Author Topic: SCOTUS ruling  (Read 1070 times)

MEKoch

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 191
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
SCOTUS ruling
« on: June 18, 2020, 07:04:46 PM »
I notice that earlier this week SCOTUS ruled for GLBTQ etc., regarding job discrimination.  One part of the case involved a male transgender funeral home worker who showed up on his worksite dressed as a female.  He was fired.  SCOTUS majority said that the 1964 Civil Rights act prohibiting discrimination between male and female, could be stretched to mean that transgender persons had protection. 

None of us want to see people mistreated, or hounded, or bullied, or fired.  But I am now wondering, where does this leave us?  There is usually an exception for religious institutions in these rulings, but I can see in society that great confusion and further destruction of marriage and family will result.  If my 17 year old son wants to play on the high school girl's volley ball team, and he now identifies as female, who can stop him from playing volleyball with girls and using their locker room?  Will my 22 year old daughter lose her rowing team scholarship at college, because a male transgender person took her seat in the boat? 

The Methodist Bishop of MD in the late 90s had a pastor make a sexual transition.  He/she was prevented from pursuing the ministry further.  I assume the ELCA applauds the ruling. 

God's design for us is good and Godly.  We are certainly making a mess of the created order.  1st commandment stuff: I want to be god...….
« Last Edit: June 18, 2020, 07:27:44 PM by MEKoch »

passerby

  • ALPB Forum Regular
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: SCOTUS ruling
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2020, 07:24:05 PM »
I notice that earlier this week SCOTUS ruled for GLBTQ etc., regarding job discrimination.  One part of the case involved a male transgender funeral home worker who showed up on his worksite dressed as a female.  He was fired.  SCOTUS majority said that the 1964 Civil Rights act prohibiting discrimination between male and female, could be stretched to mean that transgender persons had protection. 

None of us want to see people mistreated, or hounded, or bullied, or fired.  But I am now wondering, where does this leave us?  There is usually an exception for religious institutions in these rulings, but I can see in society that great confusion and further destruction of marriage and family will result.  If my 17 year old son wants to play on the high school girl's volley ball team, and he now identifies as female, who can stop him from playing volleyball with girls and using their locker room?  Will my 22 year old daughter lose her rowing team scholarship at college, because a male transgender person took her seat in the boat? 

The Methodist Bishop of MD in the late 90s had a pastor make a sexual transition.  He/she was prevented from pursuing the ministry further.  I assume the ELCA applauds the ruling. 

God's design for us is good and Godly.  We are certainly making a mess of the created order.  1st commandment stuff: I want to be god...….


I understand Judge Gorsuch acknowledged that religious freedom concerns will be considered in applying this law. But given the politicized and polarized nature of society, I have the uneasy feeling that the ruling will be used to bludgeon anyone criticizing glbtq rights in the workplace, as well as a lot of suspicion that anyone not on board with the gender agenda will be charged with bias where none may exist ("Why didn't my boss or company contribute or attend the pride festival? I think he's biased against gays and transgender people."), and other such nonsense.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2020, 07:49:26 PM by passerby »

RDPreus

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1174
    • View Profile
    • Christ For Us
Re: SCOTUS ruling
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2020, 07:40:28 PM »
The idea of men who claim to be women competing in women's sports reminds me of the comedian Andy Kaufman who boasted that he could beat any woman in a wrestling match.  Was it a joke?  Or was it a sign of what was to come?

Voelker

  • Guest
Re: SCOTUS ruling
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2020, 07:48:59 PM »
I understand Judge Gorsuch acknowledged that religious freedom concerns will be considered in applying this law. But given the politicized and polarized nature of society, I have the uneasy feeling that the ruling will be used to bludgeon anyone criticicizing glbtq rights in the workplace, as well as a lot of suspicion that anyone not on board with the gender agenda will be charged with bias where none may exist ("Why didn't my boss or company contribute or attend the pride festival?") and other such nonsense.
Those are certainly consequences we can expect. Give people access to a stick, and don't be surprised when they pick it up and try to thwack something or someone with it. I think a change we can expect in the workplace in general is for all employment to be contractual — you sign on with a three-year contract, with the terms set in stone that there is no expectation that a new contract will be offered and that there are no set terms for renewal. Employers will need something like this in order to fire pretty much anyone, given the breadth of claims now available to employees in claiming discrimination. We could be seeing a whole new workplace emerge for our congregants.

