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 ...
The Civil rights act is unconstitutional. The Bill of Rights is to limit government not citizens.
Amen. Excellent post overall.
The CRA’s aim was to nullify state control of businesses in the form of Jim Crow laws, law which MANDATED discrimination. The law went too far and mandated the same state control over businesses that were in existence before the law, only a different citizenry were oppressed.
I see you get it, fwdude. Posters in this thread are discussing if LGBT employment should be covered by the CRA when they should be questioning why the CRA is legal in the first place. They are starting from a faulty premise, that government has the right to force someone to employ people they have fundamental disagreements with, simply because the first person wants to open a business.
Granted, it’s pretty stupid to discriminate against customers on the basis of skin color, but employment goes way beyond just being a customer. Employees can be almost as close as family in some businesses. Government needs to keep its nose out!
Why? because someone somewhere once said “fag?”
You can bet if it becomes law it will only be used in certain ways. It will never be used to force a Hindu gas station owner to hire a Muslim from Pakistan. I can think of a number of scenarios where it will NEVER be used.
The only special right should be the right to closet space
No, to respect both the statute and the Constitution, the Supreme Court should refuse to be a super-legislature. If people want the law changed, we already have 2, count’em TWO, branches of government besides the courts to do that - first, you have the Congress (legislative - that’s a thing) to pass a bill, and the President (Executive) to sign it into law if he so deems. If he doesn’t, then the Congress can override his veto. The courts are NOT in any way involved in the legislative process, mainly because no one ever voted for them to have such powers, and they are unaccountable (unlike the Congress and President).
Not just no, but PHUCK no!
So LGTB people should have special class protection??
One and the same. Nothing either one of them says is worth anyone’s time.
LGBT people have the same rights as everyone else you Do Not get more rights
Precisely. Requiring the government to be colorblind is acceptable. Requiring private citizens to associate with people they do not wish to, is tyranny.
It is a basic violation of freedom of association.
“The only special right should be the right to closet space”
—
—
In an institutional setting........
The CRA infringes on constitutional rights in the first place. It’s like two wrongs making a right. If they wanted to do the CRA the right way, they would have amended the US Constitution, but that would have taken too much time and super majority support. Instead, they de facto amended the constitution with legislation.
Now we have a competing mess of individual “rights” under the law. The legal battles never end—the fighting between citizens over whose “rights” are supreme—because Congress and the courts took a clear legal principle and destroyed it.
I guess our long standing and hard fought for Constitution is not enough for the sodomites.
Exactly right, fwdude. Once someone accepts the legitimacy of civil rights legislation, the clear principle of freedom of association is lost and the argument devolves into a mishmash of competing rights.
Even left to the federal legislature, this issue FAR outside of the purview of the Federal government, per the 10th Amendment.
The power of the federal government is DELIBERATELY made very limited and hamstrung, by design.
Agreed. But the USSC will not take that issue up - the actual case or controversy that is likely to come before it as some point is the assertion that the CRA applies to transformers. The Court will only address what actually comes before it.
Agreed. But the USSC will not take that issue up - the actual case or controversy that is likely to come before it as some point is the assertion that the CRA applies to transformers. The Court will only address what actually comes before it.
Nowhere in the Constitution is a requirement that an employer must accommodate a person who is mentally ill (i.e., trans-”gendered”).
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.