Supreme Court

Supreme Court Will Finally Hear Arguments Over Federal LGBT Discrimination Protections

Does the Civil Rights Act of 1964 cover sexual orientation and gender identity?

|

The Supreme Court is back to work this week. Tomorrow it'll be hearing two hours of argument over three different lawsuits involving federal protections against sex discrimination in the workplace. At issue: Do those laws also protect against discrimination on the basis of whether somebody is gay or transgender?

A ruling in favor of the employees in these three cases would mean a massive realignment of the classifications protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which for most of its existence was not interpreted to include those protections, and most certainly was not intended to do so when Congress originally passed it. But subsequent rulings and Supreme Court precedents have expanded the view of what counts as discrimination on the basis of sex, and there now is disagreement between differing federal courts and even different agencies about the issue.

The three cases are Altitude Express v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, and R.G. & J.R. Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The first two cases involve men in New York and Georgia who claim they were fired from their jobs (as a skydiving instructor and county child welfare services coordinator, respectively) for being gay. The third involves a funeral home director in Michigan who transitioned from male to female: Her employer wouldn't let her present and dress herself as a woman at the workplace, and she was eventually fired.

They're all challenging their terminations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, due in part to some more recent precedents. In 1989's Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII protects against workplace discrimination on the basis of whether employees exhibit stereotypical traits of their sex. The case was focused on a woman who claimed she was being discriminated against for not behaving and dressing in a sufficiently feminine way.

That precedent is now being used (successfully in some cases) to argue that discriminating against gay or transgender employees is also fundamentally discrimination on the basis of whether a person exhibits the stereotypical traits we associate with men and women.

An additional Supreme Court precedent, written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia in 1998, is also being used to bolster the workers' arguments. In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Title VII protected against sexual harassment even when the harassment is between two men or two women. Scalia, who was well-known for his disapproval of the Supreme Court extending legal protections to same-sex relations and his generally textualist approach to interpreting laws, noted that while Congress certainly hadn't considered the possibility of same-sex harassment when it passed Title VII, the guidelines "must extend to sexual harassment of any kind that meets the statutory requirements." Lawyers for Gerald Bostock are arguing that the court should thus be able to consider other types of "sex discrimination" that Congress might not have envisioned back in 1964.

Working against the three employees in these cases is a lengthy political and lawmaking history of treating "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" as separate classifications of protection, not as a subcategory of "sex." Some states have laws of their own protecting people from discrimination specifically on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The federal government does not. For decades, a lot of Beltway-based gay and transgender activism has revolved around getting these classifications added to the Civil Rights Act, originally through the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and now through the expanded Equality Act. Democratic candidates for president have been lining up to declare their support for the passage of the Equality Act.

So there's something of a disconnect here, in that the same people looking for the Supreme Court to expand the law's scope are also going through the legislative process to have the Civil Rights Act amended to resolve the very conflict they're bringing before the court.

President Donald Trump's Department of Justice has taken the position that the Civil Rights Act, as currently written, does not protect against gay and transgender discrimination. It will argue that if Congress wants to protect against LGBT discrimination, then Congress, not the Supreme Court, should amend the Civil Rights Act.

I think the most likely outcome is a narrowly decided ruling along ideological lines, with the dominant conservatives agreeing that it's the legislature's role to add new classifications to the Civil Rights Act. This doesn't necessarily mean they're in favor of LGBT discrimination, though it'll probably be treated that way. It means that they are deferring to Congress, as the body responsible for passing laws, to determine who falls under its protection.

Or that's my current prediction, anyway. We'll probably get a much stronger sense of how they will likely rule after the arguments tomorrow.

Advertisement

NEXT: China Banned South Park After the Show Made Fun of Chinese Censorship

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. The Civil Rights Act attempts to define who is a politically correct minority or not.

    The smallest minority – the individual – will never be included IMHO.

    1. The smallest minority – the individual – will never be included IMHO.

      Every category explicitly cuts against taxpayers and business owners. Individuals can fit into any category, including these two.

    2. It doesn’t talk about minorities. It talks about traits you’re not allowed to discriminate against. White male heterosexual Christians are just as protected as everyone else.

