117
So I assume they'll be cool with my business only hiring LGBTQ+ then.
this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
117 points (99.2% liked)
BoycottUnitedStates
505 readers
12 users here now
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
Only against, not for.
If sexual orientation, gender identity aren't a protected class, then you can legally not hire people for their sexual orientation and gender identity. E.g. you could completely, legally, not hire straight people and it would not be illegal discrimination because those categories are not considered illegal to discriminate against. It's legal to discriminate on many things in hiring; you can discriminate against stupid people, people who show up late and unprepared, people who don't have a degree (relevant or not for the most part), etc.
The point of Op you're responding to, is that it would be completely legal to approach hiring like that in this legal dystopia.
So you can't be fired for being a member of a protected class, but discriminatory dress codes and bathroom ruled are OK? So they can have these rules, but can't fire you for violating them, because you are a member of that class?
SCOTUS ruled in Bostock v Clayton (2020) that that 1964 Civil rights Act protects employees against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
I guess they are teeing this up to see if the current SCOTUS will overturn their previous ruling.
they will keep trying til ones sticks.
You know how many people will claim those aren't laws because they are idiots and do not understand how the supreme court works at all?
"Roe v Wade wasn't an actual law that's why they overturned it" is the thing I've heard a million times at this point.
Oh I know, just holding on to what rights we have. Unfortunately, there's still no federal legislation guaranteeing the lgbt rights under attack.
What an asshole.
texas the "russia" of the USA.
Federal judge decides his opinion is more important than the Constitution.
Kacsmaryk
Every fucking time it's this corrupt fucker.