Respond to the 4 following discussion posts, give a reference for each of your answers to back up your statement.

1. Onica James posted Sep 6, 2017 11:32 AM

A male employee complains to his supervisor. The employee is gay.

He says another employee - who is straight - says things whenever the gay employee passes the straight employee's cubicle. The gay employee says the straight employee makes sexually suggestive remarks to him: The Equal Employment Opportunity interprets and enforces Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination as forbidding any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. These protections apply regardless of any contrary state or local laws. "Through investigation, conciliation, and litigation of charges by individuals against private sector employers, as well as hearings and appeals for federal sector workers, the Commission has taken the position that existing sex discrimination provisions in Title VII protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) applicants and employees against employment bias" ("What You Should Know: EEOC and Enforcement Protections for LGBT Workers," n.d.).

An example of LGBT related claims that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) views as unlawful sex discrimination includes harassing an employee because of his or her sexual orientation, for example, by derogatory terms, sexually oriented comments, or disparaging remarks for associating with a person of the same or opposite sex.

Sexual harassment is an unwelcome sexual advance or conduct on the job that creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. "Workplace sexual harassment ranges from repeated offensive or belittling jokes to a workplace full of offensive pornography (creating a hostile work environment) to an outright sexual assault" ("Fighting Sexual Harassment | Nolo.com," n.d.). Sexual harassment is most often seen as men harassing women; it can happen to men and women, gay and straight as it relates to this situation. Sexual harassment is an equal opportunity offense.

2. Sheree Bolding posted Sep 7, 2017 1:22 PM

A male employee complains to his supervisor. The employee is gay.

He says another employee - who is straight - says things whenever the gay employee passes the straight employee's cubicle. The gay employee says the straight employee makes sexually suggestive remarks to him: The Law Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - "illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex" (Laws Enforced by EEOC, n.d.). Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates this act. Conditions that meet sexual harassment criteria include, but not limited to:

• The harasser can be anyone of the same or opposite sex
• The harasser can be anyone that brings unwelcomed sexual advances ("supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee" (Facts About Sexual Harassment, n.d.))
• A victim can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct
• "May occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim" (Facts About Sexual Harassment, n.d.)
• The conduct must be unwelcomed

The Facts

• Both employees are maleGay male employee (victim)
• Straight male employee (harasser)
• The unwelcomed conduct is being brought by a co-workerThe straight male employee is another employee (coworker)
• The victim is effected by the conduct"The gay employee finds this behavior offensive; he is in a long-term relationship and has no interest in the straight employee"
• "He finds it offensive to have pictures of these handsome athletes shoved in his face along with suggestive comments."
• The conduct is not causing any economic or physical harm to the employeeThe harasser is making comments such as, "nice buns, nice basket, or "I'd let you 'do' me, even if I am straight."
• Other comments include, "I bet you wouldn't throw him out of bed for eating crackers! or I bet you'd like to see his baseballs!"
• The conduct is unwelcomedThe victimized employee demands the harassment stops. This indicates the comments are unwelcomed.

Based on the law and facts above, the gay employee has the right to file suit based on the criteria outlined in the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

3. Onica James posted Sep 6, 2017 2:18 PM

"Topic 2- Your company was approached by the lesbian and gay association formed by a small group of employees. They asked the company to let them celebrate "Gay Pride" during the week in June when this is usually "celebrated." The company agreed. The LGBT group used the employee notice board to post pictures of same-sex couples, of transsexuals, of same-sex couples raising children - along with rainbow flags and slogans such as "Gay is Good" and two posters: one showed three men, and had the caption, "He's gay - and that's cool with us." There was the same type of poster featuring three women. The implicit message was that gays are like everybody else. Another employee - a committed Christian -- posted on the same employee notice board the following: "Leviticus 20:13". A gay employee looked up the reference in her Bible. It says: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." The gay woman complained to her supervisor. The supervisor spoke to the man. He said gay sex was a sin and he had an obligation to urge lesbian and gays to repent or they would be condemned to eternal damnation. He said the employer had to accommodate his sincere religious beliefs. The Christian employee said they could either 1) removing his Bible citation AND the "gay pride" material, or 2) allowing both points of view to be expressed. He said forcing him to be exposed to messages like "gay is good" violated his religious beliefs, and said he would sue. The supervisor comes to you and asks, "What do I do?" Does the recent case of Hobby Lobby have any bearing on this scenario? "

No, the recent case of Hobby Lobby has no bearings on this scenario. The owners of three businesses claim that the Affordable Care Act's requirement, which is enforced with a fine, that employer health plans cover certain forms of contraception stands in violation of their religious beliefs. Supporting the health of their employees by providing insurance is also part of their religious beliefs. They sued the government to seek an exemption from the requirement and won. On June 2014, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby.

Title VII has a bearing on this scenario. Title VII protects workers from employment discrimination based on their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or protected activity. Solely with respect to religion, Title VII also requires reasonable accommodation of employees' sincerely held religious beliefs, observances, and practices when requested, unless accommodation would impose an undue hardship on business operations. ("Compliance Manual Section 12 - Religious Discrimination," n.d.).

Also, the 2017 Religious Freedom Restoration Act Legislation concerns a person's free exercise of religion. In Kentucky, this legislation defines protected activities, protected activity provider, protected rights place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement, and standard goods or services. Provides legislative intent. Prohibits any statute, regulation, ordinance, order, judgment, of other law or action by any court, commission, or other public agency from impairing, impeding, infringing upon, or otherwise restricting the exercise of protected rights by any protected activity provider.

4. Samuel Smoot posted Sep 6, 2017 11:09 AM

"Topic 2- Your company was approached by the lesbian and gay association formed by a small group of employees. They asked the company to let them celebrate "Gay Pride" during the week in June when this is usually "celebrated." The company agreed. The LGBT group used the employee notice board to post pictures of same-sex couples, of transsexuals, of same-sex couples raising children - along with rainbow flags and slogans such as "Gay is Good" and two posters: one showed three men, and had the caption, "He's gay - and that's cool with us." There was the same type of poster featuring three women. The implicit message was that gays are like everybody else. Another employee - a committed Christian -- posted on the same employee notice board the following: "Leviticus 20:13". A gay employee looked up the reference in her Bible. It says: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." The gay woman complained to her supervisor. The supervisor spoke to the man. He said gay sex was a sin and he had an obligation to urge lesbian and gays to repent or they would be condemned to eternal damnation. He said the employer had to accommodate his sincere religious beliefs. The Christian employee said they could either 1) removing his Bible citation AND the "gay pride" material, or 2) allowing both points of view to be expressed. He said forcing him to be exposed to messages like "gay is good" violated his religious beliefs, and said he would sue. The supervisor comes to you and asks, "What do I do?" Does the recent case of Hobby Lobby have any bearing on this scenario?"

The case of Hobby Lobby has a bearing on this instance in that we have two different parties each with their own religious and social beliefs. These beliefs conflict with one another.in our scenario we have a gay movement which comprises of employees who are gay, bisexual or transgender. To them, they are okay with how they live their lives. On the other hand, we have employees who have strong Christian believe that being gay is wrong. Therefore, allowing the LGBT to post gay-related materials on the notice board that is accessed by everyone will be like imposing these beliefs on others who don't believe in them. The gay messages burden Christian in exercising their religion.In any work environment we have got different groups and with this taking place the company should be in a position of accomodating both of them.In using the company notice board to advertise such matters it is unagreeable and hence they have to use a different channel hence both the materials should have to be taken off from the notice boards and both the individuals to be consulted accordingly and provide rules to guide each employee,since there presence burdens each other belief and the more they are there it might aggravate matters and the company's performance.