Skip to comments.
“You’re Trying To Change The Meaning Of Sex”: Oral arguments heating up at the Supreme Court
Hotair ^
| 10/09/2019
| Jazz Shaw
Posted on 10/09/2019 8:43:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The oral arguments at the Supreme Court in the case of Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC and two other cases involving LGBT employment issues seem to indicate that we’re heading toward yet another set of close decisions split along partisan lines. If you’ve been following our ongoing coverage of the case here, you’re already aware that the dispute in Harris involves a funeral director named Aimee Stephens who was fired after announcing that he was transgender and planned to begin living and dressing as a woman on the job. Two other cases deal with gay workers who were allegedly fired from their jobs after coming out.
Some of the questions and comments from the justices are particularly telling. Some details are provided by The Guardian. (Emphasis added)
Chief Justice John Roberts, a possible swing vote, wondered about the implications of what he described as an expansion of the job-discrimination law.
If were going to be expanding the definition of what sex covers, what do we do about that issue? Roberts asked.
Samuel Alito, a conservative, suggested the high court would be usurping the role of Congress by reading protection for sexual orientation into the 1964 Civil Rights Act, when lawmakers at the time likely envisioned they were doing no such thing.
Youre trying to change the meaning of sex, he said.
The liberal wing of the court seemed to take a decidedly different tone. Elena Kagan stated that “a man who loves other men cannot be treated differently by an employer than a woman who loves men.”
We already know that Chief Justice John Roberts is frustrated at the number of cases that are decided in a 5-4 split and the public perception that his court is a politically charged beast. He’s broken ranks with the other, more conservative justices before and could well wind up being the swing vote in these cases yet again. But at a minimum, he’s at least raising doubts about some of the issues in play here.
One problem we’re running into is the trend of conflating issues of gay rights with transgender rights. For example, one of the other cases, Altitude Express v. Zarda, has nothing to do with transgender issues. Donald Zarda is a gay skydiving instructor who was fired from his job under complicated conditions. He had a habit of telling female clients about his sexual orientation so they would feel more comfortable being strapped closely together during tandem jumps. But one female customer complained after the jump that he had touched her inappropriately and was trying to use his sexual orientation to cover it up.
Zarda denied any inappropriate contact and claimed he was fired simply for being openly gay. Obviously, if the woman’s story is true he should have been terminated. If Zarda is telling the truth that would be a terrible thing for the employer to do. But Title 7 doesn’t cover employment protection based on sexual orientation unless the court determines that the word “sex” includes sexual orientation.
That’s very different than the Harris case. In that one, as Alito pointed out, the plaintiffs aren’t trying to “expand” the definition of sex but to radically alter it entirely. If the court is willing to conflate sex with whatever “gender” a person claims they associate with, then the entire meaning of both words goes out the window. And that will be a tragic blow to actual women in any number of areas, particularly in competitive sports.
But as I’ve written before, I have a suspicion that the court will try to dodge those larger issues in Harris and deliver a far more narrowly tailored decision focusing on workplace dress codes.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aimeestephens; donaldzarda; elenakagan; funeralhomes; gender; genderdysphoria; homosexualagenda; judiciary; lawsuit; scotus; supremecourt; transgender; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
To: SeekAndFind
"Elena Kagan stated that a man who loves other men cannot be treated differently by an employer than a woman who loves men."So, Justice Kagan... what is "he", a man or a woman?
21
posted on
10/09/2019 9:58:35 AM PDT
by
Hatteras
Leftism exploiting mental illness.
22
posted on
10/09/2019 10:18:33 AM PDT
by
Gene Eric
(Don't be a statist!)
To: SeekAndFind
Have bosses not yet learned to fire someone for any reason other than gender or freak shows. Fire them for being late. Fire them for taking long lunch hours. Fire them for not filling a form out correctly and on time. Fire them for leaving work early. Fire them for not doing xyz in a a timely manner. But never, ever fire a XY for parading around in heels and lipstick or a XX for suddenly growing a beard and looking like a lumberjack.
23
posted on
10/09/2019 10:24:21 AM PDT
by
bgill
To: SeekAndFind; All
You would probably like to think that the first thing that the Supreme Court does in deciding if a federal law has been violated would be to check if the states have expressly constitutionally given the constitutionally-limited power feds the specific power to make the law in the first place. If the Court cannot find a clause that expressly and reasonably justifies a law then the law is unconstitutional.
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.
But neeeu.
Misguided, post-17th Amendment ratification, post-FDR era Supreme Court justices need to pull their heads out of their institutional indoctrination and recognize that the only mention of sex in the Constitution is in the 19th Amendment (19A). The states ratified that amendment in response to the Courts decision in Minor v. Happersett which recognized sex strictly on the basis of female and male biological sexes.
"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]."
In other words, the Democratic vote-winning Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CWA) and its titles are unconstitutional imo because they address sex related protections that are clearly outside the scope of Congresss 19A voting rights powers.
Let's also throw in the 15th Amendment to undermine the constitutionally indefensible, non-voting-related race protections of CWA.
"15th Amendment: Section 1: 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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].
Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to fully support PDJT's vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also do this.
New patriot lawmakers also need to support PDJT in deciding the fate of people in prison for violating a federal law that the feds never had the express constitutional authority to make.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Corrections, insights welcome.
To: marktwain
Why not? It is basic freedom of association.
No one should be forced to associate with someone they do not wish to associate with.
No private employer should be forced to hire someone they do not wish to hire.””’
There were many reasons why, when I became self-employed in 1980, I refused to hire ANY other persons to increase the number of bookkeeping clients I could deal with. I worked alone, and put in many a long day by myself.
In 1980, all this LBGTQ data certainly was not evident against employers.
I still have ONE client-—have had him for 50 years. I certainly value his loyalty.
I cannot even begin to understand how ANY employer today is expected to deal with ANY possible new employee.
To: SeekAndFind
If someone transes, isn’t it like they aren’t who they used to be? So wouldn’t they have to reapply for the job.
To: marktwain
Why not? It is basic freedom of association.
No one should be forced to associate with someone they do not wish to associate with.
No private employer should be forced to hire someone they do not wish to hire.””’
There were many reasons why, when I became self-employed in 1980, I refused to hire ANY other persons to increase the number of bookkeeping clients I could deal with. I worked alone, and put in many a long day by myself.
In 1980, all this LBGTQ data certainly was not evident against employers.
I still have ONE client-—have had him for 50 years. I certainly value his loyalty.
I cannot even begin to understand how ANY employer today is expected to deal with ANY possible new employee.
To: ridesthemiles
“No one should be forced to associate with someone they do not wish to associate with.”
This right, recognized by the FIRST AMENDMENT, makes virtually all “civil rights” legislation unconstitutional as they compel interaction. Having the “right to do” something means you also have the “right to NOT do” the very same thing.
28
posted on
10/09/2019 11:52:49 AM PDT
by
crusher
(GREEN: Globaloney for the Gullible)
To: crusher; ridesthemiles; Ohioan; wardaddy
No one should be forced to associate with someone they do not wish to associate with.
Well that quaint idea died in 1964 with the Civil Rights Act, the same one praised as a “great Republican victory” by conservative radio bleaters like Rush and Hannity.
Good luck defending your right of free association today, especially if you are guilty of White Privilege.
Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan both opposed that bill because it did trample on free association, and because it essentially created the government’s ability to charge you with Thought Crime. You won’t hear our “conservative” PC radio mouthpieces touch that argument, or explain how they are wiser than Goldwater and Reagan.
29
posted on
10/09/2019 12:05:18 PM PDT
by
Pelham
(Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
To: SeekAndFind
SC needs to rule that sociologists aren’t allowed to dictate biology.
To: SeekAndFind
The complete transcript of the oral arguments for this case can be found
HERE
31
posted on
10/09/2019 12:53:03 PM PDT
by
zeugma
(I sure wish I lived in a country where the rule of law actually applied to those in power.)
