Have fun, ladies.
Posted on 01/23/2021 5:38:20 AM PST by karpov
The Biden presidency, we’re told, is a historic win for women. With Kamala Harris as his Madam Vice President and a record number of women in his Cabinet, the new commander in chief is advancing the female cause. “This is what breaking the glass ceiling looks like,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar enthused on Inauguration Day.
As is often the case, the gratuitous symbolic victories distract from more significant, material losses. Hours after Harris became the first female vice president, Biden signed an executive order that discriminates against her entire sex.
The directive, titled “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation,” spells disaster for women’s shelters, sports and health care in the name of transgender equality.
For instance: Institutions that receive Title IX funding must allow biological males who identify as female to compete in women’s athletics. “Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to . . . school sports,” the order states.
Some call it the “Bostock Executive Order.” All federal agencies, it dictates, must implement Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion in last year’s Bostock v. Clayton County. There, the high-court majority ruled that the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s Title VII prohibition on sexual discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. This, even though the very term “gender identity” would have befuddled those who enacted the law.
“Under Bostock’s reasoning,” Biden’s new order states, “laws that prohibit sex discrimination — including Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 . . . prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
We now have a mentally ill secretary of HHS.
The inmates are truly in charge of the Asylum.
Women voted for Biden....they deserve this.
I am happy that every women’s athletic record will be broken by a man.
This was unnecessary.
Trying to erase real women and invade their private spaces. I don’t want to be in the men’s bathroom, and I don’t want men dressing as women in the bathroom with me.
And I’m hoping for many funny photos of the “victories”
I like them almost as much as failed plastic surgery photos.
If a man is pursuing federal contracts, all he hast to do his claim to be a woman owned business. Say they identify as a woman, so all they need to do. If a person says they’re black, why shouldn’t they be allowed to choose?
Gorsuch, in Bostock, specifically denies that the case can be applied to any other situation such as women’s sports:
What are these consequences anyway? The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable af- ter our decision today. But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex.” As used in Title VII, the term “ ‘discriminate against’ ” refers to “distinctions or differences in treatment that injure pro- tected individuals.” Burlington N. & S. F. R., 548 U. S., at 59. Firing employees because of a statutorily protected trait surely counts. Whether other policies and practices
might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.
Separately, the employers fear that complying with Title VII’s requirement in cases like ours may require some em- ployers to violate their religious convictions. We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society. But worries about how Title VII may intersect with religious lib- erties are nothing new; they even predate the statute’s pas- sage. As a result of its deliberations in adopting the law, Congress included an express statutory exception for reli- gious organizations. §2000e–1(a). This Court has also rec- ognized that the First Amendment can bar the application of employment discrimination laws “to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institu- tion and its ministers.” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lu- theran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171, 188 (2012). And Congress has gone a step further yet in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. That stat- ute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demon- strates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmen- tal interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. §2000bb–1. Because RFRA oper- ates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal oper- ation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases. See §2000bb–3.
But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty inter- act with Title VII are questions for future cases too. Harris Funeral Homes did unsuccessfully pursue a RFRA-based defense in the proceedings below. In its certiorari petition, however, the company declined to seek review of that ad- verse decision, and no other religious liberty claim is now before us. So while other employers in other cases may raise free exercise arguments that merit careful considera- tion, none of the employers before us today represent in this Court that compliance with Title VII will infringe their own religious liberties in any way.
Gorsuch in Bostock
How’s that 50 years of lining up with cultural Bolshevism working out for you, feminists? Cry us a friggin river.
Have fun, ladies.
“...If a person says they’re black, why shouldn’t they be allowed to choose?”
*paging Rachel Dolezal* *Rachel Dolezal to the white courtesy phone, please*.
And not just trans-black. There’s also trans-natives like Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill.
Someone in the room (Pelosi?): “Sign it anyway”.
Are we having fun yet?
How can women compete in sports anymore? Women can have talent and practice all they want. It will be an impossible dream.
At least they won't have to compete against them for husbands!
Who did you vote for ladies? If you voted for senile pervert tough sh!t. Suck it up.
Gorsuch held for this bs? Wow.
Now, who did you vote for?
What did she win,she was dumped from the Democrat primary first! Nobody wanted the whore.
Biden boxed himself in saying hope was going to pick a woman of color,the squad picked her,this is a bunch of garbage
My daughter wrestled. There is no way in hell I’d let her compete against a she-man.
By the way, I like the new noun I created - she-man.
Has anyone ever seen a photo or video of Biden sniffing a transgender person? Hypocrite!
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.