Trans

Supreme Court To Consider Whether Civil Rights Act Protects Gay and Transgender Workers

Does current precedent forbidding discrimination on the basis of sex-based stereotypes apply here?

|

Lesbian, gay, and transgender activists have been working for decades to try to have sexual orientation and gender identity added to federal civil rights anti-discrimination protections. Now the Supreme Court is going to determine if those protections are, in fact, already there.

Today the Supreme Court agreed to combine and consider three cases that revolve around an unresolved legal question: Does the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964's ban on employment discrimination on the basis of sex also forbid discrimination against somebody for being gay or transgender?

For many, the immediate response would likely be, no, sexual orientation and gender identity are different from sex. That's why activists and friendly lawmakers have for years been introducing and reintroducing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and now the Equality Act to try to have those two classifications added.

However, it's actually not that simple. In a Supreme Court decision from 1989, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the justices ruled that discrimination on the basis of sex-based stereotypes counts as discrimination. That case revolved around a woman who claimed she was denied partnership in the accounting firm because she did not behave or dress femininely enough for them.

From that court precedent a new argument was crafted: Discriminating against somebody for being gay or transgender is similar to discrimination on the basis of whether a person exhibits "stereotypical" traits of a sex. After all, much of the workplace discrimination faced by transgender people is based on how they present themselves.

This argument has found legal traction in federal cases going all the way back to 2005. Under President Barack Obama, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) accepted and endorsed this position, and that's what ultimately informed the administration's position that public schools can't tell transgender students which bathrooms they can use.

But the Supreme Court hasn't truly established this interpretation as law, and so there's been conflict on the federal level (and in federal courts). Under President Donald Trump's administration, the DOJ reversed its position, stating that the Civil Rights Act's sex discrimination protections don't extend to gay or transgender discrimination. But the EEOC maintained its position, causing a split of attitudes in the executive branch of the federal government. Likewise, federal court rulings have been contradictory here. Two federal courts have ruled that federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex also cover discriminating against somebody because they're gay or transgender. But a third court has disagreed, creating a split and plenty of federal confusion over the limits of the Civil Rights Act's protections.

The Supreme Court had previously turned away requests to step in and rule on the conflict. But today they finally decided that they would hear three cases. Two of them involve workers alleging workplace discrimination for being gay. The third involves a transgender woman who was fired by the funeral home she was working at because she wanted to start wearing women's clothing to work. The owner of the funeral home said it would "violate God's commands" and would not accommodate the transgender woman's clothing requests.

This ruling, whichever way it goes, is going to be politically significant due to efforts to pass the Equality Act, which would end the conflict by explicitly adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act. A ruling favorable to LGBT workers and students would end the pressure to pass the law. A ruling that the Civil Rights Act does not include sexual orientation and gender identity would most likely turn passage of the Equality Act into an election issue.

Read more about the cases involved here.

Advertisement

NEXT: 5 Environmental and Human Trends Worth Celebrating This Earth Day

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. >>>Discriminating against somebody for being gay or transgender is similar to …

    mho, seems the line on what should be a civil right is “born as a …”

    1. Response the first: So religion, marital status, pregnant, military service, disabilities a person isn’t born with, etc. and so-on shouldn’t be covered (as they are in many jurisdictions)?

      Response the second: Given the court’s stellar record of parsing science, do you really want to require them to weigh in on the science of whether folks are born gay/trans?

      1. First: not certain I would define these as beneficiaries(?) of civil rights … discrimination against people for being in these situations is still wrong I wouldn’t do so personally

        Second: no no I’m saying it’s difficult to “law-rule” on unsettled science and maybe they shouldn’t … or err on the side of caution and include everyone? straight-up determining what is now a civil right that was not last Tuesday is a job the SC seems unarmed to undertake

        1. If you don’t mean “covered in non-discrimination laws”, then what do you mean such that it’s relevant?

      2. So religion, marital status, pregnant, military service, disabilities a person isn’t born with, etc. and so-on shouldn’t be covered (as they are in many jurisdictions)?

        The answer to that is that it is arbitrary. You are right. But gays didn’t get included. If you want them included change the law.

        Given the court’s stellar record of parsing science, do you really want to require them to weigh in on the science of whether folks are born gay/trans?

        No. I requrie them to interpret the CRA as it was clearly intended to be interpreted and that means it doesn’t cover gays.

        1. No. I requrie them to interpret the CRA as it was clearly intended to be interpreted and that means it doesn’t cover gays.

          That also means it doesn’t cover sexual harassment. That really a hill you want to die on?

      3. But I can’t get special protection for being a smoker?
        This is bullshit!

    2. The whole problem is that in a truly Free Society privately-owned businesses & properties should be able to hire whom they want, fire whoever they want, rent to whomever they want & serve whoever they want & not even have to explain themselves or their actions…Let the Free Markets decide…Isn’t that the Libertarian way?

  2. How is dress code protected?

  3. Can anybody find me an instance of a gay or lesbian person being fired from their job, that wasn’t a church, for being gay? Like, we’re all fighting over a what is largely a non-existent problem. I’m gay myself. It’s just useless culture war battles over absurdly rare anecdotes.

    1. Yes. The article you’re commenting on has citations for three such cases that were just granted cert by the SCOTUS, for example.

    2. Can anybody find me an instance of a gay or lesbian person being fired from their job, that wasn’t a church, for being gay?

      Yes(?). Straight from Reason’s favorite Presidential candidate’s back yard.

      I think the CRA will become untenable one way or the other, the question is just how hard will the government and the LGBT community try to get their equality/pro-victim/pro-minority state on before they give up.

      1. If this argument succeeds, you can’t be fired for being straight either. So take the ice pack off your rectum.

        1. If this argument succeeds, you can’t be fired for being straight either. So take the ice pack off your rectum.

          I didn’t express a preference one way or the other, I just stated the facts. The underlying point being that once a personal preference is given equal protection as facts, the concept of special protections becomes moot and the ability to enforce equality one way or the other goes out the window.

          Also, you grossly underestimate my and others’ ability to get fired for being straight.

          1. A personal preference like religion?

            1. Yes Tony. And that is enshrined in the constitition. If you want to ammend the constitution to say “freedom to ass fuck” have at it. But until then, it is not a protected class.

              1. Freedom from religious discrimination in the private workplace is nowhere to be found in the constitution, you irreparable moron.

                But at least we agree that “choice” is a totally irrelevant characteristic in this discussion.

                1. Trying to reason with a right-wing slack-jaw? I admire the optimism, but it’s much like yelling at a lamp.

                  Except that some new-fangled (“elite”) lamps respond usefully to verbal command, or to clapping, so . . .

