All Things LGBTQ+ (2 Viewers)

Farb · Jun 17, 2021

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

coldseat · Jul 22, 2021

V Chip said:
That would depend on what the penalties are for #5. Since this regards state facilities, there might be the need to have it in a law in order to fire a person for violating the rule.

Do you know the penalty?

Do you agree that someone should be fired if they willfully and repeatedly fail to honor the name or pronouns of a patient in the care of an assisted living facility? One would think common courtesy would be enough to have a caretaker respect a patients wishes, but obviously courtesy is not always common.

Didn't think about that, but if that's what it's for, then I agree.

Paul · Jul 22, 2021

coldseat said:
I don't think that should be a law or is that it's in accordance with the first amendment, but I do think that's cause for an employer to fire and employee. Not for a mistake, but for "willfully and repeatedly".

A private employer can compel speech of his employees or else. However, the government cannot compel speech.

Paul · Jul 22, 2021

coldseat said:
I don't think that should be a law or is that it's in accordance with the first amendment, but I do think that's cause for an employer to fire and employee. Not for a mistake, but for "willfully and repeatedly".

A private employer can demand certain speech from the employees. However, the state cannot do that.

V Chip · Jul 22, 2021

Paul said:
A private employer can compel speech of his employees or else. However, the government cannot compel speech.

The government can fire people for speech. It’s limited, but they absolutely can.

V Chip · Jul 22, 2021

V Chip said:
The government can fire people for speech. It’s limited, but they absolutely can.

Paul · Jul 22, 2021

V Chip said:
The government can fire people for speech. It’s limited, but they absolutely can.

What speech is forbidden by the state? Which are the words that cannot be said? Other than speech to incite violence or yelling fire in a theater.

V Chip · Jul 22, 2021

Paul said:
What speech is forbidden by the state? Which are the words that cannot be said? Other than speech to incite violence or yelling fire in a theater.

Speech that is part of a public employees job. See my previous post.

I mean seriously, do you think a government employee can use racial/religious epithets directed at another employee or a person being given services by the government and not face discipline or termination? Really?

Paul · Jul 22, 2021

V Chip said:

Sure, but the government cannot compel speech. I admit there are jobs that require the employee to use certain speech. The issue is whether the state can compel a citizen to speak in a certain manner.

Paul · Jul 22, 2021

V Chip said:
Speech that is part of a public employees job. See my previous post.

I mean seriously, do you think a government employee can use racial/religious epithets directed at another employee or a person being given services by the government and not face discipline or termination? Really?

It is not so much the speech, but the behavior and intent.

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech. WIKI

Whenever i think of the government controlling speech I always think of the novel 1984,

V Chip · Jul 22, 2021

Paul said:
Sure, but the government cannot compel speech. I admit there are jobs that require the employee to use certain speech. The issue is whether the state can compel a citizen to speak in a certain manner.

It’s not compelling speech from a citizen, it is compelling speech from an employee. Big big difference.

And you haven’t addressed any of my questions. Not that I’m compelling you to, of course…

Paul · Jul 22, 2021

V Chip said:
It’s not compelling speech from a citizen, it is compelling speech from an employee. Big big difference.

And you haven’t addressed any of my questions. Not that I’m compelling you to, of course…

Sorry, I missed that. Where are the questions?

Paul · Jul 22, 2021

V Chip said:
It’s not compelling speech from a citizen, it is compelling speech from an employee. Big big difference.

And you haven’t addressed any of my questions. Not that I’m compelling you to, of course…

No disagreements. However, can the state compel speech from an employee if the speech causes emotional injury to the employee? I say probably yes unless the employee claims religious freedom.

V Chip · Jul 22, 2021

Paul said:
No disagreements. However, can the state compel speech from an employee if the speech causes emotional injury to the employee? I say probably yes unless the employee claims religious freedom.

You’d have to give an example of speech that would cause an employee emotional injury.

There’s no way calling a person by their preferred name or pronoun could cause emotional injury, though, so that point regarding the topic is silly.

Paul said:
Sorry, I missed that. Where are the questions?

Scroll up.

Paul · Jul 22, 2021

V Chip said:
You’d have to give an example of speech that would cause an employee emotional injury.

There’s no way calling a person by their preferred name or pronoun could cause emotional injury, though, so that point regarding the topic is silly.

Scroll up.

I would think a pious religious Muslim or Evangelical employee may have an issue in using some of those pronouns. Remember the Christian baker?

V Chip · Jul 22, 2021

Paul said:
I would think a pious religious Muslim or Evangelical employee may have an issue in using some of those pronouns. Remember the Christian baker?

The idea that calling someone one is providing care or services for (when in employ of the government) “they” or “he/she” once they have made their preference known infringes on ones deeply held religious beliefs is ridiculous.

Paul · Jul 22, 2021

V Chip said:
The idea that calling someone one is providing care or services for (when in employ of the government) “they” or “he/she” once they have made their preference known infringes on ones deeply held religious beliefs is ridiculous.

I hear you, I am an agnostic. However, I have some empathy for the believers.

By the same token some transgenders do not care about pronouns whereas other more committed transgenders may go into shock with the wrong pronoun. Religiosity is not always about a deity.

V Chip · Jul 22, 2021

Paul said:
By the same token some transgenders do not care about pronouns whereas other more committed transgenders may go into shock with the wrong pronoun. Religiosity is not always about a deity.

But that “religiosity” is not protected by the Constitution.

Again, the text of the bill was “willfully and repeatedly.” If you continue to use the wrong pronoun or name willfully and repeatedly you’re deliberately rude and an butt crevasse regardless of your beliefs, and any employer should be able to discipline or fire you for such behavior.

Paul · Jul 22, 2021

V Chip said:
But that “religiosity” is not protected by the Constitution.

Again, the text of the bill was “willfully and repeatedly.” If you continue to use the wrong pronoun or name willfully and repeatedly you’re deliberately rude and an butt crevasse regardless of your beliefs, and any employer should be able to discipline or fire you for such behavior.

I agree! These issues are not so much about words, but about the intent to cause harm.

All Things LGBTQ+ (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

Mostly Peaceful Poster

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Truth Addict

Truth Addict

Well-known member

Truth Addict

Well-known member

Well-known member

Truth Addict

Well-known member

Well-known member

Truth Addict

Well-known member

Truth Addict

Well-known member

Truth Addict

Well-known member

Share this page

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed