Supreme Court

Everybody Suddenly Realizes the Supreme Court Is About To Hear an Important LGBT Issue

It’s the Trump administration vs. civil rights groups on federal protections from workplace discrimination.

|

The Justice Department has submitted a brief to the Supreme Court arguing that federal civil rights laws do not protect workers against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

This is not a surprise. The Department of Justice has taken this stance since 2017, when it formally ended its Obama-era position that federal law does in fact prohibit such discrimination. But the department's amicus brief, submitted on Friday, has produced a burst of news coverage for the issue.

The Supreme Court agreed in April to take up a trio of cases about workplace discrimination against gay and transgender employees. This flew under a lot of people's radar at the time, thanks perhaps to the complicated nature of the arguments. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of "sex." At the time of the law's passage, this was understood to mean discrimination on the basis of whether a person was a man or a woman. A subsequent Supreme Court ruling, 1989's Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, held that the law prohibited discrimination on the basis of whether a person stereotypically looks or behaves a certain sex—in that case, a woman who was seen as not "feminine" enough.

In the years following that precedent, we've seen further legal analysis of what it means to discriminate on the basis of sex "stereotypes," and that has led to some conflicts of opinion on the federal level. Some courts have held that discriminating against a person for being transgender is the same as discriminating on the basis of stereotypes of how men and women are supposed to look and dress. Under President Barack Obama, the Justice Department agreed with this interpretation, leading to a guidance from his administration that public schools could not force transgender students to use the facilities that matched their birth sex.

Under President Donald Trump, this Justice Department quickly reversed this position, determining that the Civil Rights Act's definition of "sex" did not include sexual orientation or gender identity. Meanwhile, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission still supports the Obama administration's reading. The nation's top court has resisted weighing in until this year, leaving conflicting rulings and positions in place.

The Department of Justice's argument is pretty easy to summarize: Sexual orientation and gender identity is not included in the Civil Rights Act; Congress has the power to add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal laws and has done so in the past; Congress has not added sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act despite political pushes to do so; therefore, these characteristics are not protected under federal law.

There's been some misleading coverage of what's happening here. One Buzzfeed headline—"The Trump Administration Asked The Supreme Court To Legalize Firing Workers Simply Being Gay"—is particularly egregious. The Justice Department is not asking the Supreme Court for permission to fire people for being gay. It's arguing that the current federal law doesn't protect against anti-LGBT discrimination and that these firing decisions are already currently legal.

The article also suggests that a ruling in the Justice Department's favor would affect both federal and state-level discrimination laws against sex-based discrimination. This is simply not accurate. Many states have their own statutory or constitutional bans on gay and/or transgender discrimination. This ruling would not affect those. It only addresses the federal Civil Rights Act. Now, this could certainly have an impact in states that do not have their own antidiscrimination rules. The three lawsuits central to this case are from states that don't, on their own, protect against anti-LGBT workplace discrimination. But even if the Supreme Court sides with the Justice Department's interpretation, it won't affect LGBT workers in the 21 states that already prohibit this discrimination.

The case is fundamentally not about whether it should be legal to fire people for being gay or transgender; it's about how far a law's meaning can be stretched before it no longer represents what those who passed it intended. It's very clear that Congress did not intend to include gay and transgender people at the time. This was five years before the Stonewall Riots, at a time when the federal government was purging gay employees and when most politicians believed that gays were mentally ill sexual predators.

Furthermore, as the Justice Department notes in its brief, lawmakers have been trying for years—all the way back to 1974—to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act. Congress started getting closer in 2013, when the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) made it through the Senate and died in the House. But then that morphed into a new bill called the Equality Act, which includes ENDA but also dramatically increases the definition of "public accommodation" in its regulations against customer discrimination to include just about every single consumer business.

That means the federal government would be able to take action against just about any business in the country accused of discrimination against customers, not just certain types of venues, such as hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and clubs. The expansion of ENDA into the Equality Act probably makes it radioactive for any number of conservatives who might have otherwise have come to support ENDA. (A cynic might wonder if that is the point.)

Some of the same folks who support the Equality Act also want the Supreme Court to find that the Civil Rights Act already protects against LGBT discrimination. The American Civil Liberties Union is assisting the plaintiff in one of the cases that the Court is considering, while at the same time lobbying for the passage of the Equality Act.

