Posted on 09/25/2014 12:50:03 PM PDT by C19fan
Lakeland Eye Clinic, a Lakeland, Fla.-based organization of health care professionals, discriminated based on sex in violation of federal law by firing an employee because she is transgender, because she was transitioning from male to female, and/or because she did not conform to the employer's gender-based expectations, preferences, or stereotypes, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today. This is one of the first two lawsuits ever filed by the agency alleging sex discrimination against transgender individuals. The other case, EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. was filed today by the EEOC's Indianapolis District Office.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit against Lakeland Eye Clinic, the defendant's employee had performed her duties satisfactorily throughout her employment. However, after she began to present as a woman and informed the clinic she was transgender, Lakeland fired her.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, including that based on gender stereotyping. The EEOC filed suit against Lakeland Eye Clinic in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division (Case No. 8:14-cv-2421-T35 AEP) after first trying to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The suit seeks both monetary and injunctive relief.
(Excerpt) Read more at eeoc.gov ...
Yeah, like "your a man so use the Men's Room."
When will we see pedophiles begin exploiting these state and federal laws? Not that it matters. Cause here it comes.
“Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, including that based on gender stereotyping.”
BS. Nobody in 1964 voted to prohibit “gender stereotyping”, they are just trying to use the courts to get an expanded interpretation of the law to include that without having to pass a new law.
It is not treated by amputation, unless the body part is genitalia, in which case you are likely to be sued for questioning it.
I have known two men who went through that process. Both started out more than a bit weird but functional. Both also became unbearable relatively early in the process. I can completely understand firing someone who is mentally ill, emotionally unstable, and unreasonably demanding, and it has nothing to do with the separate “prejudice” against perversion.
But the genitals --- oh, that's something different.
More attacks on the 1st Amendment by the Left. In particular, the right to peacefully assemble.
Good points. But, the liberal view will be that these people are not mentally ill or unstable in any way. And that even if they are different from other people, that we should not be prejudiced against their behavior.
We now live in a culture in which it is somehow now cool to be gay. How long until it’s cool to be trans-whatever????
Anyone who chops off a functioning body part is mentally ill, and the surgeon who does it is unfit to practice medicine.
The EEOC needs to be cleaned out of these sort of fools who want to deliberately equate kooks with gender.
Many who “change their sex” and have genitalia/breasts removed come to their senses later on. By then it’s too late. Can they then sue the doctor who disfigured them?
"... discriminated based on sex in violation of federal [emphasis added] law ..."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
More specifically, the only sex-based right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect, and which the feds have constitutional authority to protect, is voting rights as evidenced by the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. So all federal laws which protect sex-related issues that don't have anything to do with voter protections are based on constitutionally nonexistent federal government powers imo. Such laws were likely made to win votes from low-information voters who don't know about the federal government's constitutionally limited power any more than the corrupt politicians that they elected to office do.
The way that the corrupt feds expanded their power outside the framework of the Constitution to establish vote-winning rights not enumerated in the Constitution is the following imo. First note that Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court had officially clarified the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, emphasizing that the feds had no power to stick their big noses into intrastate commerce.
In fact, using terms like, “does not extend” and “exclusively,” Jefferson had written the following.
“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively [emphases added] with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
The Supreme Court had also essentially reflected what Jefferson wrote.
”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.
The reason that corrupt Congress started making constitutionally indefensible civil rights laws to win votes is the following imo. FDR’s activist justices gave Congress the perfect excuse that it needed to make such laws on a silver platter. More specifically, FDR’s thug justices wrongly ignored Jefferson and Supreme Court precedent concerning the limits of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, the justices putting on their “magic glasses” to find new powers for Congress in the Commerce Clause in Wickard v. Filburn.
In fact, using terms like “some concept” and “implicit,” here is what was left of the 10th Amendment after FDR’s thug justices got finished with it.
“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. Certain activities such as “production,” “manufacturing,” and “mining” were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.”—Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
FDR’s justices had essentially reduced the 10th Amendment to a wives’ tale imo.
It was only a matter of time before corrupt federal politicians began using their unconstitutionally expanded Commerce Clause powers to make constitutionally indefensible civil rights laws to win votes from low information voters.
“Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution, principally its power to regulate interstate commerce under Article One (section 8) [emphasis added], its duty to guarantee all citizens equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment and its duty to protect voting rights under the Fifteenth Amendment.” — Civil Rights Act of 1964, Wikipedia
Are we having fun yet?
What a mess! =^(
As a side note concerning the federal government's constitutionally limited powers, please consider the following. The states would sure be a dull, boring place to grow up and live in if parents were to make sure that their children were taught about the federal government's constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood. /sarc
Thomas Jefferson had put it this way:
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
In fact, forget about traditional salesman / sucker cliches like "buying the Brooklyn Bridge." Voters now have to deal with the problem that they have foolishly traded their votes for constitutionally nonexistent rights, federal spending programs and restrictive federal regulations which are likewise based on constitutionally nonexistant federal government powers.
When you have a president who is all of those things and more, it's become hard to argue that such behavior is socially unacceptable anymore.
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.