                2. Actually, you have it totally backwards: It is RELIGIOUS FREEDOM TO DISCRIMINATE that is found as a right in the Constitution!…So-called, “Freedom from” crap is not found anywhere in the Constitution

            2. A personal preference like religion?

              Let’s say I say ‘yes’. You point out that religion is covered under the CRA and that, ergo, religious preference is placed ahead of some facts and the CRA is untenable. In which case, see where I wrote ‘the CRA will become untenable’.

              Now, let’s say I say ‘no’ and make a compelling argument as to how religion, as defined by the CRA, is somehow different from the other qualities defined in the CRA. In which case, see where I wrote ‘the CRA will become untenable’.

              The only way the CRA remains “tenable” is a catch-22 where almost literally any batshit craziness fits into it and any worker can effectively sue any employer for being for or against all kinds of conduct that have nothing to do with productive work.

              1. I somehow doubt the straw that breaks the camel’s back will be letting the gays in on antidiscrimination protections. The law has survived this long and civilization remains intact.

                1. I somehow doubt the straw that breaks the camel’s back will be letting the gays in on antidiscrimination protections. The law has survived this long and civilization remains intact.

                  I didn’t say gays. I said gays and trannies.

                  If the law remains in tact it will be because large swaths of the population continue to broadly disregard it. The same way Chicago schools are now more segregated than they ever were before Brown.

                  Then the question becomes, “How much more broadly can you perpetuate the fraud of ‘protection’?” When Donald Trump is making inroads with minorities by asking what the practices of backing Democrats and statists has gotten them, you’ve gotta know the veil is wearing thin.

                  If the law says that Memories Pizza can’t discriminate in hiring but is still free to refuse to cater gay weddings, you’re efforts are going to seem pretty wasted.

          2. You make a great point. The other thing is that our privacy goes straight out the window. If gays are covered under the CRA, then your employer has the right to require you to answer questions about your sex life so they can know who the queers are to ensure they don’t discriminate against them.

            1. Gay people keep it a secret so that people won’t discriminate against them. It’s historically been a rather huge part of our lives. But thanks for your concern.

              1. I am not concerned at all about gays’ privacy. I am concerned about everyone else having to give up their privacy.

                Also, what makes one gay? One time having sex with the other sex? Wanting to have sex with the other sex? It is a totally arbitrary term.

                1. Also, what makes one gay? One time having sex with the other sex? Wanting to have sex with the other sex? It is a totally arbitrary term.

                  See my point below. My wife is a cis het female who identifies as a man, we are a gay couple and need greater protection under the law. Prove us wrong.

                  1. I can’t. That is the irony of this. If gays and trannies are covered, it will so sharpen the absurdities of the CRA it will likely cause the entire system to collapse of its own weight.

                  2. “My wife is a cis het female who identifies as a man, we are a gay couple”

                    We have a winner

                2. Being sexually attracted to the same sex. In pretty much exactly the way heterosexuals are sexually attracted to the opposite sex. Glad to clear that up. It is after all the year 1500 and these things remain a mystery to most of us.

                  1. Being sexually attracted to the same sex.

                    Sex and gender are distinct and interchangeable. So when you say ‘attracted to the same sex’, you mean homosexuals are attracted to people of the opposite gender.

                    Sex and gender will be interchangeable so reverting back to the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman will be totally acceptable because men and women are interchangeable. The words and even a good portion of the actual facts they entail are just an officious formality. The cake decorator caters a wedding between a cis het male and a cis het female and as long as it’s a gay affair and/or one or both partners identifies as trans, no one can say the baker is anti-gay even if they outright and explicitly refuse to cater any cis homo weddings.

                  2. Don’t worry Tony, science has advanced to the point that soon there will be a cure for your deviancy. I imagine it will be some sort of high tech rifle of the sort Reed arichards would invent to change the Hulk back to normal. Maybe it will be called the defagifier ray. Which would be them to change you back and cure you.

                    1. Although a deprogifier ray will probably be a separate invention.

              2. Now I keep it secret because progressives and liberals are fucking obnoxious as soon as they find out I’m gay and treat me completely differently, as opposed to the right-wing supposed homophobes who treat me exactly the same as before they find out I’m gay.

                1. You should be able to keep it secret for whatever reason you like. But the day “gay” becomes a protected class, you will no longer be able to do that. That sounds like a hell of a lot more important issue than a bunch of assholes being able to sue cake shops.

                  1. For such a homophobe you sure do clutch a lot of pearls.

                    But I’ll bite, because I’m bored. Why would including sexual orientation in antidiscrimination law force people out of the closet? Or force employers to ask the question (as you asserted above)?

                    Or are you just talking out of your asshole as usual?

                    1. Look up “disparate impact” Tony. An employer cannot enact facially neutral rules that disparately impact a protected group. So, the number one rule in employment law is the employer needs to know exactly what ethnic group everyone claims to be in so that they can ensure none of their policies have a disparate impact. So the day gays get covered is the day the employment lawyers tell their clients to find out who among their employees are gay.

                    2. Um, employers are legally barred from asking about some of the traits that qualify under antidiscrimination law (like religion), and while they may ask about race, they are certainly not required to, and would be better off not doing so lest they open themselves up to discrimination liability if there is no legitimate use for the question. They can also ask about age but aren’t permitted to discriminate based on that information.

                      What drugs do you take before you come here?

                    3. They are not legally barred from asking if you are gay. And yes, religion is protected but there has never been a disparate impact suit brought under the CRA for religious discrimination.

                    4. John: I seem to remember a few lawsuits for alleged religious discrimination in the workplace. One was about requiring Jews or 7th Day Adventists to work on Saturday, in a shop that closed on Sunday. Another concerned employees of a church-owned business; employees working in the church itself may be required to be members of the church*, but how far does that exemption from religious discrimination laws extend.

                      *I just thought of a hypothetical case that reverses this logic. Some synagogues or Jewish communities may employ a “Sabbat Goy” – a Gentile to do the work Jews are forbidden to do during the Sabbath, such as shoveling snow so the congregation can walk to the synagogue, or lighting a fire to heat the building. (Among the stricter forms of Judaism, even turning a light switch is forbidden as the spark inside the switch is “lighting a fire”. You turn on the lights you need before sunset Friday, and leave them on for 24 hours. I’m not sure how a thermostat automatically lighting a furnace counts, but unless the cold became life-threatening, an observant Jew could not deal with a problem with the furnace until the Sabbath ended.) The reasoning is that hiring someone to sin for you is forbidden, but it’s not a sin when a _Gentile_ does these things on Friday night or Saturday. So, suppose a less observant Jew applied for the Sabbat Goy job?