It's easy to understand the political logic here—you want to cover all your bases and not just pin your hopes on one path or the other. But it's still contradictory. If an ALCU lawyer is arguing before the court, you should expect a justice to ask why the organization is arguing that the Civil Rights Act already protects against anti-LGBT discrimination while at the same time lobbying for reforms to the law so that it will protect against anti-LGBT discrimination.

Given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I predict a ruling that sides with the Justice Department. Again, a cynic might wonder if that's partly the point. An adverse ruling here could serve as a helpful election-year rallying point, with the Democratic base coming out to push for a Democratic president and Senate able to pass the Equality Act and change the balance of the Court.

I've said my own piece about the Equality Act: I think the cultural shift toward LGBT acceptance makes additional federal regulations unnecessary, because while discrimination still exists, it's not as widespread or as oppressive as it once was.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on October 8.

NEXT: Did Trump's 2016 Rallies Trigger a 226% Increase in Local Hate Crimes? Not Exactly.

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. …it’s about how far a law’s meaning can be stretched before it no longer represents what those who passed it intended.

    The plain text of Title VII is pretty unambiguous on the subject. And I quote: “A well regulated penis, being necessary to the aim of a free standing urinater, the right of the people to keep and bear employment, shall not be infringed.”

    1. But you can’t just whip it out in a penis-free school zone.

    2. Just in,
      NYC passes law that you have to keep your penis at home, disabled and locked up and can only be used for urination inside of your home but only after being issue a permit from the department of health.

    3. Employment is not an individual right, it’s a collective right of people with a penis, no one else

    4. Black penises, penises with the part that goes up, and any penises capable of firing multiple times from a single trigger pull, otherwise known as assault penises, cannot be owned by anyone, anywhere, at any time.

      1. Waydaminutt. What about high capacity… never mind.

      2. Assault Penises would be a good name for a pornogrind band.

  2. Get rid of forced association.

    1. Yes, and bring back property rights.

  3. An adverse ruling here could serve as a helpful election-year rallying point, with the Democratic base coming out to push for a Democratic president and Senate able to pass the Equality Act and change the balance of the Court.

    The Democrats are not going to win the Senate and White House no matter how hard you want it Shackford.

    1. And a win by the administration on this case would certainly make it MORE likely that Trump would win re-election, not less so.

      1. Yup. You would think people like Shackford would learn from 2016 but clearly they haven’t. At this point, they just don’t want to understand reality and prefer to live in their bubble.

      2. I’m not sure I follow the logic of how this ruling helps Trump’s election. Of course I don’t think it will help the Dems much either. Both bases seem to be pretty entrenched on this issue, and anyone that would turn out because of this issue was probably highly motivated to vote in this election AND in 2016.

        The election will almost certainly swing with the economy, not some social issue.

        1. Trump supporters have demonstrated putting social issues above their economic interests.

      3. Most people aren’t homophobes anymore. And most people never ever wanted and won’t ever want Trump for president.

        1. You could say the same about Trump’s opponent in the last election. That’s the reason he won.

          1. Most voters wanted her.

            1. And yet she did not win the most votes.

              1. I can’t wait to hear from which meme from the rightwing retard planet you’re referring to here.

            2. You said people in one post and voters in the other. Which do you mean?

            3. Most voters wanted her.

              Nope. 65,853,514 voters voted for Hillary, and 69,866,468 voters voted for someone else.

  4. I am fairly sure when the federal civil rights law was written it was not intended to make facilities and programs reserved for a single sex illegal. The Obama administration interpretation was a major distortion of the law dictated by executive authority solely on issues that clearly require public debate and consensus and was perhaps violations of other citizen’s rights and social expectations.

    1. The US Constitution as originally written left women and slaves behind.

      The 13th Amendment ended slavery for all but prisoners and the 19th Amendment ended any prohibition on women voting.

      Gay people and transtestical people are either a man or a woman. They are covered.

      1. “The US Constitution as originally written” did not prohibit women from doing anything.
        Voting was regulated by the states and many allowed women to vote, even before the 19th amendment.
        And Congress could have, by law, altered any state regulations on “The Times… and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives” without a Constitutional amendment.

        1. Hence the reason the “backwards” Red State of Wyoming allowed women to vote in 1869…

    2. The Obama administration interpretation was a major distortion of the law dictated by executive authority solely on issues that clearly require public debate and consensus and was perhaps violations of other citizen’s rights and social expectations.

      But he, you know, wrote ‘Dear Colleague’ letters and had a pen and a phone. He didn’t just tweet about being oppressive to businesses and free association like some uncouth orange buffoon.

