Posted on 04/04/2017 4:20:49 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A federal appeals court in Chicago on Tuesday ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act also protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination, the first time a federal appellate court has come to that conclusion.
The decision by the full 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago comes just three weeks after a three-judge panel in Atlanta ruled the opposite, saying employers arent prohibited from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation.
It also comes as President Donald Trumps administration has begun setting its own policies on LGBT rights. Late in January, the White House declared Trump would enforce an Obama administration order barring companies that do federal work from workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. But in February, it revoked guidance on transgender students use of public school bathrooms, deferring to states.
The Hively case stems from a lawsuit by Indiana teacher Kimberly Hively alleging that the Ivy Tech Community College in South Bend didnt hire her full time because she is a lesbian.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
This is going to the Supreme Court.
There is nothing in this law about "LGBT," the 7th Circuit is just making it up to fit their own personal whims.
Maybe they didn’t hire her because she’s an ANGRY lesbian who thinks the world owes her something simply because she likes pu$$y.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBT? I’m sorry, but where in that law does it say that?
Much easier than actually having the U.S. Congress change the Law.
At this rate we can just abolish the Legislative Branch altogether just like the Judge in HI eliminated the need for the Executive Branch.
We can save all sorts of Taxpayer Dollars under the new Star Chamber Government.
“SYKES, Circuit Judge, with whom BAUER and KANNE, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting. Any case heard by the full court is important. This one is momentous. All the more reason to pay careful attention to the limits on the courts role. The question before the en banc court is one of statutory interpretation. The majority deploys a judge-empowering, common-law decision method that leaves a great deal of room for judicial discretion. So does Judge Posner in his concurrence. Neither is faithful to the statutory text, read fairly, as a reasonable person would have understood it when it was adopted. The result is a statutory amendment courtesy of unelected judges. Judge Posner admits this; he embraces and argues for this conception of judicial power. The majority does not, preferring instead to smuggle in the statutory amendment under cover of an aggressive reading of loosely related Supreme Court precedents. Either way, the result is the same: the circumvention of the legislative process by which the people govern themselves... “
Posner’s concurance is absolutely terrifying.
http://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2017/04/Hively-final-decision.pdf
Per the court's logic, being an alcoholic who refuses treatment is also a protected class.
The tyrannical abuses of our current government make the original abuses that caused the Revolution seem like nothing more than bad table manners.
Revolution 2 needs to focus on the top million tyrants. No need for innocent men, women, and children to be hurt or killed. No need for valuable property to be destroyed.
The efficient removal of this 1/3 of a percent of our society, from this society, is needed in order to save it.
So, when a homosexual man applies for a job as a pre-school teacher at a conservative church, guess what? This is just another attack on Christianity. I pray that pastors and other church leaders are prepared for what happens next.
It is why an Article V Convention is so desperately needed to reverse the outrages before the only remedy is revolution.
Haha, hey black people, ONCE AGAIN the Democrats spit in your FACES....will you continue to bow before them?
It gets even worst, now that all sexual orientations are by default protected by the court.
So, when a pedophile applies and must be given a job at a pre-school...
the 1964 Civil Rights Act also protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination, ..."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponents Argument
Patriots are reminded that the only sex-related right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect deals with voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment. And since workplace discrimination is clearly outside the scope of voting issues, the feds have no constitutional authority to interfere with LGBT-related workplace issues imo. So the post-17th Amendment ratification, state sovereignty-ignoring Senate should have stopped the feds from stealing state powers by killing the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it was a bill imo.
Consider that not only are the federal courts wrongly politically amending new rights to the Constitution from the bench, but corrupt lawmakers are taking advantage of such court decisions in the following way. Lawmakers are exploiting low-information citizens, winning their votes by promising to strengthen politically correct rights, such citizens not understanding that the feds have no constitutional authority to legislatively address such issues.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
Also consider that this federal courts action is helping to establish citizens misguided by Christian-hating LGBT bullies as a privileged / protected class imo. The problem with the federal courts doing this is that the Founding States had prohibited the feds from establishing privileged classes when they made the Constitutions Clause 8 of Section 9 of Article I.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States [emphasis added]: And no person holding any office or profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
So the federal appeals courts action is another example the corrupt feds unconstitutionally expanding their powers in subtle ways imo, actions which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had warned patriots to be on their guard against.
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention to ratify the Federal Constitution (1788-06-06)
To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791
The system of the General Government is to seize all doubtful ground. We must join in the scramble, or get nothing. Where first occupancy is to give right, he who lies still loses all. Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1797.
Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!
Remember in November 18 !
Since Trump entered the 16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the 18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.
Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist justices off of the bench.
Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February 18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitutions Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal governments powers.
Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal governments limited powers listed below.
Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States. Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added]. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
I’m dreading the day when pastors are charged with hate crimes for preaching from the Bible. I’m on the old coot side of life now, and I never dreamed this sort of thing could happen. How times have changed.
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.