            2. You’ve been making this claim for years now. It still isn’t true in the states that have non-discrimination laws that include gay people.

              1. That is because the states are not the feds and don’t have the disparate impact test. Duke power involved federal civil rights laws not state ones. The state laws don’t have disparate impact.

                1. For every non-John in the audience, this is a cute little sophistry.

                  Strictly speaking, John is accurate. There will be non Title VII claims of disparate impact in state courts. Because it is a federal law. So he is, strictly speaking, accurate.

                  But the same legal theory applies just as well under similar state laws, and you can argue disparate impact thusly.

                  So no. Your stated fears have not come to pass and will not come to pass. And I sincerely doubt your stated fears are real fears.

                  1. “Strictly speaking, John is accurate.”

                    But of course that isn’t where you shut the fuck up is it?

    3. In two of the cases the Supreme Court is considering, the employee *claims* anti-gay discrimination, though that issue hasn’t been decided yet because the courts are still on the preliminary issue of whether anti-gay discrimination is illegal or not.

      *If* anti-gay discrimination is proclaimed illegal, then the plaintiffs will have to show that anti-gay discrimination happened in their particular situations.

    4. But, if the Equality Act becomes law, that will summon the end of Christianity & Freedom of Religion, Conscience, Speech & Association in America as we know it. We will end up like Canada where Christians have lost many Natural rights! Any Christian group who views LGBT behavior as a severe transgression of Divine Law would be in trouble!

      “Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.”
      -Barry Goldwater, 1964

  4. So, for 20 yrs. Mrs. Casual and I have been a cis het couple. With the proposed LGBT protections, we will finally be able to identify as both a cis het couple and a trans gay couple simultaneously. We believe that both of our marriages should be recognized under the law simultaneously and that anything other than full recognition of our dual marriages will be a violation of our human rights and equality under the law.

    1. Wouldn’t only one of you be trans for the gay marriage though?

      You might be short changing yourself though, you could have as many as 4 simultaneous marriages under this arrangement

      1. You might be short changing yourself though, you could have as many as 4 simultaneous marriages under this arrangement

        You’re assuming that if we dig deep enough, we hit a bedrock of logic and not just a literal and figurative collection of arbitrary fuck ups.

  5. Oh, sure, protect the gays and the transgendered and those who identify as gay and differently-gendered but Vlasic fires me for sticking my dick in the pickle slicer just the one time and all you hear are crickets.

    1. And she got fired too!

      1. That joke must be eligible for Social Security by now.

    2. WTF? Why would you do something so stupid? This sounds like a “here, hold my beer” moment.

  6. IIRC, the legislative history is pretty clear that Congress intended “sex” in the Civil Rights Act not to include sexual orientation. If so, then it should be up to Congress to pass a law that includes sexual orientation (or not).

    1. Well if the interpretation is that it protects you from being fired for not exhibiting stereotypical dress/behavior, then all they have to do is define gender identity and sexual orientation as stereotypical behaviors, IE a genetic male is stereotyped as identifying as a male and being attracted to women, and there you go

      1. … if they can get the votes to pass it, of course.

        1. Do you figure there are enough right-wing bigots left in America to prevent enactment, or have enough of the superstitious slack-jaws died — and been replaced by better, younger Americans — to power American progress on this issue?

  7. Shoehorning it into sex discrimination is such an elegant way to cover everyone on the gay-trans spectrum, but then again Justice “I Like Beer” is no Anthony Kennedy and part of a long jurisprudential tradition of “Gays are icky because Jesus,” so I don’t expect much.

    1. I’d sure like to see a citation of Kavanaugh saying or even implying such things. I’m willing to be enlightened honestly.

      1. Cardboard cutout conservative Catholic whose mission in life is to force women to give birth against their will. It’s why he has the job he does.

        1. So you don’t have any references him to disparaging gays or calling them ‘icky’?

          1. He has no record on gay rights rulings, which is what makes this interesting. I’d love to be pleasantly surprised should Kavanaugh be as or more willing to rule in favor of gay equality than Kennedy, whose perhaps most significant legacy is gay rights, was.

            1. But you’re not talking about equality, you’re talking about people being given special rights/protections based on their categorization within specific identity classes.

            2. Thought experiments:
              A) Adam is a straight man who is highly productive at work and well respected. His employer is a man named Brett, who is also well respected and successful. Unfortunately, Brett’s wife is a tart who seduces Adam into having an affair. Brett learns of it, and fires Adam. Does Adam have a legitimate CRA violation claim?
              B) Instead of Brett’s wife, Adam sleeps with Brett’s 19 year old daughter. Brett fires Adam. Were Adam’s civil rights violated?

              In both situations, Adam can argue that he was fired for being a heterosexual male engaging in behavior outside of work. Does the relationship between Brett and Adam’s lover have any bearing? How far does it go? Does it, say, extend to Brett’s neighbors or high school sweethearts?

              1. C) Adam is gay. He sleeps with Brett’s son, and then is fired. Does Adam have a more, less, or equally legitimate claim of civil rights violation in this instance? What if it’s not Brett’s son, but his neighbor?
                What’s the legal difference between Adam’s firing and the relationship of Adam’s Male or female partner to Brett?

                D) Adam is a biological female who identifies as a homosexual male. Adam proceeds to have sex with one of the above. Does that change anything? Would it matter if Adam concealed or was open about its sexual identity?

                1. E) Adam finds out he’s gay later in life, after he’s established in his job. Adam also discovers he likes some weird stuff, and starts regularly attending orgies. It doesn’t affect his work, except word gets around to people Brett’s company does business with. Many business partners/clients are freaked out by Adam’s orgy lifestyle. Continuing to employ Adam will put Brett out of business, so he reluctantly fires him. Does Adam have a legit CRA claim?

                  1. You can be fired for behavior.

                    Just not how you were born. Or what religion you choose to follow.

                    Except in certain specific cases.

        2. He’s a rapist?

          Oh, you meant he wanted the women to stop KILLING their unborn children.

          Why didn’t you just say that?

          1. If you think abortion is equivalent to child murder then you must believe that women and doctors who participate in the activity should get exactly the same punishment as first-degree child murderers do in their jurisdiction.

            No way around it.

            1. “you must believe that women and doctors who participate in the activity should get exactly the same punishment as first-degree child murderers do in their jurisdiction”

              You assume that I believe the State should have anything to do with what we call “justice”.

              That you cannot conceive of existence without the State is quite telling.

              Did they murder? Yes. Can someone prove it? Probably not. If they can, to a jury, then the punishment should be up to full repayment …to the nearest next of kin (obviously, if the next of kin is the murderer, it would be the next nearest). Let’s assume that’s a grandparent, or spouse. Now, would you kill your spouse for killing your child? Would you kill your child for killing your grandchild?