    3. I have to say, the law is not ambiguous on this matter. If we want to prohibit discrimination on transgender, we need to rewrite the law. We cannot just enforce the law that we wish there to be or stretch definitions past their breaking point.

  5. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on October 8.

    No anal arguments?

    1. “No” means “Yes” and “Yes” means anal.

    2. I thought anal came before oral.

  6. So are the (D) candidates hoping for a 5-4 win in the name of GBLT rights, or a 5-4 loss so they can use it on the campaign trail?

    1. They’re hoping for a 4-4 tie while RBG is out “sick” so they can REALLY get out the vote for 2020…

  7. The problem isn’t whether sexuality and gender are covered. It’s what them being covered means. For instance, having to accommodate to mental illness by teaching scientifically incorrect lessons about sex, or providing funding for damaging HRT treatments.

    1. The problem, especially from a libertarian viewpoint, is having a national law that directs private businesses and individuals to do, or not do anything. It takes away that whole liberty thing that is the basis of libertarian

  8. Republicans and conservatives do not like to be called bigots (any longer), but they sure love that old-timey gay-bashing.

    With an old-timey superstition chaser, of course.

    Carry on, clingers. Not much longer, though.

    1. “Carry on, clingers”

      So sayeth the Reason gecko.

    2. Oh, to be sure! Because the only good bigot is a Democrat bigot!

      Until Democrats actually denounce and apologize for creating the KKK and pay reparations for the slavery they fought a Civil War to protect (and created Jim Crow laws afterwards to emulate), I’m not going to take anything seriously that bigots like you have to say.

    3. Shove a .45 up your ass and pull the trigger you useless piece of garbage.

    4. OK, Arthur, we’ll make the young woman wax your balls, just don’t call us bigots anymore!

      Seriously, who would have thought that the party of the Klan would become the party of forced ball-waxing in like 30 years?

      1. The Party didn’t leave the Klan; the Klan left the Party.

  9. …believed that gays were mentally ill sexual predators.

    *Takes note of the the current state of the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts and dudes cutting off their peniseses (peni?)*

    You were saying?

    1. The sex used to be the best part of Scouting. Now they don’t even allow two-man tents. It’s sad.

      1. That’s how Tony always found his dates.

        1. Young enough to know what I wanted, too young to “date.” Fun times though. Presumably God was watching over summer camp the whole time and did nothing about it.

          I liked rowing too. Sucked at knots.

          1. I don’t if God was watching, but I’m certain the Scout leaders knew what was going on in those days. Back then nice people simply didn’t talk about such things. I believe that made life easier for gay kids. I feel sad for kids today, who are under pressure to declare a sexuality in elementary school.

  10. It seems to me that demanding a wedding cake from a bakery advertising itself as ‘Christian’ is at least a bit like asking for bacon in a Halal butcher shop. They do not serve that there.

    1. Why do you people never have a new or interesting argument? How can something “seem to” you when it’s been said by a million different rubes a million different times?

      Sure, they don’t serve bacon in a Halal butcher shop. And they don’t generally sell mutton in a cake shop. You don’t have the right to ask that a shop sell you whatever you demand whether it’s offered or not. Very good.

      But neither shop can turn you away for being the wrong religion.

      1. A private business should be able to turn away anyone, for any reason.
        It’s called liberty and was what government was supposed to protect, not remove.

        1. It’s an argument. It’s even been tried in the real world. I suppose we made the mistake of electing leaders who hate freedom back when we passed laws like this. Definitely should have gone with the Klan instead, who love freedom.

          1. And it’s good to see that they totally don’t exist now because you fixed all those problems by trying to beat them with both legal and physical sticks, both then and now.

      2. But neither shop can turn you away for being the wrong religion.

        Under current law, no they can’t.

        In a free society, they should be able to.

        Private anti-discrimination laws are a very bad idea and hurt the very people they are nominally supposed to help.

        I don’t want non-discrimination laws for LGBT people. Period.

        1. Meh. I don’t see how it hurts customers. And forcing business owners to ignore race, religion, etc., when selling their sandwiches probably does them good. Frees up their mind.

          As I’ve argued quite pristinely many times, whichever side you take, you’re arguing for getting government thugs on either the side of the customer or the owner. Either to enforce nondiscrimination—or to drag black people from lunch counters. Which is a better look to you?

          You always pick the side of the proprietor, but that’s not necessarily the most libertarian argument. Every time you take the side of the powerful over the less powerful, I think you should examine whether it’s actually a calculation for more freedom, or if your freedom shtick is just being whored out by powerful interests and bigots.

