Atlanta court says gays, lesbians not a protected class

I’d prefer if one day they didn’t need protection

We’re still very shortly removed from right to marry from them, and sadly many Christians are not going the route of hating the sin and loving the sinner and are instead condemning everything about a gay person simply because it’s a particular sin they don’t struggle with and can therefore falsely feel better about how they’re living (still in sin)

I think they need to remain a protected class. Especially in GA. Without, an employer can legally refuse to even interview a candidate they know is gay for the reason being that they’re gay
 
It's unceasingly annoying that people refer to gays and lesbians as a "class" in this way. It may not seem like much but it completely poisons the conversation by implying that special protection is given based on race/sex/religion, etc.
 
loyalyolayal said:
Protected class?
Click to expand...
Legal term meaning that discrimination on that basis is restricted. In the context of employment law, it means that you can't, for example, fire someone for being a racial minority. The question here is whether the same analysis applies to firing people for being gay.

His lawsuit has the following allegations:

1.) He received good performance evaluation
2.) He came out as LGBT at work through his participation in a "gay" softball league
3.) Shortly thereafter he started getting pushback from certain managers.
4.) They then conducted an audit and fired him.

His argument is that title vii prohibits firing people in a protected class, LGBT is such a class, he was fired for being gay, and the audit was pretextual.

Their argument is that 1.) LGBT is not a protected class and 2.) even if it was, the audit was the actual reason that he was fired.

The 11th circuit agreed with the first issue. Other courts have held differently.
 
Last edited:
HockeyBjj said:
I’d prefer if one day they didn’t need protection

We’re still very shortly removed from right to marry from them, and sadly many Christians are not going the route of hating the sin and loving the sinner and are instead condemning everything about a gay person simply because it’s a particular sin they don’t struggle with and can therefore falsely feel better about how they’re living (still in sin)

I think they need to remain a protected class. Especially in GA. Without, an employer can legally refuse to even interview a candidate they know is gay for the reason being that they’re gay
Click to expand...
I see your point. But I think people would just lie about the reason for firing/ not interviewing anyway. I'm not sure any of this will have much affect on anything.
 
Quipling said:
Legal term meaning that discrimination on that basis is restricted. In the context of employment law, it means that you can't, for example, fire someone for being a racial minority. The question here is whether the same analysis applies to firing people for being gay.

His lawsuit has the following allegations:

1.) He received good performance evaluation
2.) He came out as LGBT at work through his participation in a "gay" softball league
3.) Shortly thereafter he started getting pushback from certain managers.
4.) They then conducted an audit and fired him.

His argument is that title vii prohibits firing people in a protected class, LGBT is such a class, he was fired for being gay, and the audit was pretextual.

Their argument is that 1.) LGBT is not a protected class and 2.) even if it was, the audit was the actual reason that he was fired.

The 11th circuit agreed with the first issue. Other courts have held differently.
Click to expand...
His lawyers seem to be claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers sexual orientation but as far as I know it doesn't mention sexual orientation. Not saying that it shouldn't be a protected class but my impression was that there was no legislation at the federal level that covers it as such, only state level laws such as in Colorado.
 
HockeyBjj said:
I’d prefer if one day they didn’t need protection

We’re still very shortly removed from right to marry from them, and sadly many Christians are not going the route of hating the sin and loving the sinner and are instead condemning everything about a gay person simply because it’s a particular sin they don’t struggle with and can therefore falsely feel better about how they’re living (still in sin)

I think they need to remain a protected class. Especially in GA. Without, an employer can legally refuse to even interview a candidate they know is gay for the reason being that they’re gay
Click to expand...
Why on earth would that come up before a job interview? Are gays including that on their resume?
 
nostradumbass said:
Why on earth would that come up before a job interview? Are gays including that on their resume?
Click to expand...
Don't play dumb, you know you can easily tell when they are gay in many cases.
 
Not really a news story. Company wanted to fire him, regardless of initial intention, and found a completely legal and justified way.

Happens all the time, whether you're gay or not.
 
Not a bad ruling per se. But I don't know that there is a truly wrong ruling here either. I think it should be a legislated thing. Both at the state level and the federal level. If that happens then I'd support it but I don't know that I'd always support court rulings for it. I think it's a tricky space for the judiciary to read in new definitions of protected classes. I think the EEOC considers it the same as discrimination on the basis of sex but that's a bit of a stretch for me mentally.

I think this is going to SCOTUS?
 
Kafir-kun said:
Don't play dumb, you know you can easily tell when they are gay in many cases.
Click to expand...

Correct, as if companies aren't searching social media profiles these days.
 
I think it should be protected, personally, but you also have to have pretty strong proof b/c people will just play the victim card when in fact they could just suck at their job

I've seen more than a few government employees, for instance, get out of being fired by playing the EO card when it didn't even remotely apply. They were just shitty employees, their 'class' had nothing to do with it. They are ALL still employed though
 
also, short of a gay guy like groping you, why do straight guys even care (lets say he was fired for being a lil sweet)?

A) more chicks for you
B) why not just view it like a guy that bangs fat, ugly chicks? it's physically revolting, you don't want to do it, but who cares if someone else does? to each their own......now I can see not wanting to hear stories and be regaled with details of said encounters, but just simply knowing of them? so what?

I honestly think in like 10 years, nobody will care, just like weed will be legalized. We're just waiting for the old heads to shuffle out of power with their antiquated ass views
 
panamaican said:
Correct, as if companies aren't searching social media profiles these days.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more of our natural "gaydar" but that's also a great point.
 
Protection for all, or protection for none. Period.
 
Kafir-kun said:
Don't play dumb, you know you can easily tell when they are gay in many cases.
Click to expand...
Not just based on them sending a resume. The cat's out of the bag if they do get an interview and show up like a sloppy party bottom. Places don't really have to give a reason for hiring someone else, so this kind of seems like just a reason to cry discrimination when it's not necessarily the case. Not many successful businesses are going to hire someone less qualified just because they have sex with women.
 
nostradumbass said:
Not just based on them sending a resume. The cat's out of the bag if they do get an interview and show up like a sloppy party bottom. Places don't really have to give a reason for hiring someone else, so this kind of seems like just a reason to cry discrimination when it's not necessarily the case. Not many successful businesses are going to hire someone less qualified just because they have sex with women.
Click to expand...
I misread your post so that is true but pan's point is also true, in many cases you might be able to tell if they are gay from their social media accounts. Also a gay guy doesn't have to be very extra to come off as gay. There are studies that suggest that people are actually pretty good at judging whether or not someone is gay based off of their mannerisms.
 
Kafir-kun said:
What do you mean? We shouldn't have specific protected classes?
Click to expand...

Of course not. By the letter of the law, we really don't. White makes just don't generally run to the eeoc when they get fired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LeonardoBjj
Social ‘We are seeking to discriminate’: lesbian group wanting to exclude trans women compares itself to Melbourne gay bar
2 3
Replies
43
Views
1K
Scerpi
Scerpi

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,479
Messages
56,649,737
Members
175,334
Latest member
dubhlinn

Share this page

Back
Top