1: Roberts does his usual weasel way of getting a narrow "non-ruling" 2: Roberts or Kavanaugh provide the fifth vote to say yes LGBTs are protected by Title VII.
I consider a ruling of no expansion of LGBT as a zero probability event.
The “original intent” arguments are going to be a hoot. Someone will have to argue with a straight face that the 1964 Congress intended this law to protect men who claim to be women and vice versa.
I have no doubt that SCOTUS will rule that way, however. Because penumbras.
L
I can’t say whether the law was intended to cover gay or transgender folks, but as a philosophical matter there ought not be bias against these folks unless it would affect their ability to perform the job. Merit should be the sole basis for treatment of individuals. That said, employers ought to be legally able to discriminate in any way they like, and be subjected to the forces of the market if their discrimination is not supported by the public.
So, if a church believes that homosexuality is a sin, will they still be required to hire a homosexual as a preacher? Crazy world that we live in.
I have no problem with letting a business refuse to hire perverts and mentally ill people. These are behavior issues - not civil rights issues.
If you smoke after sex does that mean you can’t discriminate against smokers?
While it’s a big stretch to suggest that the original intent was to cover gays and lesbians, the inclusion of the tranny question is particularly worrisome. Private sexual conduct and relationships are one thing, but the transgender movement is literally the end of women’s sports, bathrooms, clubs, etc. not to mention freedom of religion and association of business owners. It is a biological fact that men and women are different. We are approaching 1984 levels of insanity in the west.
And I don’t trust Roberts and/or Kavanaugh to do the right thing
I wanted to ask how registration for the draft works with transgenders, but in looking it up before asking I found that:
“In February 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that male-only conscription registration breached the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. In a case brought by non-profit men’s rights organisation the National Coalition for Men against the U.S. Selective Service System, judge Gray H. Miller issued a declaratory judgement that the male-only registration requirement is unconstitutional, though did not specify what action the government should take.” (Wikipedia)
That answers my question, but raises others.
The ruling might be justification for attacking Christians and their belief that sodomy is wrong.
#2 for the win...Roberts or Kavanaugh vote for queer rights.
Simple; if they do the job and keep their perversion to themselves, employ them. When the perversion becomes an issue, fire them.
Anything to do with Trump and the transgenders in the Military ?
“..forbids employment discrimination based on sex.”
The trouble with those kinds of laws is that laws are supposed to be based on facts and actions, not attitudes.
Claiming discrimination based on sex can only be subjectively assigned, not objectively determined. Sort of like what the democrats are doing with the obstruction charges against Trump. No actions can be nailed down, so obstruction is grandly assigned as a substitute.
There may be a few exceptions but all-encompassing laws should not have as their foundations possible exceptions.
Here is an example of "creative interpretation" of the law. Do you think the congress was intending to prevent discrimination against homosexuals in 1964? I think we were still locking them up in mental institutions in those days.
I assume you have some familiarity with the zeitgeist of the 1964 era?
Congress would have put in the right words back in 1964 except that there were no gays or trannies back then.
Roberts voted against gay marriage. This would be a great vehicle for returning marriage decisions to the states. We can expect nothing of the sort to happen however.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The NY Times is sidestepping the real issue.
From related threads …
More specifically, probably many FReepers know that the first thing that the Supreme Court needs to do when it examines any federal law is to make sure that the states have expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific power to make the law.
Doing so is a very important constitutional check, the post-FDR Supreme Court probably ignoring (imo) that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that powers that the states haven’t expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds are prohibited to the feds.
”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.
In fact, who needs the Supreme Court's opinion when probably many patriots, at least FReepers, can identify major constitutional problems with the Civil Rights Act?
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters [emphasis added]; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
"The law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [??? emphasis added], forbids employment discrimination based on sex."
In this case, two major constitutional problems can be found with the Democratic vote-winning, unconstitutional, post-17th Amendment Civil Rights Act of 1964 imo.
The first problem is the only constitutional power that the states have expressly given to the feds to make laws that protect citizens on the basis of sex is the voting rights-related 19th Amendment.
19th Amendment:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
And since the Civil Rights Act addresses sex-related issues outside the scope of voting rights, without even mentioning the second major constitutional problem with that act, it's already dead in the water imo.
Post-17th Amendment ratification career lawmakers probably made the act to win the votes of low-information voters, voters who have likely never been taught about the fed's constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
The second major constitutional problem with the Civil Rights Act is this. The states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to oversee and make policy for private businesses, the 10th Amendment (10A) indicating that private businesses are state power issues.
Although it is now politically correct to widely interpret the Commerce Clause (1.8.3) to justify the feds sticking their big noses in to the affairs of private businesses, a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that the states have never expressly given the feds such powers.
"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 [emphases added]." -Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
But not having express constitutional authority to regulate businesses did not stop FDR's corrupt majority justices from using their "magic reading glasses" to find powers for the likewise corrupt Congress to regulate businesses "hidden" in the Constitution's Commerce Clause (1.8.3) when they wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress's favor imo.
In fact, using inappropriate terms like "concept" and "implicit" here is what was left of the 10A after state sovereignty-ignoring justices got finished with it in that case.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
The remedy for unconstitutionally big federal government …
Patriots need to support PDJT by electing new patriot lawmakers in the 2020 elections, lawmakers who will not only promise to support PDJT's vision for MAGA, but will also promise to remove all constitutionally indefensible federal laws from the books.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA!
Why are there any bias/discrimination laws anymore? (since you can declare that you are anthing you want to be)