J. Thomas Shelley

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
Re: SCOTUS ruling
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2020, 09:29:31 PM »
I think a change we can expect in the workplace in general is for all employment to be contractual — you sign on with a three-year contract, with the terms set in stone that there is no expectation that a new contract will be offered and that there are no set terms for renewal. Employers will need something like this in order to fire pretty much anyone, given the breadth of claims now available to employees in claiming discrimination. We could be seeing a whole new workplace emerge for our congregants.

What you are describing already exists:  "At-will employment"
Greek Orthodox-Ecumenical Patriarchate

Baptized, Confirmed, and Ordained United Methodist.
Served as a Lutheran Pastor October 31, 1989 - October 31, 2014.
Charter member of the first chapter of the Society of the Holy Trinity.

Chrismated Antiochian Orthodox, eve of Mary of Egypt Sunday, A.D. 2015

Voelker

  • Guest
Re: SCOTUS ruling
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2020, 09:39:48 PM »
I think a change we can expect in the workplace in general is for all employment to be contractual — you sign on with a three-year contract, with the terms set in stone that there is no expectation that a new contract will be offered and that there are no set terms for renewal. Employers will need something like this in order to fire pretty much anyone, given the breadth of claims now available to employees in claiming discrimination. We could be seeing a whole new workplace emerge for our congregants.

What you are describing already exists:  "At-will employment"
I understand that. What I'm suggesting is that it will become formalized and time-bound so as to make long-term employee-employer relationships much more rare.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42269
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: SCOTUS ruling
« Reply #6 on: June 20, 2020, 02:27:27 AM »
I think a change we can expect in the workplace in general is for all employment to be contractual — you sign on with a three-year contract, with the terms set in stone that there is no expectation that a new contract will be offered and that there are no set terms for renewal. Employers will need something like this in order to fire pretty much anyone, given the breadth of claims now available to employees in claiming discrimination. We could be seeing a whole new workplace emerge for our congregants.

What you are describing already exists:  "At-will employment"
I understand that. What I'm suggesting is that it will become formalized and time-bound so as to make long-term employee-employer relationships much more rare.


How common do you think it is for someone to suddenly change orientation; or to suddenly decide that their brain is telling them that they are a different gender than their genitals? The non-discrimination rule that was the basis for the decision was created in 1964. That law, nor the laws in 22 states against discrimination for sexual orientation, didn't result in such wide-spread "at-will employment" clauses; why should it now?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Voelker

  • Guest
Re: SCOTUS ruling
« Reply #7 on: June 20, 2020, 09:45:02 AM »
I think a change we can expect in the workplace in general is for all employment to be contractual — you sign on with a three-year contract, with the terms set in stone that there is no expectation that a new contract will be offered and that there are no set terms for renewal. Employers will need something like this in order to fire pretty much anyone, given the breadth of claims now available to employees in claiming discrimination. We could be seeing a whole new workplace emerge for our congregants.

What you are describing already exists:  "At-will employment"
I understand that. What I'm suggesting is that it will become formalized and time-bound so as to make long-term employee-employer relationships much more rare.
How common do you think it is for someone to suddenly change orientation; or to suddenly decide that their brain is telling them that they are a different gender than their genitals? The non-discrimination rule that was the basis for the decision was created in 1964. That law, nor the laws in 22 states against discrimination for sexual orientation, didn't result in such wide-spread "at-will employment" clauses; why should it now?
This is far more of a straw-that-breaks-the-camel's-back moment than it has to do with the groups affected by this decision; that, all by itself, would have little effect. There are simply too many ways now, and too many people, who can make plausible arguments (true or not) that they've been wrongly fired / not promoted / etc. for employers to take risks in hiring or in keeping employees around long-term or indefinitely.

Brian Stoffregen

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 42269
  • ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν
    • View Profile
Re: SCOTUS ruling
« Reply #8 on: June 20, 2020, 02:16:59 PM »
I think a change we can expect in the workplace in general is for all employment to be contractual — you sign on with a three-year contract, with the terms set in stone that there is no expectation that a new contract will be offered and that there are no set terms for renewal. Employers will need something like this in order to fire pretty much anyone, given the breadth of claims now available to employees in claiming discrimination. We could be seeing a whole new workplace emerge for our congregants.

