National Gun Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Ancient Gaseous Emanation
Joined
·
53,706 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Peter Skurkiss
September 1, 2019


The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on a major case on sex, gender, identity, and discrimination in October. It is titled R.G. and Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The nub of the case is as follows: Aimee Stephens worked for over five years as a funeral director at the R.G and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes. Stephens is a male but in 2013 claimed he is a woman and started surgeries to make himself look like a woman the next year. When Stephens informed the funeral home owner Thomas Rost about this, he fired Stephens.

Rost tried to work out an amicable separation, including a severance package, but Stephens refused. Stephens made a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that he had been discriminated against for being transgender. The EEOC took the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 2016.

Rost's defense was twofold. First, neither transgender persons nor gender identity were protected classes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Second, Mr. Rost is a devout Christian and ran his funeral homes in accordance with his religious beliefs. Rost does not believe that a person can change his sex, surgeries notwithstanding. The district court found that Rost could fire Stephens under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The EEOC appealed to the Sixth Circuit, and in 2018, the initial decision was reversed. The enlightened judges there ruled that discrimination by sex does includes transgender persons, and having a transgender working as a funeral director does not affect Mr. Rost's religious freedom.

Rost appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where the case is now. Stephens is being represented by the ACLU.

This case is shaping up to be a significant one that could have wide repercussions. It pits religious freedom and a clear reading of Title VII against an expanded view of the Civil Rights Act. In a sane world, if the LGBTQ community wanted transgenders designated as a protected class under Title VII, they would have to work to get Congress to pass such legislation rather than relying on judges to twist the meaning of the law into something it was never meant to be.

When this case is settled, it will almost assuredly be a 5-4 decision. With Chief Justice Roberts in the mix, it is far from certain which side will have the five votes.




https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/huge_transgender_case_will_be_heard_by_supreme_court_in_october.html
 

·
Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
20,918 Posts
IMHO, the First Amendment supersedes the Civil Rights Act. Harris Funeral Homes defense should be that they can't have mental ill people (who think they another sex from their biological determination) near grieving families..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,544 Posts
Hey if someone wants to lop off their junk and turn their outy into a inny i have no problem. But lets be honest, it's some sort of mental disorder that makes them do this. There is no denying DNA and no matter what they change or wear a simple blood test will show what gender they are. No business should be forced to hire or continue to employ someone with a mental disorder if they don;t want to. If they want to that's fine, it's their business. They are there to make money and every decision they make could improve or hurt their business so it should be up to the employer to make that decision, not a court.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,632 Posts
Hey if someone wants to lop off their junk and turn their outy into a inny i have no problem.
I have issues with it, for a few reasons.

First, it openly accepts a mental problem as being normal. That in itself creates (as we have seen) problems against the norm. I am now mandated to accept a psychological disorder than influences society in a most negative way. Parents deciding their gender of their children rather than the reality. Taxpayers being mandated to pay for sex changes and therapy sessions for adjustments. Faith is being handed a warning and is losing the battle against sin and faith based interests. Children are being indoctrinated by transgender, transvestites, gays, queers and in reality government is mandating this indoctrination regardless of faith based concerns.

You see, this psychological disorder is now a priority over reality.

I do have a problem with it.....all of it.
 

·
Grand Imperial Poobah
Joined
·
20,918 Posts
How much money is wasted on anti-rejection drugs, hormone therapy, surgical procedures, psychologists, etc., that could be used to find cures for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,544 Posts
I have issues with it, for a few reasons.

First, it openly accepts a mental problem as being normal. That in itself creates (as we have seen) problems against the norm. I am now mandated to accept a psychological disorder than influences society in a most negative way. Parents deciding their gender of their children rather than the reality. Taxpayers being mandated to pay for sex changes and therapy sessions for adjustments. Faith is being handed a warning and is losing the battle against sin and faith based interests. Children are being indoctrinated by transgender, transvestites, gays, queers and in reality government is mandating this indoctrination regardless of faith based concerns.

You see, this psychological disorder is now a priority over reality.

I do have a problem with it.....all of it.



I didn't say it was normal but it's their body so who am i to say what they want to do with it if they aren't hurting anyone else. I also don't think taxpayers should ever have to pay for any of this either, they want it done then they should pay for it. Some people think tattoos and piercings are abnormal too so should that be not allowed too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,881 Posts
This was an interesting read.

7 March 2018 ??

Employers Need To Continue To Evolve With The Times.
This is the second ruling from a federal appeals court in the past 10 days to demonstrate the evolving nature of Title VII obligations.
Just last week, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals became the second appellate court to hold that Title VII barred discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
It’s a clear demonstration that employers’ attitudes about LGBT issues need to adapt to the times.

These decisions are likely to build upon each other and create a continuing momentum in other courts across the country. Indeed, in today’s decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals cited to last year’s Hively v. Ivy Tech case (the first time a federal appeals court held that Title VII covered sexual orientation) in support of its ruling. You should not be surprised if courts in other jurisdictions take notice and begin to expand their own rulings when it comes to cases involving Title VII and perhaps even state antidiscrimination laws.