              Probably not. But justice is repayment, to the victim (or next of kin) of what has been taken. Mercy is withholding punishment, either entirely or in part.

              1. If it’s murder then I can hardly think of more clear-cut evidence of being on an operating table and having it performed with witnesses.

                Regardless of how you think the state should punish child murder, if this is child murder it should be punished the same as however you think actual child murder should be punished. That generally means either life in prison or the death penalty for abortions.

                Every moment you spend weaseling out of this utterly necessary logical conclusion is evidence that you really don’t think it’s equivalent to child murder.

                1. “If it’s murder then I can hardly think of more clear-cut evidence of being on an operating table and having it performed with witnesses.”

                  It probably wouldn’t be done that way if it were recognized as murder.

                  “Regardless of how you think the state should punish child murder…”

                  It shouldn’t. The State should do nothing.

                  “That generally means either life in prison or the death penalty for abortions.”

                  Read my comment again, you obviously don’t understand it.

                  “Every moment you spend weaseling out of this…”

                  Being very specific is NOT “weaseling”. It’s being accurate.

                  The difference between abortion and killing a 5 year old is simple, there’s a tiny (tiny) chance that the 5 year old is a murderer and deserved it. The unborn hasn’t done anything to anyone yet!

                  1. I must admit to being fascinated by a draconian approach to abortion combined with not believing murder should be discouraged by law.

                    1. “draconian”

                      Definition: excessively harsh and severe.

                      Someone takes a life that isn’t theirs. My “approach” allows a next of kin to charge them with a crime, prove it, and once proven, is allowed to give the (now proven murderer) up to PRECISELY what the murderer gave another. And you call that “draconian”? No, that’s justice, it’s zeroing out the account by paying back what was taken. Hanging someone for stealing bread, now THAT’S draconian, as the most they would owe the baker would be bread (plus, perhaps, interest).

                      “not believing murder should be discouraged by law”

                      Not quite. Murder shouldn’t be discouraged by legislation (the commands of the State), not law. There is private law.

                    2. The next of kin is the murderer in every single case.

                    3. “The next of kin is the murderer in every single case.”

                      Once again, you have reading comprehension problems. If the next of kin IS the murderer, then it would be up to the next closest, who would be the other parent, or grandparent.

                      Are you failing at reading comprehension or are you being willfully obstinate?

            2. Tony, it isn’t ‘equivalent’ to child murder. It IS child murder. You’re killing a child. I know you think that’s just awesome, but non sociopaths aren’t on board with it.

              Better to euthanize a million progtard to prevent one innocent infant from being murdered.

        3. Yeah, Mr. Brett “Roe is settled law” Kavanaugh sure seems to have it out for abortion, but you could have said the exact same thing about Kennedy when he was appointed (right down to the Catholic part)

          1. Why do you think it’s always conservative appointees who tend to go wobbly and not the other way around?

            Could it be that conservative legal thought happens in specifically designed bubbles, and the Supreme Court does not (yet) reside in that bubble?

            1. Could it be that so-called liberals are more shut off to other points of view and more likely to be closed-minded ideologues?

              1. While also being more persuasive, you must add.

                1. The first rule of winning an argument is to be right. The second rule is to recognize that you could be wrong. The second rule allows one to drop incorrect beliefs so one can achieve the first rule.

                  You have done neither. You’ll remain wrong because you can’t conceive that you might not be right.

                  1. I try not to form opinions on things I might be wrong about, and despite appearances I don’t believe in having strong opinions in general.

                    I have, after all, defended both sides of the argument being discussed in this article.

                    1. “I try not to form opinions on things I might be wrong about”

                      You fail, a lot.

                      “I don’t believe in having strong opinions in general.”

                      You just called justice “draconian”. You NEVER yield to reason. You simply stop responding when either you get bored or you get “pinned” in the argument.

                      When was the last time you changed your mind about a belief?

                    2. Believe it or not, spending time here has made me more of a capitalist than I used to be.

                      The problem with your silly little dogma, however often it may do the stopped clock thing, is that silly little dogmas by definition discourage considering evidence and changing minds.

                    3. “silly little dogmas”

                      Appeal to ridicule. If you want to learn something, look at the Wikipedia list of fallacies and stop doing them.

                      Also, that’s “begging the question”.

                      You’d never believe it, Tony, but I used to be a conservative. Now I understand that “don’t covet/steal/murder” apply under ALL circumstances.

                    4. I don’t think there should be a law against coveting. Am I more libertarian?

                    5. “I don’t think there should be a law against coveting.”

                      Correct, there shouldn’t be. There can be something that is wrong (coveting) that shouldn’t be against “the law” (private law) and shouldn’t be punished by humans. That’s important to remember.

                      That being said, stealing never happens unless coveting starts it.

                      Why should stealing be against “the law” but not coveting? There’s a victim (other than the perpetrator!) when something is stolen.

                      So, while it’s immoral to covet and steal, what humans are supposed to do is ensure people repay what they have taken, which is called justice.

          2. Kagen said in so many words during her confirmation hearing there was no Constitutional right to gay marriage. How did that work out? They all lie and then do whatever the hell they want once on the court.

    2. That’s Justice ‘Cerevisaphile’ you hate-mongering bigot.

  8. I’m trying to understand how “trans” can possibly fit in here.

    I’m allowed to enforce a dress code at work for my employees and that code indeed can be sex specific.

    If you want to cos-play on the weekends and on your own time I can see how that might be protected (given that employees have protections) and so I can’t fire you if I run into you at the cabaret.

    But something makes me suspect that what’s really going on here is they want to force the employer to violate the dress code by claiming to be trans man or women.

    In which case this would really be an argument that no employer can dictate anything about your appearance. Why make it about trans only? I want to wear tattoos on my face as an usher at the opera. I want to dress like a hooker when addressing the court as an attorney. Courts have strict dress codes for the attorneys who appear in court and judges will sometimes throw you out for not conforming. I wonder if this violates the CRA?

    1. It doesn’t fit here at all. It is absurd. Even if you want to say that it is possible the language means that, the legislative history and subsequent acts of Congress make it clear the phrase was never intended to cover gays and trannies. This is just pure lawlessness.

      I will be shocked if the Supreme Court goes along with this. This is absurd.

    2. First you have to accept that transgenderism is real and not an attempt to fool or annoy you.

      The argument follows pretty logically from there.

      1. Transgenderism is an absurd fantasy. It is however pretty amusing to whatch you embrace the idea that our souls and identities are completely seperate and in no way dependent upon our bodies. Tony, you have become a duelist and by implication a theist. You are just too stupid to know it. And the fact that you are too stupid to know it makes your being so even funnier.

