Posted on 11/30/2016 8:10:12 PM PST by Olog-hai
A rare full-court session of a U.S. appeals court in Chicago heard arguments Wednesday on whether protections under a 1964 Civil Rights Act should be expanded to cover workplace discrimination against LGBT employees, as hopes dim among some gay rights activists that the question will be resolved in their favor following Republican election victories.
Several of the 11 judges at the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals signaled they are ready to enter what would be a historic ruling broadening the scope the 52-year-old landmark law, with the court directing the toughest questions during the hourlong hearing at a lawyer who argued only Congress could extend the protections.
Judge Richard Posner repeatedly interrupted the lawyer representing an Indiana community college that was sued by a lesbian for alleged discrimination and at one point asked: “Who will be hurt if gays and lesbians have a little more job protection?” When attorney John Maley said he couldn't think of anyone who would be harmed, Posner shot back, “So, what’s the big deal?” …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Every person who isn’t a homosexual would be hurt- bad lawyer
Trying more legislation from the bench. Can’t wait for Jeff Sessions to set things straight Constitutionally!
In my workplace, the Gays/TG run roughshod over the place, because management is terrified of being sued.
Good old government tyranny.
People will eventually get sick of that.
Is your HR guy gay? They like to gravitate to the HR departments, and then the next thing you know the organization is full of them.
Why shouldn’t everyone have more job protection. Why are lgbt folks so special that only they get this?
What about “equal under the law” does this guy not get? We make all these special protected classes above the law of whites and particular white guys.
Now its like the only people you can fire are white men and not worry about lawsuits. Who wants to hire all these people that will just allege some kind of harassment when they are let go, and then they get an extra big payout to go away. What nuts. These people are just securing jobs for future lawyers too.
“with the court directing the toughest questions during the hourlong hearing at a lawyer who argued only Congress could extend the protections.”
That’s Administrative Law 101, an agency can only act within the scope of the authorizing legislation. The Civil Rights laws obviously did not cover homosexuals, transgenders, etc. And Congress has expressly refused to extend the law.
The judges’ questions are pretty shocking. Good example of how screwed things up things are.
No kidding.
This all comes at the expense of non lgbtq?!@wtf folks.
If we discuss concepts such as “original intent” of a law, there’s no way that the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 intended to classify homosexuality as a protected class of people.
Congress could pass legislation on the subject but they have not done so, even during the time when Obama and Democrats had full control of Congress.
How about a Lesbian wearing a MAGA Hat at work?
In true endeavors everyone, no matter their personal agendas, strive to improve the whole for the benefit of everyone. If you can’t do team you have no place on mine. And I don’t care if your’re gay, purple or believe in fantasies.
The phrase from the Fourteenth Amendment is “equal protection of the laws”, but their attempt to elevate themselves above everyone else is of course creating a “class struggle” where none is supposed to exist.
“How about a Lesbian wearing a MAGA Hat at work?” you reminded me of the militant who brought up the “rule of thumb” thing in
the Saint’s movie before being knocked out.
Yes, bad lawyer, because everyone (including gays) would be hurt by a an illegitimate assertion of authority by the court that the law does not grant.
It’s obvious we need to change allowing radicals free range on the judicial level - especially for the duration of their life times. Would that require Constitutional Convention to alter? If so a few other matters need addressing.
Well, if you mean the Article V convention, that’s not a constitutional convention but a means of creating constitutional amendments that involve the states participating actively. Those that refer to this constitutional (not extra-constitutional) process have not been specific about changing the means of choosing justices or lower federal court judges.
Thomas Jefferson during the early 1800s was starting to lean towards having an elected judiciary, because the Supreme Court was, as he put it, “on every occasion … driving us into consolidation” or centralization. He observed that the justices treated the Constitution (even back then) as “a mere thing of wax … which they may twist and shape into any form they please” and sought a way to stop it.
One fruit at my old graphics job in Manhattan Investment Bank got up and sang DANCING QUEEN and did ballet moves.
I said loudly “what the F###!!!!????”
Didn’t get in trouble because even the gay supervisor know it was crossing the line.
If we’re gonna just be who we gotta be, I would work in my underwear eating chips whose crumbs fall on my chest.
If that doesn’t ruin every FReeper’s dinner, I dont knnow what will :)
LGBT is the only behavior-based characteristic to be entertained. This would become a slippery slope as other behavior-based characteristics clamor for inclusion. Even “personally” gay-friendly Donald Trump can’t want this.
Grunt, ugh, but why not be heteroproud?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.