❌ This entry has been deleted by a moderator.
Last Version
Reports (1)
- Other "Majority opinion expressly stated that the ruling did not prevent employers from raising religion related exceptions. As someone who was fired from a faculty position in a secular subject at a church affiliated university, I am not confident that the Bostock decision protects people in all situations. An inference that all employment is protected is unwarranted."
Revision History (1)
Deleted by Ro_Guy
| Old Value (Original) | New Value (Current) |
|---|
Reports (5)
- Status is not correct "Michigan ruled in late July 2022 that discrimination against LGBT people is barred by the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act"
- Date is incorrect "lgbt anti discrimination law passed all 50 states (bostock v clayton)"
- Newer law has been passed "Nationwide protection since Bostock v. Clayton County (June 15, 2020)"
- Status is not correct "Map lists Oregon as green, but it's not listed here?"
- Newer law has been passed "Supreme Court sexual orientation and gender identity to be be protected by federal law on June 15, 2020
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-makes-historic-ruling-lgbt-employment-discrimination/story?id=71254749"