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
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.
I don't follow. It's not illegal to dislike someone, and it's also not illegal to have those ideas while doing a specific act. You can still have ideas and it certainly isn't criminalizing thought.
The case we are talking about revolves around employment not an artistic form of speech. One is a sex discrimination case and the other is a free speech case.
I don't really mind protected classes. I think if we added a few more we'd all be happy with it 99% of the time.
I'm not really sure what you're worried about. Can you give me a single example?
A person can fire anyone. But if they THINK negative things about that person relating to their "class", then it is illegal. A person can assault anyone. But if they THINK negative things about that person relating to their "class", then it is a hate crime. This is criminalizing thought. The government decides what counts as bigotry, then punishes those thoughts.
What classes are missing? Age, race, national origin, religion, sex, disability, pregnancy, and veteran status are all included. The presence of these classes has not reduced bigotry, as it is supposed to do. It has not reduced "inequalities" as it is supposed to do. And it has not provided equal protection, as whites, asians, christians, and men are still openly and legally discriminated against.
So what do these categories do? They violate the rights of the individual for the benefit of politically favorable groups. They advance collectivism as a moral good. It advances the philosophy that people who are not harmed by an act are no less entitled to reparations by simple fact of their class. That people who belong to the offending class deserve group class punishment.
This collectivist "good" is the basis for affirmative action. It's the basis for excluding certain classes from government programs, benefits, grants, and hiring. It's the basis for every law and policy that proudly declares discrimination is good...if directed at the right people.