          1. You’re aware, I am sure, that the baker’s issue was that he was more than willing to sell the gay couple a cake.

            He didn’t want to do a custom order for them.

            Meaning he lacked the right to refuse to enter a contract.

  11. The Department of Justice has taken this stance since 2017, when it formally ended its Obama-era position that federal law does in fact prohibit such discrimination.

    Remember when the President ordered American businesses to start hiring and stop firing gay people in a tweet and everybody went apeshit? No? Probably because Reason was, and is, totally cool with it as long as it isn’t/wasn’t the current President.

  12. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of “sex.” At the time of the law’s passage, this was understood to mean discrimination on the basis of whether a person was a man or a woman.”

    You know, back in the day when biology determined your sex instead of your mental issues.

  13. If an ALCU lawyer is arguing before the court

    Seems like this lawyer for the Association of Local Colleges and Universities has veered outside of his lane a little bit. He should go back to where he came from, fix the problems there, and then report back.

  14. “It’s the Trump administration vs. civil rights groups on federal protections from workplace discrimination mandates granting special privileges to grievance mongers.”

  15. It’s very clear that Congress did not intend to include gay and transgender people at the time.

    Or stereptypes at all. Or women sexually harassing men. Or men sexual harassing men.

    If you want to argue under an “originalist” reading, you shouldn’t limit your reading to LGBT issues. It makes it pretty obvious you aren’t actually worried about “[…] how far a law’s meaning can be stretched before it no longer represents what those who passed it intended.”

    That said?

    Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency for two years. They had free reign to pass any version of ENDA they wanted. That they did not is not surprising, but having opposed it for decades, and then not done anything to pass it when they were fully in control, it’s dishonest to suggest the reason they don’t support the Equality Act is because it “goes too far”. For that matter, if they’d support ENDA but not the Equality Act, they could prove it: pass ENDA again in the senate and let the House kill or pass it as they will.

    That they won’t should surprise no one. But you shouldn’t spin excuses for them.

    1. Why should only Republicans be held up to that standard? Why didn’t Democrats pass this when they had control of the House, Senate and White House? Instead they were focused on ramming ObamaCare down our throats, good and hard.

      1. The smoldering, shrunken, pathetic death of a once middling philosophy at the hands of rightwing bullshit is one of the saddest things I’ve ever watched.

        Bbbbut Obama!

        Just say that. It’s shorter. More Strunk & White.

        1. So are you saying Escher’s comment is invalid, because Or..or…ORANGE MAN BAD!! or are you saying don’t point out when Obama could have done something because it’s racist?

          1. “Why didn’t Obama fix the entire world in the 6 months he had control of Congress and the world economy was collapsing?” is just such a tired and disingenuous trope it only deserves ridicule.

            As if Republicans are just to be expected to be feckless morons who don’t give a shit about the country. Okay, on that we can agree. But stop asking Democrats to solve problems you don’t even think need to be solved. The only point is to change the subject so you don’t have to admit that Orange Man bad.

        2. The comment is entirely valid: if Congress wants to expand non-discrimination laws to LGBT, it should do so.

          As a gay man, I strongly oppose it. Anti-discrimination laws are a very bad idea and they are going to hurt us, just like they have hurt other groups.

      2. Why should only Republicans be held up to that standard?

        Probably because you weren’t paying attention in 2008 when the LGBT community was pissed off to all hell that the Democrats were dragging their feet on ENDA and DADT repeal.

  16. “I think the cultural shift toward LGBT acceptance makes additional federal regulations unnecessary, because while discrimination still exists, it’s not as widespread or as oppressive as it once was.”

    Oh, you poor innocent country mouse, additional federal regulations will remain “necessary” until the feds are fully empowered to crush out any dissent to the LGBLTs.

  17. At the time of the law’s passage, this was understood to mean discrimination on the basis of whether a person was a man or a woman.

    LOL

    1. At the time of the law’s passage, this was understood to mean discrimination on the basis of whether a person was a man or a woman.

  18. Congress has the power to add sexual orientation and gender identity to federal laws and has done so in the past; Congress has not added sexual orientation and gender identity to the Civil Rights Act despite political pushes to do so; therefore, these characteristics are not protected under federal law.

    Why would congress bother with that when the country can just be run by enlightened career bureaucrats?

  19. <i.That means the federal government would be able to take action against just about any business in the country accused of discrimination against customers, not just certain types of venues, such as hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and clubs.

