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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by Scrutinizer on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:03PM (2 children)

    by Scrutinizer (6534) on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:03PM (#489914)

    Let's break your response down to its fundamentals:

    I happen to think the civil rights act is the right thing.

    The Civil Rights Acts [wikipedia.org] (of which there were several) are excellent insofar as they apply to government agents and offices only. Laws point guns at people, and advocating for laws is advocating for pointing guns at people. (Pointing guns CAN be a good thing, as robbers and murderers might otherwise run riot.) You are therefore advocating the use of force to compel individuals to associate or serve others non-consensually. Correct me if I'm wrong, but then you must also show how your support for law/force is somehow in harmony with the USA's principle that involuntary servitude is illegal [wikipedia.org].

    I don't have to hang out with people I don't like. But I can't deny them employment or housing.

    Who owns your business? Who owns your real estate? If you are the owner, then by definition, you can make your own property subject to any whim - visitors have two choices: comply or get out. Incidentally, if enough potential visitors decide to "get out" or never visit in the first place, you as a private entity unsupported by government largess will run out of resources and go out of business. Such action is the proper tool for free, self-repecting humans to deal with bigoted business-owners, versus threatening them with deadly force.

    If you cannot subject your possessions to your will... then you're really not the owner, are you? This very question is quite critical for every "American home owner" to examine closely, not to mention the typical small-business "owner". A society built on fraud is not expected to last long.

  • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday April 07 2017, @04:57AM (1 child)

    by dry (223) on Friday April 07 2017, @04:57AM (#490085) Journal

    If you cannot subject your possessions to your will... then you're really not the owner, are you? This very question is quite critical for every "American home owner" to examine closely, not to mention the typical small-business "owner".

    Of course you're not really the owner. The land was taken from someone else, currently you are using it and eventually someone else will take it. That's the history of most land. In between it may be passed on by other means but any which way, ownership is a temporary state, usually dependent on following certain rules to avoid having it taken from you. Don't believe me, try not paying your taxes.
    Similar with businesses, you're allowed to operate a business as long as you follow certain rules. Try starting a business selling drugs without a bunch of paperwork and you are likely to get locked up and forced into involuntary servitude. One of the rules for a public serving business is to serve everyone in a non-discriminatory manner.

    A society built on fraud is not expected to last long.

    Most societies are built on fraud, often mixed with violence. Assuming you're American, consider how the land was violently taken from the previous owners and how much fraud was used in the treaty making when it was traded for.

    • (Score: 1) by Scrutinizer on Friday April 07 2017, @05:37AM

      by Scrutinizer (6534) on Friday April 07 2017, @05:37AM (#490096)

      Of course you're not really the owner [of your house and/or business] [...] Most societies are built on fraud, often mixed with violence. Assuming you're American, consider how the land was violently taken from the previous owners and how much fraud was used in the treaty making when it was traded for.

      Agreed, in the defacto sense. This is why I point these things out using simple ugly language, as the vast majority of people within the USA seem to have never given any thought to it and are taken aback by the concept that, in practice, they don't own anything and as such they effectively live under naked criminal rule. The fact that fraud and force have been used through the overwhelmingly vast majority of human history is no excuse for tolerating it in one's own society in the here and now.

      Considering the sheer number of US people who at least claim to abhor fraud and coercion, in conjunction with the sheer number of small arms they collectively possess, these are powerful truths that are best revealed at every opportunity.