        1. It’s just that I’ve met quite a few transgender people, and I don’t think they’re doing it for attention or to make you angry.

          Have you ever considered not being made into a sputtering old fool by the private lives of people you will never meet?

          1. It’s just that I’ve met quite a few transgender people, and I don’t think they’re doing it for attention or to make you angry.

            They are doing it because they suffer from a fairly severe mental illness. They can’t help it. But it is still a mental illness.

            Have you ever considered not being made into a sputtering old fool by the private lives of people you will never meet?

            No one is under any obligation to lie to make you feel better Tony. The truth is what it is. Sorry, but even I am not such a radical duelest as to believe that a male soul could be trapped in a female body, and that is what you believe. You are just too stupid to understand it.

            1. A “male soul”? Lol. Keep up the good work, John.

              1. Yes Tony. What is “gender” than some entity totally disassociated from the body? They call that a soul. You are now a theist and believe in souls and duelims. You are just too stupid to know it. AS I said, the fact that you are too stupid to know it makes it even funnier. Normally your stupidity and ignorance are just sad and annoying. In this case it is funny.

                1. Look, among the very last things I can imagine wanting out of life is to chop off my dick. But some people apparently are so heavily invested in the idea that their body and gender identity are mismatched that they go to such lengths. The question is why your own small-minded idiocy should dictate the lives of other people and why you can’t just leave them in peace. God knows what you get up to in private life.

                  And He does know.

                  1. I don’t care what they do Tony. They can do anything they like. But what they can’t do is compel me to call them something they are not or make it illegal for me or anyone else to judge their behavior and act accordingly.

                    1. The only thing that compels you to use people’s preferred forms of address is manners.

                      You won’t go to prison for having bad manners. You just won’t have any friends.

      2. I do believe it and still don’t think you can force me to change my workplace dress code over that.

        If you are a cheerleader for my NFL team you have to wear certain clothes for work. You can’t just say “i’m a man and I’m going to do some high kicks in overalls.” Cheerleaders have a job and they have to dress a certain way for that job. Whether they are a man or woman on the inside really doens’t matter.

        1. >>>Cheerleaders have a job and they have to dress a certain way for that job.

          i love them so much for that.

      3. First you have to accept that transgenderism is real and not an attempt to fool or annoy you.

        The argument follows pretty logically from there.

        This sounds like you’re suggesting trans and gays lesser people who are incapable of behaving perversely out of spite.

        1. On the contrary, I’ve run across one of those fabled trans people who tried to trick my straight friend into believing she was a natural born female. That was pretty fucked up. But guess what? Straight guy wasn’t offended. She was so pretty he started questioning whether his mind was too closed to the idea.

          1. On the contrary, I’ve run across one of those fabled trans people who tried to trick my straight friend into believing she was a natural born female.

            No you haven’t. I won’t believe it without a signed affidavit. Find me a court of law that will certify this person was a gay male and a straight woman at the same time, and I still won’t believe your story because any court that would recognize a gay male to straight female conversion in such a manner is assuming that your male friend wasn’t a lesbian to begin with.

            So, either produce the affidavit, admit your friend was really a lesbian, or admit you’re a bigot and a fraud.

            1. We were at a gay club, he was definitely a straight male, and she was definitely a lying tranny trying to get in his pants. But since not all of us are paranoid little bitches like John, it serves merely as an amusing anecdote.

              1. We were at a gay club, he was definitely a straight male, and she was definitely a lying tranny trying to get in his pants. But since not all of us are paranoid little bitches like John, it serves merely as an amusing anecdote.

                Sounds like a straight up case of cis privilege to me you lying bigot.

                1. You can recognize your privilege and still enjoy it. I sure do. Being a white cis male with a big beautiful cock doesn’t bother me one bit. And don’t tell anyone, but not having to deal with bitches is actually a bonus.

                  1. You lost that one Tony, it’s why you went to the grade school lie about your dick. It’s like you think everyone can’t see how pathetic you are.

                    1. Oh yay Tulpa’s here, said nobody ever.

          2. “I’ve run across one of those fabled trans people who tried to trick my straight friend into believing she was a natural born female. That was pretty fucked up. But guess what? Straight guy wasn’t offended. She was so pretty he started questioning whether his mind was too closed to the idea.”

            Okay, I’m just gonna be a dick and put this out there:
            The above scenario is fraud, and should be legally actionable.
            I am not at all comfortable with the combined pace of science, trans perspectives, and personal integrity.

            1. *if the tranny (post op) successfully fooled the person into sex, it would be fraud and should be legally actionable upon discovery.

              In Revenge of the Nerds, the main nerd wears a disguise so he can eat out the cheerleader, as she thinks he’s the jock boyfriend rather than the nerd.
              How is that not rape?

              (Of note: it was successful rape; the cheerleader left the jock for the nerd… that is besides the point, except to note that the victim of fraud/rape will ultimately make the decision how to interpret the act)

      4. Question: how can homosexuality and transgenders (and feminism, but that’s besides the point) be equally “real” and logically consistent?
        Is homosexuality innate preference or developed preference? That is, is homosexuality an immutable biological/genetic trait or conscious decision/idea?
        Is being transgender innate or adopted – an immutable biological/genetic trait or conscious decision/idea?

        Answers to each question have significant, perhaps determinative, implications for the “realness” of others.

    3. I’m trying to understand how “trans” can possibly fit in here.

      IMO, the greater issue is that the inclusion of orientation *and* gender identity broadens the protection beyond just the individual. Absent gender, you can’t know orientation and vice versa and to definitively either one requires explicit knowledge of sexual partnership. Otherwise, celibate people, including both evil incels and abstinent women, will be awarded/denied ‘rights’ unequally.

  9. What is dispositive for me is that states had to pass laws specifically prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination to prohibit this type of discrimination.

    the Supreme Court should reverse these judgments.

    1. What is dispositive is the fact that homosexuality was illegal in every state when the CRA was passed. If it was supposed to cover gays, why didn’t anyone mention the fact that it was illegal to be so or wonder how it was that a law could make those who practice an illegal activity a protected class.

      1. We can expect your full-throated support for legislation protecting sexual orientation and gender identity should this argument fail, I suppose.

        Do you throw sticks at passing children? You’re just like needlessly unpleasant all the time.

        1. The law says what it says Tony. If you don’t like it, go change it. But you are not allowed to destroy the rule of law because you are too stupid and craven to know better.