    Small business owners know what this looks like, and if they have any sense of self-preservation at all, they should be very afraid.

  20. I don’t think someone should be able to be fired for being gay. Trans people are already covered under their birth gender IIRC. I’m a non-binary demi-sexual Parrot-Head myself, but I keep that under wraps at work so I should be good. However, I’m a loud and proud Eagles fan and where I come from I’m at risk for my identity. Can we get sports ball team affiliation covered?

  21. I’m not saying the pro-hate side is completely without merit. True, the composers of the ERA did not think to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes.

    But they didn’t anticipate all the forms of sex discrimination possible in the universe either. Laws don’t do that. That’s what the courts are there for. So firing someone for being gay is very plausibly a form of sex discrimination covered.

    It’s all there in the logic of the Obama justice argument. It’s pretty easy logic. If you’re fired for fucking the wrong sex according to your boss, that’s sex discrimination against you. I.e., if you were the opposite sex fucking the same people, your boss wouldn’t wouldn’t have fired you. Clear-cut sex-based discrimination.

    And Trump’s is not reversing that because they consulted The Founder’s Secret Sacred Tomes and discovered the righteousness of their legal argument. They did it because they are bigots!

    1. “Pro-hate”? You miserable piece of s#%$

    2. The pro-hate side is the one, who thinks the government can tell private individuals who they can hire, fire or do business with.
      The Constitution never gave the federal government that power.
      Fuck off, slaver!

      1. It gave Congress the power to write laws, though.

    3. And Trump’s is not reversing that because they consulted The Founder’s Secret Sacred Tomes and discovered the righteousness of their legal argument. They did it because they are bigots!

      I couldn’t care less why they did it, it’s the right thing to do, for two reasons.

      First, the legal argument is correct.

      Second, anti-discrimination laws are harmful to the very people they claim to benefit.

      The best thing we could do for minorities is to get rid of all anti-discrimination and affirmative action laws.

      1. Why would it be better for minorities if we suddenly went back to a society where merely being black could mean you don’t have access to food or restrooms in 100 miles?

        These laws changed society for the better. We wouldn’t have needed them if society didn’t need fixing.

        And since we’re not getting rid of them any time soon, I can’t see justifying stopping progress right before we get to gay people.

        1. It would be better for our country if we went back to the original federal civil rights act, which explicitly defined “public accommodations” as hotels, restaurants, gas stations, theaters, sports arenas, and concert halls. This strict definition provided about the least infringement of freedom of association necessary to give Black people and other excluded groups the freedom to travel and do business that they had been denied by Jim Crow. Subsequent state laws and case law have unfortunately expanded the reach of the public accommodations laws to cover near all businesses with a general clientele. The infringement is now severe. Yes, the infringement of the 1964 Act was justified by the centuries of exclusion of Black people. Yes, we should stop this “progress” before it goes any further. Equating not being able to use the cake decorator of your choice with not being able to buy gas or use a restroom for hundreds of miles is ludicrous.

          1. Using armed government thugs to drag gay people out of cake shops because they are gay is something more than ludicrous.

            1. I guess I missed that headline. Where is that happening?

    4. I’m sorry Tony, but that’s stretching definitions past the breaking point. Words have meaning. While you might make a successful argument that transgender discrimination falls under “sex discrimination”, sexual preference clearly does not under any widely accepted definition of “sex”.

      1. you might make a successful argument that transgender discrimination falls under “sex discrimination”

        You might be successful, but you wouldn’t be right. “Transgender” is not a sex.

      2. Maybe it is a stretch, but it’s not a big one. It would, however, be a means of adding justice to the world without having to hope Mitch McConnell turns from a malicious slug creature into an actual legislator.

    5. Claim:
      “Hey, did you fire him for being gay? He’s saying he got fired for being gay.”
      Response:
      “No. I fired him for being a terrible employee and I plan to replace him with someone that does a better job than him.”
      That’s still legal to do. Prove the person is lying. Otherwise I can just claim to be gay if I get fired. What are they going to do? Force me to have sex with men?

      1. The initial burden of proof is on the plaintiff. If that’s satisfied, it goes to the employer to explain himself. Then if that burden is satisfied, it goes back to the plaintiff. And courts don’t make a habit of questioning private personnel decisions.

        You can spend your time arguing for doing away with antidiscrimination law, or you can use is worrying about things that might actually affect you.

  22. “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of “sex.” ”

    Yes discrimination creates problems.

    Look at white nationalism. White men angry about race and sex.

