Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday April 06 2017, @08:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the about-time dept.

The Chicago Tribune reports that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals—which sets precedent in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin—ruled

that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The plaintiff, a college teacher, said she was reprimanded for kissing her girlfriend, then was not given full-time work at the college and was dismissed. The college denied that it discriminated against her.

MP3 audio of the oral arguments is available.

additional coverage:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:53PM (17 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:53PM (#489650)

    'Nuff said.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:32PM (16 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:32PM (#489695) Journal

    So I am 'associated' with the person at the grocery check out aisle?

    I am associated with the person who mows my lawn? With the person who puts a new roof on my house?

    And moreover, I somehow can be seen to endorse all of their personal views?

    I don't think so.

    Maybe 'associated' is the wrong word here and was introduced to deliberately obfuscate the issue. I'll stick with the idea of endorse their personal views. Just because I shake hands with someone, conduct business with, live next door to, rent to, rent from, or otherwise engage in ordinary everyday activity with someone does not mean I endorse their political, religious or other views. And our differences in views should not be a basis on which to discriminate against people in ordinary every day casual interactions.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:21PM (14 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:21PM (#489714)

      You're talking about other people's interpretations of your associations; I'm talking about one's own interpretation of one's own associations.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:10PM (13 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:10PM (#489733) Journal

        Whose interpretations of associations is irrelevant.

        What matters is that people cannot discriminate in economic matters against people they hate. Especially for employment, housing and commerce.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
        • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:40PM (12 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:40PM (#489747)

          Government cannot lead society; government can only follow society.

          If you want to force people to associate with you, then you yourself are a jerk.

          Get it, yet?

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:37PM (4 children)

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:37PM (#489782) Journal

            No. I don't 'get it'.

            What I get is that people are free to hate all they want. What they cannot do is discriminate against the people they hate. But feel free to go on hating.

            --
            People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:43PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:43PM (#489787)

              amirite, mate?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:16PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:16PM (#489853)

                Keep stretching that mental layer, I will be amused when it finally snaps.

                • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:02PM

                  by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:02PM (#489873) Journal

                  You seem to believe the snap will occur at a point in the future rather than the past.

                  --
                  People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:47PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:47PM (#489941)

                "Haters gonna hate to associate!"

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:35PM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:35PM (#489819)

            I like how whenever somebody disagrees with you you just repost your exact same opening statement as if expecting that somehow settles the matter.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @08:55PM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @08:55PM (#489846)

              You're just too stupid to see the logical connections.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:24PM (3 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:24PM (#489855)

                Government cannot lead society; government can only follow society.

                If you want to force people to associate with you, then you yourself are a jerk.

                No one is being forced to be friends with anyone else, but everyone IS being prevented from discriminating against people in the economic realm: "workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

                I think you're too stupid to get over your own "moral" hangups and see the bigger picture. Do you think we should still have segregation? Should some hardcore feminists deny you coffee because they think you're a turd? Should people be denied job opportunities based on their skin color? How about all white males are no longer allowed to hold full time jobs? Is that fair? What level of discrimination are you saying is OK?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:42PM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:42PM (#489865)

                  I think you're too stupid to get over your own "moral" hangups and see the bigger picture.

                  Interesting choice of words, there, particularly when defending your own moral hangups.

                  Segregation was bad, yes, and it was bad when either government or private parties enforced it. Should a hardcore feminist deny me coffee because she hates my white male meatbag: absolutely, as she is no one else's property and can make her own choices. Same goes for any other privately-owned enterprise, be it beverage, service, retail, food, housing, etc.

                  If you object to privately-owned property being subject to the owner's whims, then please inform me of a convenient time for you to meet the several people I will send your way to take up residence in your "obviously underutilized" dining room.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:18PM (1 child)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:18PM (#489882)

                    Annnd you can't see the future impact of allowing such decisions. It 100% results in discrimination and segregation, which incidentally is why we have these laws.

                    Thankfully "geniuses" such as yourself are stuck complaining about it while most everyone else thinks "Yay society is getting less horrible!"

                    Does this meet your troll quota for the day? Or will you continue like a gleeful fat little kid getting more cookies?

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:43PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:43PM (#489901)

                      Annnd you can't see the future impact of allowing such decisions. It 100% results in discrimination and segregation, which incidentally is why we have these laws.

                      So, your rebuttal is "people are too stupid to govern themselves, so I want someone I like to rule over them"? Otherwise your retort looks like a baseless assertion.

                      The story deals with a matter germane to the USA, and thus the concept of "I exclusively own the body I inhabit and all derivative works thereof" may be foreign to you. Its shorthand reference is the word freedom. Honoring freedom is hard. Doing anything correctly is hard. It's so much easier if you can just treat other people as chattel property, but I for one am firmly against slavery.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:53PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:53PM (#489947)

                And your just too logical to see the stupid connections! Naayaaa, nyaaaa!!!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:24PM (#489777)

      So I am 'associated' with the person at the grocery check out aisle?

      Not really. You may be associating with the grocery store's owner (assuming for simplicity it's a sole proprietorship), and they're definitely associating with the person they hired to run the register.

      I am associated with the person who mows my lawn? With the person who puts a new roof on my house?

      Probably. Maybe. (Assuming those are both independent contractors, rather them employees of a larger lawn-care/roofing firm.)

      And moreover, I somehow can be seen to endorse all of their personal views?

      Sure, I suppose you can be, since anyone can see anything any way they like... but what the FUCK does that have to do with association?

      Maybe 'associated' is the wrong word here and was introduced to deliberately obfuscate the issue.

      Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's the wrong word. It's a term that's been used in legal thought for a long time (particularly in the term "freedom of association"), and it's not gonna change now just because you don't like it.

      Now does it apply to single transactions (like the grocery store in your example)? Maybe not; that's more likely to be listed as "freedom of contract" than "freedom of association"; the two are of course related and overlapping; there's some disagreement exactly how much overlap or where the edges are. Day labor? Right on the edge. Long term employment? Definitely association.

      I'll stick with the idea of endorse their personal views

      Which is an idea you brought into the discussion, and has little to do with freedom of association, so, sure, stick with it.

      But I don't get it... if you don't want to talk about freedom of association, why in the world did you reply to our local libertrollian's post about association? Surely you could have started your own thread to talk about people endorsing each others' personal views?