I would take a slightly less jaded view. Ultimately HR's purpose is indeed to protect the company from employee lawsuits, but the proven most effective way to do that is to de-escalate and resolve early.
Unfortunately a lot of cry-bullies have been abusing the HR system based on a combination of prior bad case law and regulatory language which mis-interpreted the 1964 law as applying only to protected classes. An unfortunate number of HR personnel on both sides of this issue have pulled away from the intent of the law to various bastard interpretations of it like "Well, so and-so is <insert protected characteristic here> so we'll just have to let them win any arguments."
Gorsuch firmly grounded the law back to the law, as an individual right not to be discriminated against for a set of specifically enumerated characteristics that are impossible for a person to change. It's not a license to pick fights with your coworkers then claim discrimination.
individual right not to be discriminated against for a set of specifically enumerated characteristics that are impossible for a person to change
Yes, but that's why sexual orientations dysfunction should not be a part of that.
Sex or national origin is something that comes with the person; the person can't keep it out of the workplace because it's plainly visible.
I don't even agree that this should have additional protection, but at least I see the logic.
But whatever you do in bed should not be something that is protected because it shouldn't be known in the workplace. You should not be talking about sex in the workplace, and if you do you shouldn't have protections. Imagine I go around my colleagues boasting that I like to be pissed on and when they complain I cry discrimination.
The effect of this political decision is that now homos are even more emboldened to shove it down everybody's throat. Being part of the LGBT gang is a political statement, so Gor-suck has effectively allowed unchecked political proselytism in the workplace.
I would take a slightly less jaded view. Ultimately HR's purpose is indeed to protect the company from employee lawsuits, but the proven most effective way to do that is to de-escalate and resolve early.
Unfortunately a lot of cry-bullies have been abusing the HR system based on a combination of prior bad case law and regulatory language which mis-interpreted the 1964 law as applying only to protected classes. An unfortunate number of HR personnel on both sides of this issue have pulled away from the intent of the law to various bastard interpretations of it like "Well, so and-so is <insert protected characteristic here> so we'll just have to let them win any arguments."
Gorsuch firmly grounded the law back to the law, as an individual right not to be discriminated against for a set of specifically enumerated characteristics that are impossible for a person to change. It's not a license to pick fights with your coworkers then claim discrimination.
Yes, but that's why sexual
orientationsdysfunction should not be a part of that.Sex or national origin is something that comes with the person; the person can't keep it out of the workplace because it's plainly visible. I don't even agree that this should have additional protection, but at least I see the logic.
But whatever you do in bed should not be something that is protected because it shouldn't be known in the workplace. You should not be talking about sex in the workplace, and if you do you shouldn't have protections. Imagine I go around my colleagues boasting that I like to be pissed on and when they complain I cry discrimination.
The effect of this political decision is that now homos are even more emboldened to shove it down everybody's throat. Being part of the LGBT gang is a political statement, so Gor-suck has effectively allowed unchecked political proselytism in the workplace.