Posted on 04/22/2019 7:41:26 AM PDT by C19fan
The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would decide whether a federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against gay and transgender workers.
The law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, forbids employment discrimination based on sex. The question for the justices is whether that language bars discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status.
Most federal appeals courts have interpreted the law to exclude sexual orientation discrimination. But two of them, in New York and Chicago, recently issued decisions ruling that discrimination against gay men and lesbians is a form of sex discrimination.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
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.
FR really needs a like button
The freedom of association is as important as any other right. It should not be infringed.
Language protecting gender identity was snuck into the so-Called anti-lynching Bill right after the Jussie Smollett fakery. Lynching in this law is defined as any attack ( no matter how mild) on people of many identities (all but white males?). Watch the Supreme Court’s liberals use this law as precedent.
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.
First button on the left covers like, unlike, and ignor
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
First question I would ask is, “How does the hiring manager know if someone is gay or transgender?” There is no discrimination here.
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.
Indeed.
Why bother having a Congress if the courts can just read whatever they want into 50+year old laws?
#2 for the win...Roberts or Kavanaugh vote for queer rights.
Give me a girl that smokes DURING sex, that way you know she’s really into it.
“...but as a philosophical matter there ought not be bias against these folks unless it would affect their ability to perform the job.”
Having men pretending to be women will affect the way everyone else performs their job. Imagine being a normal guy assigned to a project with a tranny. Nope. But let’s make everyone else suffer so trannys won’t have low self-esteem.
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 ?
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.