Posted on 09/23/2019 6:08:25 AM PDT by fwdude
The Supreme Court should hold that the federal statute which prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex” prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and against transgender individuals.
When the Supreme Court returns from its summer recess, among the first cases it will hear will be three that raise the important question of whether federal law prohibiting employment discrimination protects LGBTQ individuals.
Until 1964, no federal law prohibited employment discrimination. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed this by forbidding employers from discriminating based on race, sex or religion. There have been many attempts to amend the law to expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, but Congress never has done this.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Nope. Behavior doesn’t count as a civil right.
So we can’t discriminate against perverted and self-destructive behavior?
Nobody gives a crap about what people want to do with their sexual organs.
What we do give a crap about is being forced by law and the prospect of government punishment to accept said behavior as normal, wholesome, and worthy of equal footing as a marriage between a man and a woman.
Logically “civil rights protection” should be limited to immutable characteristics. One probably should have the right to refuse to hire based on religion. I can imagine a number of scenarios where it would be completely insane to force one person to hire another. Having made the mistake of adding “religion” it’s gonna be hard to argue against trannies.
The argument is flawed.
This shouldn’t be that difficult. If some in Congress have attempted to amend the act to add accepting whatever mental condition people have (I’m a door this week, next week I’ll be a dinosaur...) then having the court do it would be...writing laws and usurping the privilege granted to congress in creating laws and excluding the review rights of the executive who can veto such laws.
You want the law changed, then get the body that is responsible for writing laws to change it.
By the way, has Congress yet written a law to change the definition of marriage?
>>The Supreme Court should hold that the federal statute which prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex” prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and against transgender individuals.
That erroneous interpretation of law would be like protecting people in blackface or who have tattoos because of prohibited discrimination based on “skin color”.
Then why not include Pedophiles, Sodomites, Polygamists etc?
I mean, these are sexual choices, not born out of our genetic chemistries.
The disingenuous “religion” addition to the CRA was just included to make the bitter medicine of the core intent of the mandate go down a little easier. It was NEVER intended to be enforced, especially in favor of Christianity.
That said, I think it’s illogical to accept ANY of the “protections” (what an Orwellian term) promoted by the CRA, including religion. We are either free to make decisions with our own property (businesses, homes, speech, real property, etc.) or we are not.
NAMBLA is pushing this evil...and I'm not talking about the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes group.
You can see how this will go down. the compromised Roberts will be forced to vote with the four lunatic liberals and this will become the “law of the land.” then federally funded day care centers will be forced to hire bizarre, demented transgenders to care for children. If they don’t some bureaucrat in the Federal government will void their contract or have them prosecuted. Decadence and hedonism is destroying America.
The terminology of the word “sex” at the time the law was passed solely meant biological XX or XY chromosome “sex”. sexual BEHAVIORS is “sex” but it is an adjective or verb. The law was using “sex” as a noun indicating structural composition.
This demonstrates the Communist strategy of changing the meanings of words or phrases that exist in current law.
And everybody can identify as LGBT now
He needs an orthodontist stat!
Except that civil rights protection is entirely unconstitutional in the first place. Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits a private employer from discriminating on ANY basis. The constitution was only written to limit the powers of government. It wasn’t designed to force private citizen to associate against their will, so-called public accomodations notwithstanding, with other citizens.
By attempting to amend the constitution via legislation and SCOTUS rulings, the government created the mess of competing rights that we now have. Whose rights are supreme here? LGBT employment rights or religious freedom. At least religious freedom is a constitutionally enumerated freedom in the Bill of Rights.
The only way to truly solve this problem is to return to an original understanding of constitutional rights. People have the right to associate with whoever they want and run their private property, including their businesses, as they see fit.
BTW, I think the goal of civil rights legislation was admirable. I just think the leaders at that time created a bigger mess by trying to fix discrimination via unconstitutional means rather than letting the culture evolve over time.
I know this sounds cold and heartless, but Ruth Ginsburg can’t die soon enough.
If she doesn’t, this horrific fascism will likely be shoved down our throats without recourse. What other outcome is preferable?
…”Then why not include Pedophiles, Sodomites, Polygamists etc?
I mean, these are sexual choices, not born out of our genetic chemistries.Then why not include Pedophiles, Sodomites, Polygamists etc?
I mean, these are sexual choices, not born out of our genetic chemistries.”...
Beastiality?
This guy is an inside and out FREAK.
Years ago he was spouting such twisted legal verbiage and he is more twisted now than ever.
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.