this post was submitted on 19 May 2025
106 points (99.1% liked)

BoycottUnitedStates

405 readers
180 users here now

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/29893411

It's like they can't help being assholes.

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] nickwitha_k@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 hours ago

Kacsmaryk

Every fucking time it's this corrupt fucker.

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

Federal judge decides his opinion is more important than the Constitution.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 11 hours ago

texas the "russia" of the USA.

[–] miguel@fedia.io 32 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

So I assume they'll be cool with my business only hiring LGBTQ+ then.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] pdxfed@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

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.

[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 18 points 23 hours ago

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?

[–] GlendatheGayWitch@lemmy.world 12 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

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.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 11 hours ago

they will keep trying til ones sticks.

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 22 hours ago

What an asshole.