Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Why Should Being Gay Be A Sackable Offence In The Us?
This is a bit of a convoluted story, but the gist seems to be that the Department of Justice is really going for this:
http://
Why? Surely this doesn’t sit right with most people, no matter what their political persuasion.
Is there anyone on AB who thinks this is justified? Or reasonable? Or..,not mental?
http://
Why? Surely this doesn’t sit right with most people, no matter what their political persuasion.
Is there anyone on AB who thinks this is justified? Or reasonable? Or..,not mental?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Spicerack
The full story isn’t the story of this particular case, but the stance of the Department of Justice. It’s arguing that Title VII of the 1964 act does not provide protection to gay employees.
When I wrote that it’s a bit of a convoluted story, I wasn’t referring to Zarda’s case, but to the fact that you had two government agencies which presented to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, then the question of gender being raised, and then finally the fact that the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the provision (in the 1964 Act) does cover sexual orientation.
But the bottom line is that the DoJ are arguing that someone can be sacked because of their sexual orientation.
The full story isn’t the story of this particular case, but the stance of the Department of Justice. It’s arguing that Title VII of the 1964 act does not provide protection to gay employees.
When I wrote that it’s a bit of a convoluted story, I wasn’t referring to Zarda’s case, but to the fact that you had two government agencies which presented to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, then the question of gender being raised, and then finally the fact that the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the provision (in the 1964 Act) does cover sexual orientation.
But the bottom line is that the DoJ are arguing that someone can be sacked because of their sexual orientation.
It's all way outside my pay grade, SP.
As such, I'm easy about who 'wins'. Certainly sounds like something that needs sorting one way or t'other.
Just wanted to refute some of the spin. You could be forgiven for thinking his boss saw him coming out of a gay club one night and sacked him the next day.
And Trump has waded in because he hates gay people. (See some of the answers)
If only it were that simple.
It's a convoluted case which will set a precedent.
As such, I'm easy about who 'wins'. Certainly sounds like something that needs sorting one way or t'other.
Just wanted to refute some of the spin. You could be forgiven for thinking his boss saw him coming out of a gay club one night and sacked him the next day.
And Trump has waded in because he hates gay people. (See some of the answers)
If only it were that simple.
It's a convoluted case which will set a precedent.
naomi24 - no, I don’t see the link to Trump. The story refers to Trump’s Department of Justice, but that’s disingenuous. What makes it current is that whilst the case happened in 2010, Zarda is dead...but the case being heard is a general point of law that doesn’t affect Zarda, but (potentially) all gay employees in America.
/// daft, but that's Trump's America. ///
/// Trump seems to be caught in some sort of time warp. ///
/// Trump's America is the bad old days. ///
/// If the people of America voted in someone like Trump, then surely this is exactly what they should have expected. ///
All typical responses from the anti-Trump Brigade, why even the Left-Wing Independent worded their headline:
/// Donald Trump's Justice Department ///
Why not just; "America's Justice Department"?
/// Trump seems to be caught in some sort of time warp. ///
/// Trump's America is the bad old days. ///
/// If the people of America voted in someone like Trump, then surely this is exactly what they should have expected. ///
All typical responses from the anti-Trump Brigade, why even the Left-Wing Independent worded their headline:
/// Donald Trump's Justice Department ///
Why not just; "America's Justice Department"?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.