Alan Keyes daughter is gay

[katherine2]

fix:

Yes, I know. I am wondering if any court cases have decided that certain groups, not originally intended, are now to be included.

If not the civil rights act, how about the ADA, or similar laws?

In employment discrimination, I beleive any extention has been through legislation (ADA, etc) and not by the courts adding any new protected class. At the state level, I beleive it is the same – legislation – but I wouldn’t claim to keep track of every court interpretation of every state constitution. In the case of sexual orientation, for example, every state that is reported to prohibit employment discrimination has it through legislation not judicial action.

 

[Fiat]

fix:

I find this intriguing. Is part of the problem what courts, or legislators, have deemed a protected class?

Fix:
This is exactly the problem!
Fiat

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

There may be some confusion here. On the Civil Rights Act, it was passed by Congress and has been upheld by the Courts.

Katherine2:
Actually, Fix is not confused. The Courts would examine only whether or not someone is a member of a “protected class.” Currently, homosexuality does not fall under such category.
Fiat

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

So I am still unclear. in your judgement, does the Civil Rights Act violate that Bill of Rights Freedom to hire who a boss is pleased to hire? Does the Civil Rights Act advance the rights of racial minorities while trampling the legitimate rights of bosses?

Katherine2:
This is a good question. If the Civil Rights Act does not violate the Bill of Rights it is only because the Supreme Court has not held it unconsitutional (Perhaps some pieces of the legislation have been held unconstitutional…I’d have to do some checking to be sure.) However, because the general form of our government is one of representational democracy, the legislature is there to represent the majority voice of the people. The Courts are there to balance that majority voice with the voice of the minority. If we start legislating for minority positions, the balance of powers, which the framers were so careful to construct, shifts, and fascism lingers around the corner. (Of course, the majority voice can be just as tyrannical as the voice of an autocrat, so there is that balance which the Courts and Legislatures must recognize.)

In some respects, people could argue that certain issues the Court has upheld DIRECTLY VIOLATE the Bill of Rights (e.g., abortion), but on the political level only the Supreme Court is allowed to make such a decision. Hence the phrase “judicial tyranny”.

Fiat

 

[Lisa_N]

TarAshly:

GIVE ME A BREAK!!

And there would be a point to this comment? TarAshley you have distinguished yourself as someone who comes off as very young and naive. If you have any acquaintence with employment law you would be aware that in most states an employer can terminate an employee without cause. An employee is able to stipulate certain behaviors as conditions of employment (not smoking for example) . Just as an employee may leave his/her job for any reason. Slavery has been against the law for a while in this country.

Now both of these statements might be affected by state law, a union agreement or an employment agreement. But most people are “employees at will” and are free to stay or go as they please just as employers are not compelled to retain an employee they do not want to retain.

Lisa N

 

[Catholicvegan]

Dear Gilliam,

What I meant when I said that he “trapped” himself is that by saying that all homosexuals are “selfish hedonists,” he put himself in a position where now, since he stands by the belief that this applies to every single one, he must condemn his own daughter.

 

[4_marks]

Riley259:

You can love your brother unconditionally without approving of his choice to engage in sexual relations with his “spouse”. In fact, you’re loving him more completely by being true to authentic Christian teaching about sexuality - otherwise, you’re giving him the false impression that it’s moral to engage in sexual relations with someone not only from the same gender but outside the confines of a sacramental marriage. If you actually believe it’s OK for same-sex individuals to marry then you’ve already gone off the rails and are in effect a dissident catholic. I’m not clear from your post which position you actually take. Just because an issue like this hits close to home doesn’t change the truth about homosexual relations.

I am not, and don’t pretend to be, a spokesman for the official Catholic position on the matter. I’ll leave that to the Bishop of my Diocese, who thus far, has said nothing on the matter of gay marriage when it was approved last year by the legislature. To me, his silence is also speech. If he believed, as the Bishop, that this was to be opposed by the faithful in his Diocese, he would have spoken out. He did not.

Even if the Bishop had spoken out directly against gay marriage, I would have still attended my brother’s wedding. As a loyal American citizen, I accept the authority of the legislature to determine civil policy, even as this policy contradicts a traditional interpretation of Catholic morality.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

4 marks:

I am not, and don’t pretend to be, a spokesman for the official Catholic position on the matter. I’ll leave that to the Bishop of my Diocese, who thus far, has said nothing on the matter of gay marriage when it was approved last year by the legislature. To me, his silence is also speech. If he believed, as the Bishop, that this was to be opposed by the faithful in his Diocese, he would have spoken out. He did not.

Even if the Bishop had spoken out directly against gay marriage, I would have still attended my brother’s wedding. As a loyal American citizen, I accept the authority of the legislature to determine civil policy, even as this policy contradicts a traditional interpretation of Catholic morality.

What diocese do you live in?

 

[TarAshly]

Lisa N:

And there would be a point to this comment? TarAshley you have distinguished yourself as someone who comes off as very young and naive. If you have any acquaintence with employment law you would be aware that in most states an employer can terminate an employee without cause. An employee is able to stipulate certain behaviors as conditions of employment (not smoking for example) . Just as an employee may leave his/her job for any reason. Slavery has been against the law for a while in this country.

Now both of these statements might be affected by state law, a union agreement or an employment agreement. But most people are “employees at will” and are free to stay or go as they please just as employers are not compelled to retain an employee they do not want to retain.

Lisa N

being that my husband and i own a successful insurance agency, i would have to say yes i am familiar with that law, im also familiar with the fact that if i fired someone for being overweight i’d have myself a lawsuit on my hands REAL quick. you have distinguished yourself as someone who is closed minded, and as someone who must be almost Chirst like perfect as she can sit back and point fingers at everyone else and find their faults. i may be young sister but i am no where near naive. im a 22 year old, happily married successful self employed business woman. i should say i’ve done pretty well for myself for being so young and naive.