          1. Both arguments have merit. That’s why we should stop pretending that supreme court justices are only calling balls and strikes, and ones who claim to be doing so are lying liars. They get to decide whether gays are protected from discrimination the same as everyone else with the stroke of a pen. The only thing that offends me is that you would tag your personal preference for the outcome–which comes almost totally from a place of stupidity and bigotry–with the imprimatur of legal inevitability, not to mention the will of the omnipotent creator of the cosmos.

            1. Tony, the law should mean what it says. The fact that you don’t think it should and should just be determined by power just means you have no regard for the rule of law or any principle beyond your crude wants. We already knew that.

              And no one does more to further hatred of gays than you. You are the most dislikable repulsive person on earth. And that has nothing to do with what you like up your ass. But sadly, since your entire identity seems to revolve around that, it tends to give a bad impression about all gay people.

              1. I don’t know why I’m explaining this to a supposed lawyer, but the whole point of this exercise is to determine what the law says. Is discriminating against someone for being gay or trans logically equivalent to discriminating against them for their sex? It’s a fair argument. It’s also a fair argument to say that the CRA shouldn’t be reinterpreted to include something it never intended to include. I would come down on the former because it’s elegant and gets the job done. But I would also probably lie to Congress in my confirmation hearing and claim that I wasn’t an activist judge. They all have to do that.

                “You made me hate gays!” is yet another stellar John argument. Never change.

                1. No its not Tony. Discriminating against you because you are gay is not discriminating against you because of who you sleep with. One has nothing to do with the other. Gays are a different class distinction than sex. It is really that simple. You only refuse to see it because you are craven moron who wants gays to get their pony.

                2. No its not Tony. Discriminating against you because you are MALE is not discriminating against you because of who you sleep with.

                  There fixed it.

                  1. Discriminating against a gay person for being gay is equivalent to discriminating against them for not behaving in a stereotypically male fashion (i.e., heterosexually). I like it. It gets the job done.

                    You don’t like it because you’re a stupid old bigot. That’s all.

                    1. No it is not the equivelent. You keep saying that but your belief doens’t make the words mean anything other than what they do.

                    2. The law will say whatever at least 5 justices say it does. I’m just saying I like the argument on pragmatic grounds.

            2. “Both arguments have merit”

              No, John’s does. Yours is trash.

          2. The law says what it says […] If you don’t like it, go change it. But you are not allowed to destroy the rule of law […]
            To be clear, what part of this doesn’t support sodomy laws?

            1. Sodomy laws implicate the right to privacy and other Constitutional rights in ways that not having discrimination laws do not. Sodomy laws throw people in jail for a consenual activity. Discrimination laws force people to do things they would not normally want to do. If you can’t see how that is different, there is no hope for you.

              1. I do see how they’re different, but what I don’t see, and what you failed to argue, is how they’re different under the originalist framework you prefer.

                When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was ratified, every state had sodomy laws. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, every state had sodomy laws. When the CRA was signed, every state had sodomy laws.

                Your “if you don’t like it, change it, but don’t use the courts to reinterpret it” argument works just as well against Lawrence v. Texas as it does against this.

                You can’t argue for original intent in a piecemeal fashion. You want your Lawrence v. Texas living constitution? Then you also get “sex stereotype discrimination is sex discrimination”.

                1. “I do see how they’re different”

                  And yet you didn’t shut the fuck up because you were wrong.

    2. And carrying a concealed weapon was outlawed in most, if not all, jurisdictions when the 2nd amendment was passed, yet now we consider that to be a right protected by the 2A

      1. Then that is a good argument for the 2nd Amendment not protecting the right to conceal and carry. I am fine with that. At the time of the founding carrying a concealed weapon was considered a sign that you meant to commit a crime. But, if you want to go down that route, that is going to be about the only thing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect.

        1. It also means the 2nd explicitly protects open carry, so I’m fine with it.

  10. During the gay marriage debate, it was pointed out by me and several others on this thread that once the court went down the path of gays having a right to marry, gays would become a protected class under the 14th Amendment and that eventually the court would have to put them under the protection of the CRA. For this reason those who argued for a constitutional right to gay marriage were also arguing for the CRA to cover gays whether they understood it or intended it or not.

    And the gay marriage advocates all said that was absurd and would never happen. Yeah, they were wrong. I would gloat about being right if it wasn’t for the fact that this happening was so fucking obvious only a delusional retard could not see it. So, there isn’t much for me to brag about. But there sure as hell is a lot of reason for the people who claimed gays had a right to state sponsored marriage of each other to feel stupid.

    1. If being protected under the 14th amendment means you must also be added to the CRA then the CRA covers everyone and everything and is effectively redundant. (not that I dispute this point of view)

      1. No. The 14th Amendment doesn’t protect every class. You have to understand that not all “discrimination” is outlawed by the 4th Amendment. The only thing outlawed by the 14th Amendment is discrimination based on a protected class, which is race, sex (though sex is a little different), religion, and national origen. The government can discriminate all it wants as long as it isn’t based on one of those classes and has a rational relationship to a legitimate government end.

        I can’t tell you the amount of ink I spilled trying to explain that during the gay marriage debate. It was just hopeless. The gay marriage advocates were just completely unable to grasp the concept of a protected class.

    2. And as was pointed out to you and others, we already have non-discrimination laws that cover gay people, we already had decades-old precedent that the CRA also protected against discrimination for not acting stereotypically male/female, and so-on.

      All the things you feared gay marriage would bring about are issues disconnected from gay marriage. You’re just pretending they are so you can try to justify your opposition.

  11. The SCOTUS, in a rare move, has already released Chief Justice Roberts’s response to this case.

    1. So you think the courts should just ignore the plain meaning and intent of statutes and give whatever ruling you happen to want. Not surprising but good to know.

      1. It was a joke. I was referencing the propensity of the court to rule extremely narrowly on divisive issues recently as basically “punting.” I wouldn’t be surprised if Roberts finds a way to punt on this one as well given his recent past.

        1. My apologies. We will see what he does. If Roberts punts on this or sides with the liberals it will just confirm my speculation that his opinion in Ogberfell was nothing but an act designed to try and win back the favor of conservatives while casting a meaningless vote.

          1. His motivating factor on most cases, in my opinion, is to save the historical reputation of his court. He’s not one that seems willing to support landmark decisions if he can find a way to avoid it.

            1. I think you are right about that. And he is a complete fool who will if we are not lucky end up destroying any respect for the court. He is never going to satisfy the liberals and in trying to do so and play both sides he will only succeed in discrediting the court with the middle and the right.

      2. And since I’m sick of you putting words into everyone’s mouths regarding their position on issues, let me clarify mine on this one.