To: Pelham
The right to achieve greatly, without limit, if you can, is a critical part of the true promise of America. In no sense, is high achievement a special privilege; nor has the pursuit of greatness, by honorable endeavor been a special privilege, or anything but honorable pursuit.
32
posted on
10/09/2019 1:09:16 PM PDT
by
Ohioan
To: FamiliarFace
Someone should explain to Miss or Mrs. Kagan, who is capable of reproducing with whom. It is a pretty serious functional question, among folk still able to reason & perceive what is significant and what absurd.
Feminist War On Love & Reason
33
posted on
10/09/2019 1:16:38 PM PDT
by
Ohioan
To: SeekAndFind
Did RBG lift one or two fingers?
34
posted on
10/09/2019 1:18:07 PM PDT
by
morphing libertarian
( Use Comey's Report, Indict Hillary now; build Kate's wall. --- Proud Smelly Walmart Deplorable)
To: SeekAndFind
If Dims were not the hypocrites they are, they would not be pursuing a change in the Federal “anti-discrimination” laws, to add “LGBT” language to existing “protections” and simultaneoulsy trying to get judges to say no change in the law is needed to add that language, the judges can do it on their own.
But, in fact, they are pursing just such a Federal legislative change. Of course they know it will not get past the Senate or Trump’s desk if it does.
So like the hypocrites they are, when it comes to the Constitution, they want to have it both ways - the legislative route is the Constitutional route, no wait, the judges ARE the Constitution, they have told us so many times.
35
posted on
10/09/2019 1:29:22 PM PDT
by
Wuli
To: SeekAndFind
Would not this be an issue of contract law rather than sex discrimination. When a prospective employees presents themselves as a certain sex and you hire and make accommodations based on that declaration, doesn’t that become a material condition of employment. If they subsequently change their mind, they have unilaterally changed a material factor in the employment contract making it voidable. That is much different than treating individuals of different sexes differently because of their sex.
From a practical standpoint, how many times a day is a person entitled to change their sexual designation. If it can be changed at the sole discretion of the individual, then the sex of an employee becomes irrelevant and there can be no discrimination based on an irrelevant factor.
36
posted on
10/09/2019 4:31:00 PM PDT
by
etcb
To: Pelham
37
posted on
10/09/2019 9:34:59 PM PDT
by
wardaddy
(I applaud Jim Robinson for his comments on the Southern Monuments decision ...thank you)
To: SeekAndFind
I dont have a good feeling about this. Gorsuch is marinated in this worldview, through his leftist church and associations in his law career.
Even if leftist dont get exactly what they are demanding, the penchant of federal courts has been to split the baby, Solomon-style, and give something to each side, not to decisively decide what the Constitution says and doesnt say.
38
posted on
10/10/2019 12:41:16 AM PDT
by
fwdude
(Poverty is nearly always a mindset, which canÂ’t be cured by cash.)
To: SeekAndFind
"Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive" The trans, gay, bi, et.al. alliance is lying to us and trying to deceive us.
They want everything to be questioned so they can get away with anything.
To: SeekAndFind
"Samuel Alito, a conservative, suggested the high court would be usurping the role of Congress by reading protection for sexual orientation into
the 1964 Civil Rights Act"
Gosh. Rush & Hannity tell us that this "wonderful" law was a high water mark in Republican glory- if not for GOP collaboration then Lyndon Johnson would never have gotten it passed.
What could possibly be the problem with it?
Well maybe the dangers that Goldwater, Reagan, and the once venerable National Review warned about when they opposed it.
The two laws that have had the greatest impact on America, by altering its demographics and the power of government to tell you how you must live, are the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Immigration law.
Don't hold your breath expecting the cowards we elect to change either one. For one thing global big business loves the result.
40
posted on
10/10/2019 11:51:56 AM PDT
by
Pelham
(Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-43 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson