult you or make fun of you or try to make you feel stupid like some have. The least you could do is be courteous to those who are trying to have a decent conversation with you.



 I appreciate that, and i thought I was. As I said, it was not cussing you.......it was an emphasis , as part of a question.


----------



## Mr. Ed (Jun 21, 2020)

So here's the deal, I grew up in the South under the fearful guidance of my father, a Southern Baptist preacher. Although I was never depicted as gay the Southern Baptist Convention made clear of their stand in opposition to homosexuality. That kind stuff impacts a person's life and understanding about same-sex relationships. Social awareness was expanding but the former generation was reluctant to change with the times and conflict erupted between the new and old regime. 

I like to believe in someways we are more openminded than our parents were, but alas, our generation is at the same place as those before us, living in retirement with muffled voices. 

Getting back to discrimination, growing up as kids being called queer was devastating, even though there was no inclination of same-sex attraction. Parents have tremendous responsibility to keep children safe physically and mentally, unfortunately many fail their children miserably causing great physical and  physiological harm, my dad was an example of this.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 21, 2020)

Mr. Ed said:


> So here's the deal, I grew up in the South under the fearful guidance of my father, a Southern Baptist preacher. Although I was never depicted as gay the Southern Baptist Convention made clear of their stand in opposition to homosexuality. That kind stuff impacts a person's life and understanding about same-sex relationships. Social awareness was expanding but the former generation was reluctant to change with the times and conflict erupted between the new and old regime.
> 
> *I like to believe in someways we are more openminded than our parents were*, but alas, our generation is at the same place as those before us, living in retirement with muffled voices.
> 
> Getting back to discrimination, growing up as kids being called queer was devastating, even though there was no inclination of same-sex attraction. Parents have tremendous responsibility to keep children safe physically and mentally, unfortunately many fail their children miserably causing great physical and  physiological harm, my dad was an example of this.


Many of us are more open minded.  Domestic and international travel, living in diverse neighborhoods with diverse schools, working with and getting to know people whose lives differ from our own - these are the best pathways to an open mind.  

My children - and their children - live in a much more diverse world than I inhabited as a child. Virtually everyone I know has _at least one_ LGBTQ child, sibling, other relative, or close friend. ( Or they themselves are LGBTQ). Such an non-issue, at least in Los Angeles. Thank heavens. 

p.s. when my twin sons were in their early teens they asked me if I knew anyone who was gay. I said, "Yes I do, and so do you." They were shocked and begged me to identify this person. 

I replied, quite truthfully, that they knew at least 10 gay people quite well. Shocked, they wanted to know who these people were. 
I told them, "I'm not telling you because that's my point. It doesn't matter whether people are gay or straight. They're no different from anyone else."


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jun 22, 2020)

A lot of gays report "getting married on Sunday, and getting fired on Monday".  The problem is not in the hiring , but the firing. Gays are getting hired, and are working, but as soon as their gayness becomes known, they get the ax. The only reason for the firing is the discrimination of the owner. Business owners are not feudal lords, who hold sway over their serfs. Business owners must follow the laws of the land, as we all do.


----------



## StarSong (Jun 22, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> *A lot of gays report "getting married on Sunday, and getting fired on Monday".*  The problem is not in the hiring , but the firing. Gays are getting hired, and are working, but as soon as their gayness becomes known, they get the ax. The only reason for the firing is the discrimination of the owner. Business owners are not feudal lords, who hold sway over their serfs. Business owners must follow the laws of the land, as we all do.


Wow!  I've never heard that.  Outrageous.


----------



## ohioboy (Mar 24, 2021)

fuzzybuddy said:


> You  own a business. You decide that employee X has to marry employee Y or both get fired. So according to some, a business owner has the right to do whatever he wishes with his employees.
> Just because someone owns a business does not mean that he can discriminate to his heart's content. His bigotry, and hate is no longer allowed in the United States Of America.



Years ago I was fired by a pig who was solely out for revenge. At the same time my girl broke up with me and I went into a serious depression, I don't know how I made it through. After that I started studying Employment law, Ohio and Nationwide. I did not have any Cause of Action to sue though. Believe me it was REVENGE. The company affirmed his decision without even talking to me about it (long legal story). This is one case I remember about romances in the workplace.

https://casetext.com/case/ward-v-frito-lay-inc-1


----------



## ohioboy (Mar 24, 2021)

rgp said:


> Exactly .... and he/she should have the complete & absolute right to hire whom they choose.



What about Whistleblowers. Should employers be able to bypass agencies like OSHA and have unsafe working conditions then fire the tattletales?


----------



## ohioboy (Mar 24, 2021)

Sunny said:


> I wonder if "employment discrimination" also applies to discrimination in hiring, or if it only applies to firing or otherwise discriminating against people already working.


I'm sure states are similar in "terms and conditions of employment".

(A) For any employer, because of the race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry of any person, to discharge without just cause, to refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment.

https://law.justia.com/codes/ohio/2016/title-41/chapter-4112/section-4112.02/


Sunny said:


> Also, what about hiring just a single person as a landscaper, maid, nanny, etc.?  Does this decision apply to that kind of situation?



That is a private person hiring, not a business, etc., so No.


----------



## Lewkat (Mar 25, 2021)

Been There said:


> I don't know how I blew this, but I thought this always was the law.





> Me too.  I cannot believe it went to the SC or that they even heard it.


----------



## Mr. Ed (Mar 25, 2021)

rgp said:


> I really do not & would not care, what the laws says. If I cannot run my business my way ? then i will not open it, or will close it, if already opened.


Hypothetically speaking?


----------



## fmdog44 (Mar 25, 2021)

Been There said:


> I don't know how I blew this, but I thought this always was the law.


So did I.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Mar 26, 2021)

I don't understand the concept that by hiring someone, you don't have to obey the law. You can fire anyone for any reason. That may have been the practice in ancient Rome in 34 AD. By hiring someone, today, you enter into a contract with that employee. He has to perform well, and adhere to the law. And the employer has a duty to keep his employees safe, and to obey all labor laws. I don't pretend to know anything about hiring law. Just because I hire someone does not give me the authority to shoot him. In the same way, by hiring someone does not mean that an employer can ignore the law. And of course, it's perfectly legal to fire some one for cause, as permitted by law.


----------

