A US district court has ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, also prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
:eek: - Shut my mouth.
I don’t see how they get that interpretation when sexual orientation is not mentioned in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Plus, it wasn’t the intention of those who crafted the law to include sexual orientation within its scope.
Interpretation come on where have Americans been. The Supremes and in extension the whole government judicial apparatus can redefine the meaning of words and invent rights out of thin air. In short they pretty much can do what they want in the face of a compliant legislature that will not impeach them.
Balance of power? There is no balance of power. In the absence of any push back the tyranny grows.
There is a good argument that it is covered by title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
*In a decision issued on Nov. 4 by U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, the court denied Scott Medical Health Center’s motion to dismiss EEOC’s case. In its ruling, the court found that sexual orientation discrimination is a type of discrimination “because of sex,” which is barred by Title VII. Applying decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court finding that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination includes adverse treatment of workers based on “sex stereotypes,” i.e. pre-conceived ideas of how a man or a woman should act or think, the federal court stated, “There is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality.”
The modern western equivalent of the Buddhist koan: the sound of one hand clapping.
In this case, the mantra is: the wisdom of half a brain thinking.
So, wait, would attacking Mr. Trump due to his comments on woman and sex be sex stereotyping then?
If so, this would mean that anyone Democrat or Republician who thought that Mr. Trump wasn’t qualified for the office of Presidency were attempting to treat him adversely, and even deny him a job due to “sexual stereotyping.” According the the Civil Rights Act, they were denying Mr. Trump his rights.
One can of course stereotype themselves Lucretius…
It is one of the ironies of current judicial doctrine that, even when a legislature deliberately leaves a particular provision out of a law, the courts can decide to include it anyway. In effect, a legislature can never be sure of just what they are legislating.
This seems to me to be another “lawyer welfare” decision. Lawsuits under this “rule” will not be about such things as directly affecting someone because he’s homosexual. It will be about “mini-aggressions” like not preventing other workers from getting weirded out when the employee plants one on his “spouse” at the company picnic, or his changing from male to female attire from time to time and back again.
And, of course, there will be complaints of “pattern discrimination” in which there’s no real discrimination at all, but the workforce doesn’t meet some quota of homosexuals or transgenders.
An even MORE modern equivalent!
Two ancient eastern philosophers go walking on a windy beach.
One of them gets a grain of sand in his eye.
His friend removes the grain, tosses it away
… and it mystically becomes a*** clown!***
What does all *that *mean? The first man asked.
“What you MEANT to say …” (the second philosopher sighed), is …
is the clown of one sand happening?** “
:nope: :doh2: :blushing:
– Tales of Captain Fun[/size]
It seems to me that this is simply yet another case of judicial activism. I am so sick and tired of activist judges who seek to legislate from the bench.
The Civil Rights Act is terrible legislation. Ending discrimination isn’t the job of the state. It can’t even do the things it should do halfway right.
What evidence do you have that the legislators deliberately did not intend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to apply to sex as expressed in sexual orientation? If they were so explicit about it they would have specified that exclusion in the law. As it is, any argument about the intention of the legislators based on what they did not say is an “argument from silence”, in which case all the courts have to go one are the words that were included. And “based on of sex” and “because of sex” are the actual words used.
Although not immediately applicable, it is worth noting definition (k) at the beginning of title VII which shows that “because of sex” does mean more than “because of gender”. In definition (k) it is shown that the legislators intended the law to apply to not only the employee’s gender, but factors that relate to that gender, such as the state of pregnancy. So therefore discriminating against a women because she is pregnant would be a violation of the law, even if the employer would not have discriminated against her just for being a woman. So it is not too much of a stretch to see how discriminating against a lesbian would also be covered, since it has to do with how the women is or is not relating to her gender.
Nice ad hominem attack.
Fortunately your opinion is not widely shared.
The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added at the last minute and was initially treated as a backhanded attempt to defeat the bill. Had the legislators wished to include sexual orientation as a protected category, the bill would most certainly have been defeated.
You’re right. Most people want an all powerful government. Unfortunately that comes back to bite them too in the end. On the plus side it makes me not feel apologetic for any claims against Christian theocracy. After all since enforcing the most intimate morals is the realm of the state in most folks mind then I should rejoice when the true faith is so enforced down to every little detail.
The idea that men and women of any colour or sexual orientation should be equally judged before the law (at least ideally) does not seem the ‘most intimate of morals’. It would appear more a case of having a state, or at least aiming for one, where been black or gay or straight or Christian or otherwise is not the deciding factor in arriving at or determining guilt or innocence. I would agree the state cannot dictate morality arbitrarily but the state does have duties to urge its citizens to respect each other and to work against laws that prevent that. That it does not do so in other areas does not mean it was wrong to fight against the rampant evils of racism that have been and still are a problem in the USA and elsewhere.
People ought not be discriminated against on the basis of orientation. And almost all my queer friends have a story of being discriminated against (fired from secular job, left homeless, subject to slurs). Ideally, there’d be new legislation that adds them to the list of protected classes, while carving out exemptions for churches, religious non-profits, and those who provide wedding services.