For employers directly covered by this 6th Circuit ruling—those in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Michigan—you need to immediately take proactive steps to ensure transgender and transitioning status are treated the same as any other protected class. This includes reviewing your written policies, handbooks, training sessions, workplace investigations, hiring methods, discipline and discharge procedures, benefits offerings, and all other aspects of your human resources activities.
https://www.fisherphillips.com/resources-alerts-another-landmark-ruling-court-says-transgender-discrimination
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,822 Posts
well.....i think the funeral home may lose this one........

not so much an argument about the he/she side of things......but more about on the level playing field line of thinking.

what if the religious beliefs are no services or employment for non believers? What if the owner has a specific problem with Lutherans on religious grounds? Or a problem with the Jewish Faith?

what if his religion has a belief that women should not be in charge or a position of authority?......don't laugh at that one as it was just a few decades back i recall sermons about never allowing a woman preacher, never allow a woman in a supervisory role, and the woman should walk two steps behind the man........the tune has changed since then.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,039 Posts
My wife is a HR director. Yes you should feel for me as I am constantly being call into HR for just about everything I do, UGH, That being said I showed her this and she said the the Trans can’t be fired for being trans unless it’s a BFOQ. A “bona fide occupational qualification “. In other words, a job that is gender specific like a men’s room attendant or a women’s dressing room attendant. It doesn’t matter if the funeral director a man or a woman. They are discriminating based on their religion. The smarter play would have been to build a case on performance and to terminate after do due diligence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,799 Posts
If you're an employer and have issues with this, then you do not hire these folks to begin with or you find another way to terminate them - not like that doesn't already happen now. In many states, an employee can be terminated "for cause", and that is fairly easy to do
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,192 Posts
I seem to remember a case several years ago were a store in Texas that specialized in custom fitting of woman bras. This store hire only women to assist in the fitting of the bras because obviously the fitting required for the woman to be topless. A man applied for the job and was denied for what the store believe is was a reasonable reason. The man sue, and guess what? He won, the store was ordered to hire the guy. The store was a chain, so the owner of the chain closed ALL their stores in Texas, the judge decision provoke the fire of a bunch if people over this issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,220 Posts
It'll be time "once again" for the men and women "who stare at goats", and the "one wize Lateeeno woooman", to put on their mental-funk and stare, stare deep and hard, for days on end, into the "fabric of the Constitution" (like they did last time) until they find the "site" where the "right" to be sexually weird was truly enumerated and stated by our Founding Fathers (just like last time). Indeed. Yep. That's right!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
well.....i think the funeral home may lose this one........

not so much an argument about the he/she side of things......but more about on the level playing field line of thinking.

what if the religious beliefs are no services or employment for non believers? What if the owner has a specific problem with Lutherans on religious grounds? Or a problem with the Jewish Faith?

what if his religion has a belief that women should not be in charge or a position of authority?......don't laugh at that one as it was just a few decades back i recall sermons about never allowing a woman preacher, never allow a woman in a supervisory role, and the woman should walk two steps behind the man........the tune has changed since then.
IMO private property, and first amendment rights come before touchy feel rights that IMO don't exist. A business should have the right to set their parameters as they wish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
A cowboy walks into a bar. Pretty young lady spots him and asks if he's a real cowboy. He says"Yes ma'am, that's what I am" so she's all over that- loves cowboys. He gets away from her to meet another pretty young lady that asks the same thing and he says again that he's a real cowboy. Well, this girl tells him that she's a lesbian. He asks her what that is so she patiently explains in detail of her love for other women and how she enjoys being physically close with beautiful young women and all that goes along with the whole thing. That poor cowboy's head is spinning by the time he gets away from her to order another drink. Yep, another pretty young lass approaches and asks if he's a real cowboy. He slowly shook his head and said"No ma'am, I think I'm a lesbian."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Quote from OP: "Mr. Rost is a devout Christian and ran his funeral homes in accordance with his religious beliefs. Rost does not believe that a person can change his sex, surgeries notwithstanding. The district court found that Rost could fire Stephens under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

lets not forget the famous hobbylobby case for ACA under use of religion as business. theirfore are exempt from civilrights requirements. religious rights trump civil rights.

This is comming from a person that prefers civil rights as higher right in order to be able to partisipate in society. .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
I seem to remember a case several years ago were a store in Texas that specialized in custom fitting of woman bras. This store hire only women to assist in the fitting of the bras because obviously the fitting required for the woman to be topless. A man applied for the job and was denied for what the store believe is was a reasonable reason. The man sue, and guess what? He won, the store was ordered to hire the guy. The store was a chain, so the owner of the chain closed ALL their stores in Texas, the judge decision provoke the fire of a bunch if people over this issue.


HUH that is a fundamental alteration of the nature of the business because it distresses the customer who would otherwise not use their services.. In cases like these the fundamental alteration always trumps civil rights. So says the Americans with disability act. The reason I use the ADA as reference is because the people protected by this law are the most shunned and weak in our society who rarely ever have their own voice to be heard by the many.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top