The homophobic thread :>

[Leo Lyons]

Hello, Leo - we missed your cheery ebullience.
Thanks; I've been doing a bit of traveling around getting to know the local environs. Good to hear from you too; hope all is well with you and yours.

Did you notice that one list had people, and one had only inanimate objects? Does that make a difference? Anyway, yes, you do have every right to be prejudiced, racist, homophobic if you like - nobody says you don't.
That was the point of my post. There are people in both lists. You can 'dislike' (emphasis here) almost any thing or anybody you want, for any reason; but if that person is different; say in their lifestyle or personal mannerisms, then you get labeled as a "prejudiced, racist, homophobic" bigot.

There's a vast difference in hate and dislike, but too many are eager to jump on the bandwagon to accuse without really realizing there's a difference.

[neoplacebo]

Yes, I agree. There is quite a leap between dislike and hate. For example, I don't dislike money but I must hate it because if I have it I have to get rid of it. But sometimes there's no discernable difference between dislike and hate. For example, I dislike sweet pickles, okra, kale, things that rattle or don't work right....but I can just as easily hate those things as dislike them. In fact, I'm sure of it; I hate those things.

[O Really]

Y'know, that's a pretty decent defense for a lesser sentence, isn't it? "Well, judge, I did kick the little faggot's ass, but it was only a dislike crime."

There may be a difference in hate and dislike in general use, but not if that emotion results in discrimination or violence. If you're refusing to serve me because I'm gay/black/hispanic/trans, then it's some pretty strong "dislike."

[Vrede too]

I dislike cauliflower. If I was trying to get cauliflower banned for everyone I would call myself a cauliflower hater.

[Leo Lyons]

Yes, I agree. There is quite a leap between dislike and hate. For example, I don't dislike money but I must hate it because if I have it I have to get rid of it. But sometimes there's no discernable difference between dislike and hate. For example, I dislike sweet pickles, okra, kale, things that rattle or don't work right....but I can just as easily hate those things as dislike them. In fact, I'm sure of it; I hate those things.

[Leo Lyons]

Now, I also don't like:
Homosexuality, transgenders, men who dress like women, women who dress like men, drug & narcotic users/dealers, snotty kids, snotty adults, shoppers of Walmart examples, rednecks, holier-than-thous, to name a few.

There may be a difference in hate and dislike in general use, but not if that emotion results in discrimination or violence. If you're refusing to serve me because I'm gay/black/hispanic/trans, then it's some pretty strong "dislike."

I should have clarified; it's not the individuals I dislike; but because I dislike homosexuality, doesn't make me bigoted or intolerant.
It's something I don't want for myself, much like not wanting Miracle Whip on my sandwich. That's it; a simple dislike. Does that earn me a label?

[Leo Lyons]

I dislike cauliflower. If I was trying to get cauliflower banned for everyone I would call myself a cauliflower hater.

I'd call you a commie!

[Vrede too]

The national bird of the United States of America, as reported by Fox News in 2019:

A bald eagle trio of two males and a female is successfully raising eaglets in Illinois

Nttawwt.

[O Really]

"New Canadian one-dollar coin honouring LGBT rights to be unveiled"

https://www.straight.com/life/1230381/r ... gbt-rights

The standard $1 coin is the "loonie" of course, at least in part because of the image of a loon. There may be some creative names given the new commemorative coin.

[Vrede too]

"New Canadian one-dollar coin honouring LGBT rights to be unveiled"

https://www.straight.com/life/1230381/r ... gbt-rights

The standard $1 coin is the "loonie" of course, at least in part because of the image of a loon. There may be some creative names given the new commemorative coin.

It will be queer as a one-dollar coin.

You cited the STRAIGHT on an LGBTQ topic.

... The coin, which the Royal Canadian Mint claims in a news release is the “world's first circulation coin recognizing LGBTQ2 rights“, commemorates the date of decriminalization of same-sex sexual activity in the country in 1969, which was two years after then-justice minister Pierre Trudeau made his often-quoted remark that "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation".

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved the coin on December 14, 2018.

CBC News has reported that the design will feature two overlapping faces within a large circle.

The coin follows after the formal apology that Justin Trudeau delivered in 2017 to LGBT Canadians for past discrimination by the federal government. The apology addressed what was known as the Gay Purge, in which civil servants who were thought to be LGBT were targeted from the 1950s to 1990s....

First I've seen "LGBTQ2".

LGBTQ2

(chiefly Canada) Initialism of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or sometimes questioning), two-spirited.

Looks like there's also:

LGBTQI

Abbreviation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning (or: queer), intersex.

Eventually - 'people', but we've got some work to do yet.

[Vrede too]

Okay, this is clever:



I'm not sure that it's a bad thing to have a bunch of rightwingers sporting "I support LGBTQ", regardless of what comes after.