 

[bapcathluth]

TarAshly:

being that my husband and i own a successful insurance agency, i would have to say yes i am familiar with that law, im also familiar with the fact that if i fired someone for being overweight i’d have myself a lawsuit on my hands REAL quick. you have distinguished yourself as someone who is closed minded, and as someone who must be almost Chirst like perfect as she can sit back and point fingers at everyone else and find their faults. i may be young sister but i am no where near naive. im a 22 year old, happily married successful self employed business woman. i should say i’ve done pretty well for myself for being so young and naive.

Amen, sister. Firing somebody for being overweight or not hiring somebody who is overweight is pure discrimination. I know many people who are overweight and are very talented with a great work ethic.

Thank God for the Civil Rights Act!! Suppose I am a Protestant Employer and I decide to fire all Catholics–even ones who are great workers–because I think they are all idol worshippers whose Pope is the anti-Christ. These Catholics go against my moral values.

According to Lisa N and other posters here, that would be just fine and dandy.

 

[Lisa_N]

TarAshly:

being that my husband and i own a successful insurance agency, i would have to say yes i am familiar with that law, im also familiar with the fact that if i fired someone for being overweight i’d have myself a lawsuit on my hands REAL quick. you have distinguished yourself as someone who is closed minded, and as someone who must be almost Chirst like perfect as she can sit back and point fingers at everyone else and find their faults. i may be young sister but i am no where near naive. im a 22 year old, happily married successful self employed business woman. i should say i’ve done pretty well for myself for being so young and naive.

First you obviously either did not read the post as you have misconstrued it completely. I said we would not HIRE a grossly obese person for our doctor’s office. Obesity is a very serious health issue and we would look a bit silly advising our patients to lose weight when we don’t follow our own advice. There is a very well known national coffee shop that will not hire anyone with visable tattoos or body piercings. Again employers are within their rights not to hire someone who will not project the right image for their company, unless they are in a protected group. IOW you cannot decide you want only Hispanics to work in your Mexcan restaurant because race is protected. Last time I looked people with tattoos and the overweight are not–although apparently some obesity groups are trying to deem their problem a ‘disability.’ Neither here nor there though. I believe we went down this road because K2 as I recall brought up that homosexuals were not a protected class with respect to federal law. They are a protected class in some localities.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

bapcathluth:

Amen, sister. Firing somebody for being overweight or not hiring somebody who is overweight is pure discrimination. I know many people who are overweight and are very talented with a great work ethic.

Thank God for the Civil Rights Act!! Suppose I am a Protestant Employer and I decide to fire all Catholics–even ones who are great workers–because I think they are all idol worshippers whose Pope is the anti-Christ. These Catholics go against my moral values.

According to Lisa N and other posters here, that would be just fine and dandy.

Did I say ANYTHING is ‘fine and dandy?’ No. I said employers are WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS in most states to terminate people without cause. No one has a legal right to a specific job. There are protected classes, some based on federal law and some on state or local law. Thus you cannot fire or fail to hire someone due to race or sex if they are otherwise qualified and you have not been able to document a failure to perform their assigned tasks. You can still terminate them or not hire them for cause. Not every “class” is protected. I think that was actually K2’'s point. However if an employer does not think a tattooed, pierced employee with spikey hair projects the image of his firm, he does not have to provide a job.

There is a difference between what the law allows and does not allow and your silly renditions of posts you obviously didn’t read carefully. Please tell me where I stated something was ‘fine and dandy’ or that I was basing hiring decisions on morals?

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

bapcathluth:

Amen, sister. Firing somebody for being overweight or not hiring somebody who is overweight is pure discrimination. I know many people who are overweight and are very talented with a great work ethic.

Thank God for the Civil Rights Act!! Suppose I am a Protestant Employer and I decide to fire all Catholics–even ones who are great workers–because I think they are all idol worshippers whose Pope is the anti-Christ. These Catholics go against my moral values.

According to Lisa N and other posters here, that would be just fine and dandy.

Bapcathluth your example fails. Religion IS a protected class. Read the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Protected classes:
Race
Color
Sex (including pregnancy related conditions)
RELIGION
Retaliation
Age (employers with 20+ employees)
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
ADA

So try again. You may not like the idea of not hiring people because of their appearance (including tattoos, piercings, obesity) but if they are not of a protected class and not hired with respect to discrimination that relates to the protected class the employer is within his rights.

Lisa N

 

[Fiat]

bapcathluth:

Amen, sister. Firing somebody for being overweight or not hiring somebody who is overweight is pure discrimination. I know many people who are overweight and are very talented with a great work ethic.

Thank God for the Civil Rights Act!! Suppose I am a Protestant Employer and I decide to fire all Catholics–even ones who are great workers–because I think they are all idol worshippers whose Pope is the anti-Christ. These Catholics go against my moral values.

According to Lisa N and other posters here, that would be just fine and dandy.

Dear Bapcathluth:

LisaN is entirely correct on this issue in terms of analyzing discrimination. As she pointed out earlier, most employees are “at will” employees and can be fired for any reason. In some respects, Bapcathluth, this is why we Americans consider ourselves to be FREE!!! There isn’t some big brother lurking over our shoulder directing us what to do under pain of legal consequence. Would you be content to change this? Do you really think it’s a good idea to include obesity as a protected class?

Fiat

 

[atsheeran]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does indeed create several protected classes. However, the fact that a certain class is not protected by that Act (e.g., overweight persons) does not mean that there are no potential legal ramifications for discriminating against them. It just means that there are no federal safeguards for members of that unprotected class. In other words, they can’t sue under the Civil Rights Act.

That doesn’t mean that they can’t sue under applicable state law.