      1. “White male heterosexual Christians are just as protected as everyone else.”
        Anyone, who has been a victim of “affirmative action” (widely interpreted) say that’s bullshit.
        WMHCs are also subject to verbal abuse that would raise holy hell if directed at someone from a “favored” group, if not actual criminal jeopardy.

        1. Yeah, those poor, downtrodden WMHCs.

          If you’re an able, American, white, male and are not at least average on all the indexes (education, salary, QoL, etc.), then YOU are a LOSER.

  2. Lawyers for Gerald Bostock

    This guy’s parents must have been serious Jethro Tull fans.

    1. His mom probably has a “thicc as a brick” tramp stamp.

      1. She’s the girl on the album cover.

      2. mom is Cross-Eyed Mary.

        1. Too bad she’s not a Hunting Girl.

          1. lol. let’s go living in the past.

  3. It will argue that if Congress wants to protect against LGBT discrimination, then Congress, not the Supreme Court, should amend the Civil Rights Act.

    Only a homophobe would want Capitol Hill to do its job.

  4. I think the most likely outcome is a narrowly decided ruling along ideological lines, with the dominant conservatives agreeing that it’s the legislature’s role to add new classifications to the Civil Rights Act.

    Yes. But why? That matters. Because Original Meaning. Not because they’re a bunch of trans hating troglodytes. That puts Original Meaning vs. the RBG “whatever the fuck my moral code is today” ideology.

    1. It means that they are deferring to Congress, as the body responsible for passing laws, to determine who falls under its protection.

      Fingers crossed (but not holding my breath) that at least Gorsuch goes with the unspoken “Not even Congress should be legislating this bullshit.” position.

      1. We already know Roberts is going to cave. He will use a nonsensical saving construction of some sort.

    2. If it was original meaning, then they’d be rolling back the 1989 case too.

      But nobody is arguing that, so it’s not “original meaning”, it’s “meaning that I like”.

      1. Your comment only makes sense if you believe the law was written in 1989 and not 1964.

        1. Or if you’d read the fourth paragraph of the article.

          1. How is Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins inconsistent with the definition of “sex”? That’s the Original Meaning I’m referring to. Price simply clarified that imposing a gender stereotype based on the sex of the individual is discrimination. It didn’t redefine the “sex of the individual” as a variable based on the individual’s choice. Seems you can still reject the cases here while relying on Original Meaning and without overturning precedent.

            1. If you have to clarify that you’re only using originalism when you want to, you aren’t sticking to “original meaning”.

              This really isn’t complicated.

          2. This may be a shocker to you… but just because the USSC set a precedent that is against an originalist reading doesnt mean the new precedent becomes originalist. Thinking so is quite stupid.

    3. Original meaning isn’t even necessary. The issue is definitions. While you can argue that protections against sexual discrimination protect trans-rights (as they have changed from one sex to another), there is no reasonable interpretation of the dictionary definition that would apply to sexual orientation. You would have to invent an entirely new language that does not mean what the words actually mean.

      After all, going back to Hammurabi’s code, the most important facet of the law is that it exists and is written so that people can know what the law is. If words can be changed post-hoc without regard to the actual meaning, then the law essentially does not exist. Congress needs to make this change to the law.

  5. A ruling in favor of the employees in these three cases would mean a massive realignment of the classifications protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 […]

    At most, it would mean the effective addition of one, possible two, new categories.

    That’s not massive, and compared to things like the ADA, doesn’t have many rippling effects.

    And seeing as it doesn’t change anything that came before, it’s not even a “realignment”.

    So I get it Shackford, you want to make this sound like a big deal. But the fact is, win or lose, not much is going to change for most of us… even those of us who are gay and don’t live in states that have already added that to their non-discrimination in employment laws.

    1. So I get it Shackford, you want to make this sound like a big deal. But the fact is, win or lose, not much is going to change for most of us… even those of us who are gay and don’t live in states that have already added that to their non-discrimination in employment laws.

      Yup. Just another two conflicting nonsensical employment and business requirement that fucks over business owners.

      Since it’s such a non-issue, you should be just fine if SCOTUS kicks it back to Congress and no law gets written.

      1. Since it’s such a non-issue, you should be just fine if SCOTUS kicks it back to Congress and no law gets written.

        Fine enough, actually.