[GoCubsGo]

President Donald Trump's administration has argued that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation or gender identity. The Republican president's administration reversed the approach taken under Democratic former President Barack Obama by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces federal laws banning workplace discrimination.

Making America Great again?

[O Really]

It's hard to imagine that a contemporary interpretation Title VII would exclude sexual orientation or gender identity, even from a bunch of right-wing yahoos who also really did attend good law schools. The only plausible (??) approach would be literal language, where they would say that since sexual orientation wasn't specifically mentioned, then it must not be included. But that's not the way most interpretations have been made over the years. We'll see.

[Vrede too]

President Donald Trump's administration has argued that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation or gender identity. The Republican president's administration reversed the approach taken under Democratic former President Barack Obama by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces federal laws banning workplace discrimination.

Making America Great again?

It's hard to imagine that a contemporary interpretation Title VII would exclude sexual orientation or gender identity, even from a bunch of right-wing yahoos who also really did attend good law schools. The only plausible (??) approach would be literal language, where they would say that since sexual orientation wasn't specifically mentioned, then it must not be included. But that's not the way most interpretations have been made over the years. We'll see.

Without having studied the exact wording or case history, I could see even a neutral and fair court taking a limited view of Title VII applicability. This is why we need:

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)

Not that there's any chance with the current Senate and POSPOTUS. So, we're left with hoping for an expansive court view and state laws.

[O Really]

Without having studied the exact wording or case history...

Enjoy...

Law360 (April 17, 2019, 7:13 PM EDT) -- While the U.S. Supreme Court has kept employment law watchers waiting on whether it will take up the question of if bias against LGBT workers is covered under Title VII, trial courts have been left to tackle tricky questions involving the viability of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination claims.

Over the past few months, the high court has been considering whether to grant certiorari in a closely watched trio of cases — Altitude Express v. Zarda; Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia; and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC — that each involve questions about the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

But while employment law watchers anxiously wait for the Supreme Court to enter the fray over whether the statute covers discrimination based on either sexual orientation or gender identity, plenty of cases are playing out at the trial court level amid shifting circuit precedents on the issue.

Here, Law360 looks at two recent developments in Title VII cases that you may have missed.

Pa. Casino Dodges Sex Orientation Claim

Parx Casino on April 12 defeated a former table games dealer's suit alleging she was fired because she is an out lesbian, with a Pennsylvania federal judge ruling that he was constricted by Third Circuit law from keeping her sexual orientation bias claims alive.

U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky dismissed a December suit brought against the casino by the ex-employee referenced in court filings as Michelle Doe, who had alleged that Parx Casino flouted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by forcing her to endure a hostile workplace environment and ultimately firing her because of her sexual orientation.

Her complaint detailed a series of incidents that Doe said indicated hostile treatment at the casino, which is located in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. She said she was allegedly misgendered by a security guard and was regularly picked on and ostracized by colleagues. She was ultimately fired after an interaction with a patron that resulted in the individual "getting in [Doe's] face and making a fist," according to the complaint, which noted that Doe had "a masculine gender expression."

Doe alleged that the casino used the interaction with the customer as cover to fire her because of her sexual orientation, according to her complaint.

In its motion to dismiss, however, Parx argued that Doe can't pursue her claims because the Third Circuit has ruled that sexual orientation isn't covered under Title VII.

Doe countered by arguing that her claim is covered by Title VII, and that regardless of whether or not it is, she pled a viable claim of illegal gender stereotyping.

In his April 12 decision, Judge Slomsky agreed with Parx Casino that the Third Circuit in a 2001 decision called Bibby v. Philadelphia Coca Cola Bottling Co. held that individuals can't pursue sexual orientation claims under Title VII.

The judge also tossed Doe's gender stereotyping claim since it too isn't viable under Third Circuit precedent.

But even though he chucked her claims, Judge Slomsky acknowledged that "much has changed since Bibby," specifically name-checking the Supreme Court's recognition of same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges , the Seventh Circuit's recent ruling in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College that Title VII does protect against sexual orientation bias, and the Second Circuit's ruling in Zarda.

"What has not changed is the law handed down by the Third Circuit, which this court is bound to follow," Judge Slomsky said. "Since Bibby, courts in this district have uniformly held that harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation is not actionable under Title VII."

As part of the order, the judge went on a lengthy discussion about the evolution of the term "sex" in case law and the Third Circuit's attempt to "draw a line" between sexual orientation claims and claims involving gender stereotyping.

That line, he said, "does not seem merely difficult to draw; it seems arbitrary" in certain cases and added that a higher court should evaluate the issue of whether bias based on gender stereotyping is actually the same thing as bias based on sexual orientation.