        Any time that you give special government enforced protections to any class of people, every class that people can ever dream up will claim a need for those protections. I understand why the CRA was needed at the time it was passed, but it’s not longer needed and should be repealed. We would be better off without it and let public opinion against companies that discriminate unfairly control them through the free market. It’s a far preferred solution because it is (and will be) impossible to ever cover everyone’s idea of what class should be protected.

        Furthermore, the public telling a private business how it should be run with the threat of force is akin to taking that business away, and is not a valid application of government. Free people in a free market deciding to support businesses or not based on their own free will is much preferred to government intervention.

        1. This is a perfectly valid libertarian point of view. Closing the door to antidiscrimination law the moment gays start agitating for being included might be construed as a little mean-spirited, but you guys did the same thing with marriage. All of a sudden it was an illegitimate use of government, an argument that came totally out of nowhere and only coincidentally started getting play when the gays wanted in on it.

          1. Tony,

            Libertarians had always wanted to go to a contract based marriage system. Gays being able to get married and sue people had nothing to do with that. Stop lying.

            1. And would these be the same libertarians who believed that government was going to get out of marriage any time soon? Or that contracts don’t involve government? Because those would be the idiot libertarians.

              1. “Get the government out of marriage” was always a misnomer. The libertarians who said that did so because they didn’t fully grasp their own argument. No, the government is never getting out of marriage as long as courts are enforcing marriage contracts.

                1. And I should give a fuck less than most since I was just fine not being allowed to be married since I think the concept of marriage is for suckers. Give half my money to someone else? Yeah, that’ll happen in two thousand and fucking never.

                  Yet we wouldn’t want law to inherently treat gay people as second-class citizens while still requiring that they pay taxes.

                  1. Marriage is a civil institution that the government recognizes. Gays were always free to get married after the sodomy and cohabitation laws were struck down. They just couldn’t get government recognition of their marriages, which frankly was a good thing. I would love the government to decide tomorrow that my marriage is no longer valid. That means my wife and I would file as single people save a shit load of taxes. It also means if we ever got divorced she wouldn’t get a big chunk of my pension.

                    The irony of the entire libertarian obsession with gay marriage is that libertarians always rightly argued that government recognized marriages were a bad thing but then suddenly decided sticking gays with them was the most important thing ever.

                    1. I similarly would not be bothered if the concept of marriage were obliterated completely. It’s a very old-fashioned idea to my mind.

                      But it has to be either preserved or obliterated equally for straight and gay people, if we are to be a civilized, decent society.

                    2. Not really. You could just recognize that being gay isn’t the same as being straight. But you want your pony.

                    3. It’s not, it’s far superior. But we’ll accept legal equality nonetheless.

            1. And by all accounts he was sincere in his belief and was not personally a racist.

              Yet the Southern Strategy–racism made into politics for half a century–came out of the Goldwater phenomenon.

              When it comes to politics, I happen to care more about outcomes for real people than personal philosophies or what goes on in your heart.

            2. The CRA was a completley unnecessary action. Here is how you know why. Jim Crow was a set of laws that made it illegal to not discriminate on the basis of race. The people who ran the buses and the Woolworths and such that were the subject of sitins were actually victims of Jim Crow themselves in that they had to call the cops and had to throw blacks out of the whites only areas or they would have been arrested.

              So, ask yourself this question; if the CRA was so necessary because everyone was just dying to discriminate against blacks in public accomodation, why were Jim Crow laws necessary in the first place? All that needed to happen was the Supreme Court overturning Plessy and striking down the Jim Crow laws. Once that happened the market would have solved everything else. And if you don’t want to take my word, take the word of the people who wrote the Jim Crow laws because they clearly thought it would and to prevent it is why they passed the laws.

              1. Yeah, that makes sense. Ax Handle Saturday and similar examples of mob violence all happened, not because people were violently racist and demanded segregation, but because they were just overly-enthused with vigilante enforcement of the law.

                Makes total sense.

                1. Again, if there wasn’t a need to force people to segregate, why did htey have the laws? Jim Crow wasn’t passed until the 1890s, well after the end of reconstruction. The reason it was passed was because there was no way to keep the races segregated without the the law forcing it.

                  As far as vigilante mobs, that is a different issue but further proves my point. If segregation was going to happen naturally, there wouldn’t be any need for the mobs now would there?

                  So, yes it does make sense.

                2. Can you do me a favor and try to at least understand the conversation before commenting? It is clear you have no fucking idea what my point is or are just choosing to ignore it. Stop wasting my time with idiotic nonresponses.

                  1. I understand your “point” perfectly. You desperately want the CRA to have been unneeded because you don’t want to be called racist when you argue against it.

                    What I don’t see is why I should go along with you attempts at sophistry.

                    1. Because John’s right and you’re making a fool of yourself would be the answer.

                    2. EE for social engineering at gunpoint

                    3. I understand your “point” perfectly. You desperately want the CRA to have been unneeded because you don’t want to be called racist when you argue against it.

                      These two statements are *completely* untrue all the way around. I’ll be called a racist either way so I don’t “desperately need” it one way or the other to avoid being called racist. In fact, it’s easier to avoid being a racist with the CRA. All you have to do is pretend that fewer minorities both absolutely and proportionately are jailed or killed, fewer minority students both absolutely and proportionately are segregated, fewer minority students both absolutely and proportionately are more under served, and fewer minority families both absolutely and proportionately are more under served after the CRA was passed than before. Then, you not only avoid the perception of racism, you avoid caring about all the effort put forth under the banner of the CRA to effectively make things worse than when the CRA was passed.

                      Not understanding any of this, there’s no way you understood the point perfectly and believe what you said unless you’re really racist and want to maintain the status quo of keeping minorities down while giving empty promises of lifting them up.

                    4. @mad.casual
                      So are you John’s sock, or is John yours? ’cause your personal offense only makes sense if you’re one and the same.

                    5. So are you John’s sock, or is John yours? ’cause your personal offense only makes sense if you’re one and the same.

                      So are you a plain old despicable racist or a full-blown elitist, oppressive statist? When confronted with the fact that your position and understanding is inherently racist, you accuse your opposition of being sub-human so I’m leaning towards the former, but can’t rule out the latter.

  12. Even though I support non-discrimination as a matter of policy, I really hope that the Supreme Court considers this and decides that it is not in scope under current law. It will be far cleaner to force the Legislature to establish the rules explicitly than trying to infer standards from old laws which never considered such possibilities.

    This is Congress’s mess to fix. I hope the Supreme Court drops it squarely in their lap.

    1. In principle I agree. It’s clearly not in the scope of the original law and to read it into the law would be wrong. Putting this in the lap of Congress is going to put the Republicans in a bad situation politically. Be careful what you wish for.

      1. A good point. The Court, if it were so inclined, could bail the Republicans out once again by ruling in favor of the gays.

