Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS Protects Abortion, 'Looks Other Way' on 2A
(www.breitbart.com)
🔥 FIRE & FURY 💥
Comments (339)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
It's not freedom oriented. Private citizens should be able to choose who their associate with. The government has decided, that instead you are OBLIGATED to give your labor (paycheck, product, service, etc) to other people because of their arbitrary characteristics.
And now who they want to fuck or how they dress is a protected characteristic. The Civil Rights Act was a huge mistake.
An employer should be able to fire someone for whatever reason they want. Whether it's wearing dresses, farting too much, or just looking at you funny.
Well I'm not exactly sure how that applies to anything that I've said, but I agree with you that we shouldn't do this but I would make one stipulation. I do think Trump was right that we should help people based on class e.g. his healthcare bill provided free care to the poorest American citizens.
I'd be interested in hearing how you think it applies to how people dress or otherwise. What do you think is going to happen? It's not like strip clubs and places like Hooters are going to all of a sudden start being forced to hire trans employees https://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9
You said the ruling is freedom oriented. It isn't. It's an extension of the CRA's nullification of freedom of association. Aside from that,
You're asking the wrong question. It's easy not to hire someone. (Although hired enough of NOT some kind of someone and you might get sued.)
The question is firing in this case. The employee "transitioned" after they were hired, then the boss didn't want them to work there anymore. A Hooter's girl could "transition" after being hired. That is where this ruling comes in saying, "Too bad, you can't fire them for changing their appearance because that is sex discrimination." Hooters/etc in particular may have a legal defense, but the vast majority of businesses do not.
I'm not sure what you're saying, but yes Hooters would be able to fire someone who transitioned and they have legal precedent to do so. Yes the ruling is freedom oriented.
Why did you use Hooters as an example and then say it didn't apply to them? lol.
Feel free to give another example :)
These policies do not respect individual rights. It establishes policy in which individual property rights and freedom of speech are subordinate to collective rights.
It is not illegal to dislike gay people or to dislike a race of people. Then why is it illegal to have those ideas while doing a specific act? This is a criminalization of thought, similar to hate crime law.
It's the same premise that forces someone to "bake the gay cake". Because it establishes, that in fact, it is legal to deny service, but not deny service while having "bad thoughts."
"Protected classes" (collective rights) are an poison to a society founded on and purporting to defend individual rights.