"Because the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, has not overruled Bibby, and the Supreme Court has not addressed whether an employment discrimination claim based on sexual orientation is actionable under Title VII, the court is compelled to dismiss plaintiff's sexual orientation claim," the judge said. "However, … the court does so ‘with the recognition that the nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times.'"

The case is Doe v. Parx Casino, case number 2:18-cv-05289, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

EEOC Makes Tire Co. Say Sorry to Trans Job Seeker

A week before the Parx Casino decision, Colorado-based tire retailer and repair company A&E Tire Inc. reached a settlement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in which it agreed to pay $60,000 and apologize to jilted job applicant Egan Woodward, whose employment offer was rescinded after A&E found out that he was transgender as part of a background check.  

U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson signed off on the parties' consent decree the same day, ending an EEOC suit, which the agency brought on behalf of Woodward alleging the casino illegally discriminated against him based on his gender identity.

Woodward had applied for a managerial position and interviewed with A&E Tire while wearing traditional male clothes and a goatee. He was loosely promised the job if he passed pre-hire screenings, but then the company discovered he was transgender after he marked the box for "female" on his background check form, according to the EEOC's complaint.

The manager who conducted the interview called Woodward to inquire about the marking, and when Woodward confirmed that the correct box was checked, he got hung up on after the manager said, "Oh, that's all I need," the EEOC alleged in its complaint.

The consent decree came after Judge Jackson in September declined to dismiss the suit, concluding that the agency adequately alleged that the tire company didn't hire Woodward because he didn't conform to sex stereotypes.

However, the judge in that order declined the opportunity to weigh in on whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is categorically covered by Title VII, saying it was "not for this court to modify or reconsider" a 2007 Tenth Circuit decision called Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority .

The appellate court in that case held in part that Title VII's sex discrimination ban doesn't cover transgender people as a protected class.

In addition to the money and the apology letter, the consent decree also mandates that A&E Tire update its employment policies to make it clear that discrimination based on sex stereotyping, gender identity or transgender status aren't acceptable and to train its employees with that policy in mind.

The consent decree included a provision in which A&E Tire denied liability for the claims filed against it.

The case is EEOC v. A&E Tire Inc., case number 1:17-cv-02362, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Read more at: https://www.law360.com/employment/artic ... 1?copied=1

[neoplacebo]

The news I saw tonight says the Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases of LGBTQ regarding workplace bias. The story did not say if they will be combined into one case.

[neoplacebo]

Still reading my American history book and today read that after WWII there were about 5,000 soldiers and about 4,000 sailors that were given "blue discharges" because they were "suspected" of being homosexuals. This prevented them from being able to qualify for GI Bill education benefits. I never knew that. They sure as hell didn't mention it in school.

[Vrede too]

The news I saw tonight says the Supreme Court has agreed to hear three cases of LGBTQ regarding workplace bias. The story did not say if they will be combined into one case.

Not one case, but there could be a single ruling depending on its content. GoCubsGo's link:

... The court, whose 5-4 conservative majority includes two Trump appointees, will take up two cases concerning gay people who have said they were fired due to their sexual orientation, one involving a New York skydiving instructor named Donald Zarda and another involving a former county child welfare services coordinator from Georgia named Gerald Bostock.

The court also will hear a Detroit funeral home's bid to reverse a ruling that it violated federal law by firing a transgender funeral director named Aimee Stephens after Stephens revealed plans to transition from male to female....

A bright line interpretation of Title VII one way or the other could apply universally. Nuance could rely more on the distinct details of the 3 cases.

[Vrede too]

Entire Methodist confirmation class declines to become members over anti-LGBTQ policies
"We are concerned that if we join at this time, we will be sending a message that we approve of this decision."

An entire confirmation class at First United Methodist Church in Omaha, Nebraska announced to their congregation that they have decided not to become members due to the church’s stance on LGBTQ issues.

The teenaged would-be members read an open letter in front of the congregation to explain why they couldn’t support discrimination despite the church’s recent controversial decision to crackdown on LGBTQ clergy and marriage equality.

“We have spent the year learning about our faith and clarifying our beliefs. Most of us started the confirmation year assuming that we would join the church at the end, but with the action of the general conference in February, we are disappointed about the direction the United Methodist denomination is heading,” they wrote.

“We are concerned that if we join at this time, we will be sending a message that we approve of this decision.” ...

The eight teenagers received a standing ovation from the congregation for their decision to stand up for Christian values in the face of systemic discrimination.

[Vrede too]

Drag queen story hour in communities nationwide, but some see controversy

The non-profit literacy program Drag Queen Story Hour has volunteers read books to kids in libraries and community centers nationwide. But the program has been met with backlash and protests in some areas.

I love the smell of outraged bigots in the evening.