Religion is a &quot;protected class&quot; in California. Does that extend to things like homophobia/transphobia due to religion? In California, I'm pretty sure employers aren't allowed to discriminate based on religion (e.g. you can't not hire someone just because they're Jewish). In other words, religion is a &quot;protected class&quot;. So Eric the Employer hires Chris the Christian. Afterwards, Chris goes to his personal social media and posts I believe in the Bible, which says &quot;The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.&quot; - Deuteronomy 22:5 The public sees this as extremely transphobic, and it leads to a huge backlash against Eric's company (and Eric personally may find such views repugnant). Does Eric have any grounds to fire Chris, or is Chris protected from being fired over it? To be clear, Chris isn't just spouting things like &quot;I hate trans people&quot; or calling for violence against them or anything. He is explicitly making religious statements that link directly to his commonly-accepted religion. While I gave a random specific example here, my question is more general. If any religion has any views (e.g. homophobia, or they don't like pineapple on pizza, or what have you) that are controversial, is an employer not allowed to discriminate based on that?
The fact pattern that The public sees this as extremely [objectionable], and it leads to a huge backlash against Eric's company gives cover to Eric to fire Chris. That decision would be, provably, based on the expected impact on the company business, not on Chris’ views. The exact nature of the statement does not matter. For example, any of the following could conceivably snowball into a social media uproar: &quot;homosexual sex is sinful&quot; &quot;pineapple does not belong on pizza&quot; &quot;dogs are better than cats&quot; Of course, that is only the theoretical view when everyone agrees on what happened. In the real world, Chris would argue that Eric fired him for his views, Eric would argue that it was because of the public backlash, and the finder of fact would have to decide which is more credible. Some factors in play would be : if the &quot;social media uproar&quot; is five Twitter accounts with ten followers each, Eric's defense of &quot;there was an angry mob, I had to fire him&quot; will not seem very credible. if Eric unwisely wrote to Chris that they are fired &quot;because of their statement&quot;, or worse, &quot;because of your fundamentalist Christian views&quot;, that will make Eric’s lawyer job much harder. On a side note (not asked in the OP but raised in comments), Chris’s statement is undoubtedly protected speech under the First Amendment. That means the government cannot take legal action against Chris. However, other people can: Eric can fire him, Twitter can ban him, his buddy can stop going to the pub with him, his girlfriend can dump him, etc. As the trope goes, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
They can ask, but there is nothing in law - that I can find - which obligates an answer. (There may be some exceptions that require a previous employer to provide a reference which might include this detail, but that does not appear relevant here.) As an aside, there is an ongoing #EndSalaryHistory campaign by the Fawcett Society which is focused on equal pay and sexual equality in the workplace, and they are calling on employers to: stop asking salary history questions...
Trump was an officer of the government, and Twitter wasn't. The First Amendment forbids the government and its agents from viewpoint discrimination, but private companies are not bound by it and can discriminate as much as they please. (There was a question as to whether such discrimination might affect whether the company enjoys a shield from liability under 47 USC 230, but even so they have the right to block and censor as they wish if they are willing to risk that liability.)
Such discrimination will in SOME cases probably be unlawful An employer refusing to hire a person because of obesity might be in violation of the California CFEHA, or the Federal ADA, or both. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (CFEHA) will in some cases prohibit such discrimination. Specifically, CA Code section 12940 says: It is an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or, except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State of California: (a) For an employer, because of the race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. (Emphasis added) CA Code section 12926 defines &quot;physical disability&quot;: (m) “Physical disability” includes, but is not limited to, all of the following: (1) Having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss that does both of the following: (A) Affects one or more of the following body systems: neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine. (B) Limits a major life activity. For purposes of this section: (i) “Limits” shall be determined without regard to mitigating measures such as medications, assistive devices, prosthetics, or reasonable accommodations, unless the mitigating measure itself limits a major life activity. (ii) A physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss limits a major life activity if it makes the achievement of the major life activity difficult. (iii) “Major life activities” shall be broadly construed and includes physical, mental, and social activities and working. (2) Any other health impairment not described in paragraph (1) that requires special education or related services. (3) Having a record or history of a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, or health impairment described in paragraph (1) or (2), which is known to the employer or other entity covered by this part. (4) Being regarded or treated by the employer or other entity covered by this part as having, or having had, any physical condition that makes achievement of a major life activity difficult. (5) Being regarded or treated by the employer or other entity covered by this part as having, or having had, a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, or health impairment that has no present disabling effect but may become a physical disability as described in paragraph (1) or (2). (6) “Physical disability” does not include sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, kleptomania, pyromania, or psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from the current unlawful use of controlled