        My preference is to either include sexual orientation and gender identity, or (at the very least) remove religion as a protected category, if not the whole CRA, but I’m not going to get upset if that doesn’t happen.

        1. What type of test should be implemented to prove an individual is the protected class they claim to be a member of one might wonder. With men and women, and race, it’s a pretty obvious immutable characteristic. With things like ‘sexual preference’ and ‘gender identity’ it’s not obvious, and could even be a mutable characteristic.

          What other behaviors should be classified as protected under the CRA? Left-handedness? Perhaps BDSM or bestiality? I bet there’s an infinite list of ‘preferences’ that could rise to the level of constitutional protection applied through the courts.

          1. What type of test should be implemented to prove an individual is the protected class they claim to be a member of one might wonder.

            None. What matters isn’t whether the victim is or isn’t X, it’s whether the person who did the discrimination thinks the victim is or isn’t X. This was settled years ago with religion (if you’re fired for being Jewish, you can sue for religious discrimination even if you aren’t actually Jewish).

            That said, way to put on display why I think y’all are ridiculous.


            1. If you’re fired for being Jewish, you can sue for religious discrimination even if you aren’t actually Jewish.

              I wasn’t aware that was precedent. If true, what other behaviors should be considered for special status? Left-handedness? Other sexual behaviors outside the norm?

              Why are these sexual preferences in particular more valid than others that you can still discriminate on the basis of? Why is a delusion such as transgenderism particularly worthy of special status, and why doesn’t the ADA already prohibit discrimination on the basis of delusion?

              Actually I think I just answered my own question. They’re pursuing the CRA angle instead of the ADA angle because they don’t want to admit it’s a mental health issue.

              1. And, in that vain of reasoning, why isn’t it legal for someone to wear their latex suit to work when they’re a BDSM submissive? After all it’s a lifestyle that’s discriminated against and involves an outer appearance of an inner preference. It’s also far more mainstream than transgenderism in particular.

                Regardless of the argument, it’s absurd to assume the CRA covers this type of issue. If Congress wants to add it, they are free to try and do so. Transgender people already have recourse via the ADA for any discrimination they run into, but I’d admit it’s not as clear what kind of accommodation they might require.

                It’s also unclear on why being gay deserves special civil rights when, at it’s core, it’s a preference for sexual partners. There are lots of sexual partner preferences that not only have no special civil rights but are also illegal. Incest, for example.

                Essentially, I don’t see any reason for special carves outs for this entire class of behaviors. This is an attempt to use the state to force acceptance of particular kinks in my view. Those kinks probably shouldn’t be illegal to practice provided there is no discernible harm (that isn’t by choice anyway) but that doesn’t make them automatically a civil right to practice them in public view. At least, not in my opinion.

                1. Whoops. In fact, gender dysphoria is not protected by the ADA. That’s my fault, I should have double checked. That said, why shouldn’t transgender fall under the ADA instead of the CRA? It seems worth debating.

            2. So now you’re ignoring the whole honest belief part? If you tell people for 30 years you arent jewish, you’ve never even googled the word Judaism, you cant suddenly claim being jewish when you are fired. Just stop. You look sillier than usual.

            3. you can sue for religious discrimination even if you aren’t actually Jewish

              This is pretty basally stupid and seems like you’ve got causality mixed up; ‘wet roads cause rain’. You can, of course, sue for being fired as a Jew while not actually being Jewish. However, you odds of having your case heard in full are slim, your odds of winning are even slimmer, and the odds of being overturned on appeal, should you win, pretty good.

              What you seem to have confused is that the employer *can* or could be immune to prosecution because of mens rea. Firing you for not eating beef and drinking dairy in the same meal while being oblivious to the fact that it’s a Jewish tenet is a valid defense. If they knew you were a Jew or knew it was a tenet of observant Jews, and fired you because of it, they’re in violation. They can fire you for eating human flesh and drinking from a cup of human blood. They can’t fire you for going to Church and taking communion.

          2. “With men and women, and race, it’s a pretty obvious immutable characteristic.”

            Elizabeth Warren and Rachel Dolezal may disagree.

            The problem with “identity” is that some insist it is fluid so one can be guilty of discriminating one day and not the next. The fix to this is to search their social media and if they have their pronouns listed in their twitter bio then don’t hire.