        I’m okay with this because it means more freedom faster for more people, but they are getting a free pass over and over by evading having to actually vote on such matters.

        1. It’s not freedom for the employers.

          1. Meh. Sometimes freedoms compete in a zero-sum way, and so we have to decide which freedoms are more important to preserve and which are actually toxic to civilized society. Libertarians make this calculation all the time, same as everyone else.

            1. freedom (frēˈdəm)►
              n.
              The condition of being free of restraints.
              n.
              Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
              n.
              Political independence.

              Having a “right” to not be fired from your job doesn’t fit any of these definitions. Being able to hire and fire people without any government restraint clearly is covered.

              But you’re not really talking about freedom. You’re talking about outcomes. You favor the outcomes of people over corporations.

              1. If the law decides you can’t be fired for certain reasons, you gain a freedom that didn’t exist prior to that law. Being unemployed is quite arguably a “restraint” on your life.

                You people exist to protect the freedom of employers and the rich at the expense of employees and the poor. It’s what you do. Just argue on the merits is all I ask.

                1. If the law decides you can’t be fired for certain reasons, you gain a freedom that didn’t exist prior to that law.

                  If only laws made us free we would be the freest people in the world. My experience is that laws almost always diminish freedom by placing restraints on someone. Some are justified (don’t kill people or take their stuff), most are not (the electorate knows best how you should run your life/business).

                  You haven’t explained how this supposed “freedom” fits within even the simplest dictionary definition of the word.

                  1. You just said it. Some laws are justified because they increase individual freedom (namely, the freedom not to be assaulted or killed).

                    The only difference between you and me is that my imagination is bigger. There’s no god-given right to run a business totally free of the constraints of law. You can’t poison your customers and you can’t have child slave labor and you can’t discriminate based on race or religion. It’s just civilization. The freedom to discriminate is not as worth preserving as the freedom from being discriminated against, arguably.

                    1. “You just said it. Some laws are justified because they increase individual freedom (namely, the freedom not to be assaulted or killed).”

                      That isn’t what he said, and no one is surprised you have to lie to make your point.

                    2. And no one’s surprised you tacitly admitted above to having a below-average penis.

                      Shall I go on about this for days and weeks on end or have you learned how to behave?

          2. It’s not freedom for the employers.

            It’s not freedom for anyone. Either the EEOC will bugger off entirely and employers will be free to discriminate or employees will be compelled to deadname, dox, or out their partners in order to prove their gay/transgender status so that their employers don’t run afoul of the EEOC. Closeted, asexual, and largely silent cis het/monogamous couples will be the least (dis)affected.

      2. I really don’t give a shit about the Republicans. That is not what the law means and it isn’t the court’s job to protect Republicans or anyone else from having to make hard decisions.

        Beyond that, I think y ou are wrong about that. How many people who are not alreay going to vote Democrat are going to do so because the Republicans don’t want to make gays the new class that can sue everyone? Damn few if any. The Republicans can just not do anything and I can’t see how they could pay any political price for it.

        1. It all depends on where the center of the country is. I really have no clue and would appreciate if there was a reliable poll. Certainly that would vary by region in terms of who is most impacted.

          My gut tells me that the country is shifting towards the side of the SJWs, but certainly the Trump election was a huge wildcard.

          1. Voting is about revealed preference not stated preference. I can support this all I want but unless I change my vote based on my opinion, my opinion doens’t mean jack.

          2. Trump is about as far from a social conservative as you can get!

  13. I bet Amazon has the algorithm in waiting that identifies which employees will be required, as part of their employment agreement, to identify as transgendered so that they can meet their transgender, gay, and gender pay disparity quotas to get and keep the EEOC off their back.

    It will all run real smooth until they wind up with 100% of their workforce that is, through independent historical record, verifiably transgendered. The we’ll have to pass the right to be forgotten and force Amazon and all other employers to purge their data stores of all information of their personnel.

  14. The CRA is as immoral as it gets.

  15. All the way back to 2005, huh?

  16. All I can say is that I’m glad to just be a run-of-the-mill employee. Looking at the minefield that awaits anyone who wants to hire an employee makes me wonder why anyone would even try it.

  17. Truly transgender individuals have a syndrome that deserves protection from discrimination but it’s ADA-related, not CRA.
    From Monty Python’s Life of Brian:
    Judith: Here! I’ve got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb – which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’ – but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
    Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother… sister, sorry.
    Reg: What’s the *point*?
    Francis: What?
    Reg: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can’t have babies?
    Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
    Reg: It’s symbolic of his struggle against reality.

    1. I hope to God a Justice cites Monty Python in their opposition to ‘granting’ the ‘protection’.

  18. When government institutionalized segregation (Jim Crow Laws) this government validation of discrimination led to more discrimination by private business and the rest of the public.

    Now government has swung too far in the other direction trying to repent for its previous egregious error by creating moral dictates on business.

    Government is wrong 100% of the time on this.

    Government should not be able to discriminate. That is all that is needed, the consumer will take care of the rest.

    1. Where else can a man get rich selling designer cock rings?

  19. Does the court define “transgender”?

  20. Maybe this should be an additional protection, but modifying the intent of a previous law via judicial fiat isn’t the right way to go about it.

    Please let lawmakers handle the lawmaking.

  21. I think it’s quite clear that Transgender people can be granted protections under sex-discrimination clauses that already exist in the Civil Rights Act. After all, a sex of “other” would be protected. Why would transgender people not be included?

    However, granting gays and lesbians protections under that same clause breaks the language. That means essentially rewriting the law into what we wish it to be rather than the black and white unambiguous statements. That’s a horrible precedent that the Supremes have already done before, and it needs to stop. The constitution now officially has invisible rights written between the lines of the text. If people cannot trust the law to mean what it clearly means, then how can they know what is allowed?

    1. I think it’s quite clear that Transgender people can be granted protections under sex-discrimination clauses that already exist in the Civil Rights Act. After all, a sex of “other” would be protected. Why would transgender people not be included?

      You must be new to the culture war. What you’re doing is a disgusting act known as ‘othering’. Forcing transgender people to identify as ‘other’ rather than their desired gender is a violation of their fundamental human rights. The local school system offered an individual bathroom to the transgendered High School student and that solution was an intolerable act of cruelty.

      I’m not saying I agree with it. I’m just saying that what you say is ‘quite clear’ isn’t at all clear and won’t resolve anything to the people bringing the suit. Maybe the idea is a “Fuck You That’s Why” added layer of complication without any special protections, but I think that’s pretty much the opposite of what both sides want.

  22. Uhhhh, we need to get rid of the laws related to race/sex discrimination… Not add more bullshit being covered to them. Freedom of association matters!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.