    How would women and minorities react to a new policy today that demanded white men be hired when women and minority applicants were better qualified?

    Yet for 50 years the discrimination on the basis of race and sex has been PUBLIC POLICY.

    Women, minorities and now LGBT are not willing to discard the discriminatory practices of affirmative action that affords them special privileges.

    You say there is a problem in society. Look in the mirror.

    1. Women, minorities and now LGBT are not willing to discard the discriminatory practices of affirmative action that affords them special privileges.

      And your insight into what “women, minorities and now LGBT” are “willing to discard” comes from what? A small mob protesting in front of SCOTUS with pre-printed activist signs handed to them?

      You say there is a problem in society. Look in the mirror.

      Yeah, take your own advice: you illustrate perfectly how gullible and easily manipulated many people are.

      1. My observation is derived from the total absence of any discussion led by women or minorities to eliminate the discriminatory practice of affirmative action.

        Why are you so gullible?

        1. Affirmative action is simply the de jure reaction to centuries of de facto affirmative action for white men.

          1. Even if that were true, it wouldn’t be justice. You have no right to harm people in the present because people of the same skin color did something wrong in the past.

            You’re a racist and a sexist, Tony, that’s why you think the way you do.

            1. The remnants of AA that exist are perfectly valid and only a freedom hater would say otherwise.

              You do realize you’re calling for universities to be banned by government from considering race or other identities, right? That precise thing you want cake shops to have the freedom to do?

              1. Private universities that do not accept government funding should be permitted to admit or exclude anyone they wish. Public universities and those receiving funding from taxpayers have an obligation to treat all citizens without regard to race or “other identities”, whatever the hell those are.

        2. My observation is derived from the total absence of any discussion led by women or minorities to eliminate the discriminatory practice of affirmative action.

          Total absence? Read these threads. Read Schlafly. There are lots of others.

          How would you even know whether someone arguing against LGBT anti-discrimination laws is gay? Most people who argue against anti-discrimination laws do so based on principle, not identity, and argue against all of them, not just ones that personally affect them.

          Now, here is a question for you: where are the prominent religious leaders opposing anti-discrimination laws based on religion?

          1. Most people who argue against anti-discrimination laws […]

            Are very vocal about their feelings towards gay people, and recoil at the thought of repealing non-discrimination laws as a whole or even re-defining what is or isn’t a “public accommodation” such that “artistic” businesses don’t qualify.

            I mean, every time some jurisdiction (be it local, state or national) publicly debates adding sexual orientation/gender identity, folks come out of the woodwork to say how much they want to discriminate against gay people, and it’s not for principled reasons, it’s because they don’t like gay people.

            Feel free to argue from “principle” for yourself, but it’s obvious you don’t speak for most folks who are against non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation/gender identity.

    2. This is not about affirmative action.

  23. It’s not about the cake. It’s about control.

    1. Maybe you should just let the gays take over for a while. Look at the shitshow the straights have been offering up lately.

  24. an Important LGBT Issue

    Non-discrimination legislation is utterly useless in protecting people against discrimination. It only rewards lawyers and bad employees. If anything, such legislation harms minorities.

    As a gay man, I hope SCOTUS will strike this down and that “LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination legislation” will never pass. It’s a stupid and harmful idea.

    1. Cool story.

      I’ll care about these claims of “it’s about the principle!” when folks actually argue that to the SCOTUS.

      But as we keep seeing, what they actually argue is that non-discrimination laws that protect other folk are fine, but non-discrimination laws that protect sexual orientation/gender identity are a bridge too far.

      You can’t pretend it’s about principle when you only remember your principles when a specific group is in the spotlight.

  25. I’ve said my own piece about the Equality Act: I think the cultural shift toward LGBT acceptance makes additional federal regulations unnecessary, because while discrimination still exists, it’s not as widespread or as oppressive as it once was.

    That’s how progressives operate: wait for culture to shift, pass laws, then take credit for social progress that they deserve no credit for.

    It’s like Hillary’s “now that it’s safe and cool to be for gay marriage, I’m for gay marriage; when I opposed it in the past, I was just pretending in order to make sure I could stay in power”

    1. They have to pass laws because sometimes there is a backslide, and brown and gay people start getting killed again. See: the current administration.

      Again with the absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for conservatives. How is not evolving at all better than “evolving”?

  26. Next up, if the court rules that dressing trans without actually getting the equipment swapped out constitutes “cosplaying”, then furries can demand protection from “fursecution”.

Please to post comments