            This could potentially harm business and remove protections from bad actors. With something subjective like identity then one can use it to manipulate the system. Same with being transgender. To be disabled you need to have at least 3 life functions impaired. Someone with a beard that still goes by the name “Ralph” that brags about his penis size can be a trans woman. If disabled people have to be ruled to be disabled by a doctor then can trans people be ruled to have gender dysphoria? This could essentially mean that crossdressers are now trans people.

    2. Making trans women a protected class means every womans record is shattered on the next decade and womens sports ends.

      1. You do know that the Olympics have let trans folk compete as their preferred gender for decades, right?

        1. Wrong. A few individuals have been allowed to do so. They have never declared that any athlete can play with the girls.

          1. Those “few individuals” have been allowed to do so because the IOC has lets trans folk who meet specific criteria compete since 2004.

            That whole “anyone who says they feel like a girl” bit is just conservative nonsense.

            1. You’re agreeing with me while simultaneously telling me I’m wrong. Does that make your head hurt?

              1. The only way I’m “wrong” is if you interpret “the Olympics have let trans folk compete as their preferred gender for decades” to mean “any athlete can play with the girls”, which, again, is a ridiculous piece of nonsense.

                So no. I was not agreeing with you. I was clarifying the conditions of which the IOC does exactly what I said they did. Fact is, the IOC doesn’t have the problem with trans folk that you do, and hasn’t for nearly two decades.

                1. the Olympics have let trans folk compete as their preferred gender for decades

                  That is false. The Olympic organizations do not allow men to compete as women simply by expressing a gender preference. In individual cases, a few men have asked permission to compete against women, and some have been permitted to if they are found to meet some sort of standards, which are always changing as the Olympic movement struggles at the impossible task of being politically correct in recognizing “gender”, while at the same time trying to preserve the integrity of women’s sports. The ridiculous nonsense here is all yours: “the Olympics have let trans folk compete as their preferred gender for decades” is very different from “lets trans folk who meet specific criteria compete”. Ironically, in some cases actual women have been denied competing with women because they fail to meet these “specific criteria”! That’s what happen when you try to redefine “woman” to conform with a social fad.

                2. Yeah, that’s not correct. If that were the case, women’s Olympic sports would be dominated by men who Identify-as and want a gold medal.

                  Also if that were the case, the women’s world weight lifting record would have been completely decimated “decades ago” by some rando with a beard to identified as.

              1. I was off by five years when trying to remember a random bit of trivia.

                “lol” indeed.

            2. “That whole “anyone who says they feel like a girl” bit is just conservative nonsense.”

              Or the explicit transgender position

              1. It is also NOT the position of the Olympic movement, despite what Escher said and then denied he said.

            3. Escher, do you believe in science? A new study just came out showing a huge advantage remains even after a year of hormonal control. there has also been a huge uptick in men competing ad women in the last decade.

              Are you purposefully trying to be ignorant?

              1. Are you purposefully trying to be ignorant?

                Ignorant and/or stupid are assured. Purposefully/willfully are rather immaterial.

            4. That whole “anyone who says they feel like a girl” bit is just conservative nonsense.

              Actually, it’s progressive cis-women and people charged with their care doing the majority of the complaining.

              But they don’t suit your agenda so fuck ’em.

  6. “This doesn’t necessarily mean they’re in favor of LGBT discrimination, though it’ll probably be treat that way.”

    The problem is that the majority will likely write in a legalistic fashion that hides how they feel. It might be nice if they said they find LGBT discrimination wrong and disgusting. If they asked congress to correct the Act to include LGBT rights. If they pointed out they would not use a business that discriminates. They will likely instead leave it at we think its congress place to change the law. Leaving us all to assume they are OK with the discrimination.

    1. Legal opinions should never consist of feelz.

      1. Ever read Justice Scalia? What was “applesauce” if not his feeling on the matter?

    2. Didn’t Bastiat say something about the ridiculous assumption that “not wanting the state to do X” means “not wanting X at all?”

  7. A transgender funeral home director got fired? If the customers were complaining, you got bigger problems.

    1. How dare a family want to make the ceremony about their loved one and not the celebration of someone with a mental illness.