substances or other drugs. Serious cases of obesity would probably be included in 12926 (m) (1). Less serious cases might be included in 12926 (m) (4) or 12926 (m) (5). In addition, the US Federal Americans with Disabilities act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101) provides in section 12112 that: (a) General rule No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. (b) Construction As used in subsection (a) of this section, the term &quot;discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability&quot; includes (1) limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of such applicant or employee; (2) participating in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a covered entity's qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by this subchapter (such relationship includes a relationship with an employment or referral agency, labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs); (3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration (A) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability; (B) that perpetuates the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control; The ADA defines disability in section 12102: Sec. 12102. Definition of disability As used in this chapter: (1) Disability The term &quot;disability&quot; means, with respect to an individual (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)). (2) Major Life Activities (A) In general For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working. (B) Major bodily functions For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions. Whether a particular obese individual will be regarded as having a disability under either the CFEHA or the ADA is a matter of individual determination. Not all obese people will be considered to have a disability as defined by either act (and note that the definitions are quite similar). If a person is so regarded, then to refuse to hire that person because of that disability is unlawful. Note that if a person is unable to perform the essential duties of a job, even with a reasonable accommodation, an employer is free not to hire such a person. There are other limitations and exceptions in each act. To determine if a particular person is protected in regard to a particular job would require an employment lawyer or other employment professional with access to the specific facts of the case.
Is blocking certain people while allowing everybody else to view some content discrimination Yes. and violate anti-discrimination laws Probably not, at least in the US. There is no federal law prohibiting "discrimination" in general. There are specific laws regarding discrimination against certain groups in certain contexts. They would probably not apply to an individual determining who is allowed to view their social media posts. That said, there are some specific contexts where this might be illegal. They would generally involve non-personal use of the account. The courts recently ruled that Donald Trump may not block people on his Twitter account, because he's using it in an official presidential capacity rather than just his individual capacity. Also, racial discrimination in housing is illegal, so if you're selling your house and you block all black people from viewing your house photos, that would probably be illegal as well. Also is not being able to consume information available on a public platform a violation against right to freedom. I'm not sure what you think a "right to freedom" would entail. But I don't think you have the right to demand that a person allow you to access their social media accounts.
how does hiring only women comply with our Civil Rights Act (which outlaws discrimination based on sex)? It is compliant. The Civil Rights Act includes an exception where the discrimination or limitation based on sex (or any other protected category) "is a bona fide occupational qualification for employment". That exception is located at the end of 42 USC 2000e-3(b). Although literally referring to employer's publishing of that preference, the very existence of that statutory exception implies a permission to discriminate [for certain occupations] on the basis of sex. At the outset, it would be unreasonable to allow the employer to explicitly state his criteria for hiring and yet be prohibited to implement them. But a more important reason for that exception is the premise of bona fide occupational qualification. That premise indicates that the legitimate purpose of the employment at issue takes priority over the general intent of the Civil Rights Act. The actual &amp; occupational purpose of cheerleading in the NFL context is not to shake pom poms and do choreography on field grass, but to amuse men, who comprise the vast majority of the customer base in the football business. Accordingly, the issue is not whether males are fit or unable to cheerlead, but that male cheerleaders simply would not amuse the average football fan. The occupational purpose would be frustrated if females were replaced with males. The legislative intent of the Civil Rights Act is to preclude discrimination for employment where the protected category (be it sex, religion, etc.) is irrelevant to the actual fulfillment of the occupational purpose.
Yes, it is illegal in North Carolina, which defines your sex as what's on your birth certificate. At any point in your transition, even when it's long complete, you'll still have to use the restroom for the gender on your birth certificate (hypothetically assuming the law is still in place). See e.g. this CNN coverage and this followup. Will you actually be arrested? Probably only if there's a complaint. The police haven't yet figured out how they're supposed to enforce this law.
In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), the US Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a similar provision in Maryland's constitution violated the First Amendment and could not be enforced. So presumably the North Carolina provision is similarly unconstitutional and unenforceable. It's not clear why it wasn't removed in 1971. I found references to a 2009 incident in which an avowed atheist named Cecil Bothwell was elected to the Asheville, NC city council. Opponents apparently threatened to mount a legal challenge to his eligibility under the Article VI provision. It's not clear if they actually tried to do so, but in any event, Bothwell served his full four-year term and was then re-elected for another.