What you are describing already exists:  "At-will employment"
I understand that. What I'm suggesting is that it will become formalized and time-bound so as to make long-term employee-employer relationships much more rare.
How common do you think it is for someone to suddenly change orientation; or to suddenly decide that their brain is telling them that they are a different gender than their genitals? The non-discrimination rule that was the basis for the decision was created in 1964. That law, nor the laws in 22 states against discrimination for sexual orientation, didn't result in such wide-spread "at-will employment" clauses; why should it now?
This is far more of a straw-that-breaks-the-camel's-back moment than it has to do with the groups affected by this decision; that, all by itself, would have little effect. There are simply too many ways now, and too many people, who can make plausible arguments (true or not) that they've been wrongly fired / not promoted / etc. for employers to take risks in hiring or in keeping employees around long-term or indefinitely.


So, do you want the government to protect employees or do you promote unions?
"The church … had made us like ill-taught piano students; we play our songs, but we never really hear them, because our main concern is not to make music, but but to avoid some flub that will get us in dutch." [Robert Capon, _Between Noon and Three_, p. 148]

Matt Hummel

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 2489
    • View Profile
Re: SCOTUS ruling
« Reply #9 on: June 20, 2020, 02:42:41 PM »
I think a change we can expect in the workplace in general is for all employment to be contractual — you sign on with a three-year contract, with the terms set in stone that there is no expectation that a new contract will be offered and that there are no set terms for renewal. Employers will need something like this in order to fire pretty much anyone, given the breadth of claims now available to employees in claiming discrimination. We could be seeing a whole new workplace emerge for our congregants.

What you are describing already exists:  "At-will employment"
I understand that. What I'm suggesting is that it will become formalized and time-bound so as to make long-term employee-employer relationships much more rare.


How common do you think it is for someone to suddenly change orientation; or to suddenly decide that their brain is telling them that they are a different gender than their genitals? The non-discrimination rule that was the basis for the decision was created in 1964. That law, nor the laws in 22 states against discrimination for sexual orientation, didn't result in such wide-spread "at-will employment" clauses; why should it now?

Yeah- not gonna fall for that lie. It’s like the BS over late term abortions which are so rare that there is no need to legislate but so frequent that it would be an imposition on women.

And then there is social contagion. The more some poor deluded sod engages in gnostic biology, the more some other poor deluded sod will do the same.

You had sons. So you never had to worry that some mentally ill boy would claim he was a girl and deprive your daughter of championships, scholarships, and other opportunities. Lie to yourself all you want. Just do me to courtesy of not lying to me.
Matt Hummel


“The chief purpose of life, for any of us, is to increase according to our capacity our knowledge of God by all means we have, and to be moved by it to praise and thanks.”

― J.R.R. Tolkien

Voelker

  • Guest
Re: SCOTUS ruling
« Reply #10 on: June 20, 2020, 03:23:51 PM »
I think a change we can expect in the workplace in general is for all employment to be contractual — you sign on with a three-year contract, with the terms set in stone that there is no expectation that a new contract will be offered and that there are no set terms for renewal. Employers will need something like this in order to fire pretty much anyone, given the breadth of claims now available to employees in claiming discrimination. We could be seeing a whole new workplace emerge for our congregants.
What you are describing already exists:  "At-will employment"
I understand that. What I'm suggesting is that it will become formalized and time-bound so as to make long-term employee-employer relationships much more rare.
How common do you think it is for someone to suddenly change orientation; or to suddenly decide that their brain is telling them that they are a different gender than their genitals? The non-discrimination rule that was the basis for the decision was created in 1964. That law, nor the laws in 22 states against discrimination for sexual orientation, didn't result in such wide-spread "at-will employment" clauses; why should it now?
This is far more of a straw-that-breaks-the-camel's-back moment than it has to do with the groups affected by this decision; that, all by itself, would have little effect. There are simply too many ways now, and too many people, who can make plausible arguments (true or not) that they've been wrongly fired / not promoted / etc. for employers to take risks in hiring or in keeping employees around long-term or indefinitely.
So, do you want the government to protect employees or do you promote unions?
This isn't about what I want (though this is a very strange or you lay out; the first part begs the question and the second has nothing to do with the issue, other than they'd be involved in negotiations on these points so far as the law allows), but about what employers can do to protect themselves. If the law, as written and ruled-upon, won't do it, they will have to find ways to protect themselves.

Many other Americans are gearing up to do the same, as Mr Hummel notes above. The next years will be...interesting, which is never good for those who have to live through such times.