      1. Yeah, unless a family already knew the director and he wouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, I can’t imagine a family welcoming that distraction at such a time.

      2. If the fact that someone at the funeral parlour looks like they’re not wearing the stereotypical clothing and makeup for what you presume their genitals look like is bothering you while you’re putting to rest a loved one, you’re a colossal fucking prick and deserve your discomfort.

        1. Forcing your employer to allow you to make the customers uncomfortable makes you a colossal fucking prick and you deserve to be fired.

        2. If you are indifferent to the fragile feelings of people who have just suffered the loss of a loved one to the point where you think it’s OK to make yourself a focus of attention and a distraction by going to work in drag, you’re a colossal fucking prick and need to find another line of work.

    2. If their transition is none of the employer’s business, why give notice? Continue to dress as they have since they were hired and if the employer asks, tell them it’s none of their business. If the employer persists and eventually fires them, then they have a case for discrimination based on an already protected class based on medical confidentiality.

      If the transition is the employer’s business, the employer should be able to decide if or how the transitioner is presented to the public and continue to be able to dictate a code of dress. Otherwise, why would an employer even want to know about an employee’s desire to castrate themselves? It’s almost like forcing other people to acknowledge and affirm the beliefs of the transitioner is as much the point as the transition itself.

      1. forcing other people to acknowledge and affirm the beliefs of the transitioner is as much the point as the transition itself

        Yep. That’s what pronoun policing is all about, too. You rarely use pronouns when the person you’re talking about is in front of you. You use them when they are NOT present to hear them.

  8. What in the world has happened to the First Amendment?

    1. Same thing that happened to the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th…..

      3rd’s still holding strong as far as I can tell.

      1. I think there was a 3rd Amendment lawsuit under Obama.

        1. Nonsense. There were no improprieties of any kind under the Obama administration. CNN told me so.

  9. Discrimination against transgender people is literally no better than discrimination against black and brown people. For example, if a cisgender woman says “I’m not comfortable seeing penises and testicles in the locker room at the gym,” that’s just as bigoted as if she had advocated racially segregated drinking fountains.

    1. Not a lot of people would take the “in favor” position in the “Penis and testicles in every drinking fountain?” debate. It’s a tough position and I commend you on charging into the uphill battle head first.

      1. Tell me you couldn’t sell that design in every gay bar on the planet.

    2. I don’t think that is a good example of actual bigotry. Keep in mind that the greatest threat to all women in the world is a penis. It’s not the person who wields it, it’s the penis itself. This is feminism 101. But on a serious note…

  10. anyone else here that Clarence Thomas is sick and will miss some of the hearings. I hope he hasn’t caught Scalia’s Pillow disease

    1. I hope he hasn’t caught Scalia’s Pillow disease

      Are people still on about that conspiracy theory? If die-hard conservatives are murdering conservative justices, y’all should stop worrying about gay folk.

      That said, c’mon, it’s Thomas. He doesn’t say anything, so him being absent wouldn’t change oral arguments, and he already knows how he’s going to vote, so it’s not like oral arguments would change his mind.

      1. Scalia was at a democrats house when he smothered himself to death under a pillow. no conservatives were involved.

        1. So was Granny Stanley, Obama’s Meemaw.

      2. Also get over yourself you take shit too seriously.

      3. Are people still on about that conspiracy theory?

        I know right? It was obviously his pre-existing medical conditions that caused him to tragically die underneath a pillow in a state where judges can decide over the phone whether or not there will be an autopsy

  11. Her His employer wouldn’t let her him present and dress herself himself as a woman at the workplace, and she he was eventually fired.

    FIFY

  12. protects against workplace discrimination on the basis of whether employees exhibit stereotypical traits of their sex.

    I don’t have enough fingers and toes to count how many ways this could backfire on the trans-rights movement.

    1. I can count to 11. But it would get me fired if I did it at work. Is that discrimination?

  13. First case is okay. One can’t help that they are born gay. It’s not covered under sex discrimination, but they do have the right not be discriminated against due to the way they were born.

    The second case is not okay. Changing your sexual identity is definitely a choice. The idea that one is a male in a female’s body is fucking bullshit. There are intersex individuals who are one sex or the other, but they are very rare and everyone else is either male or female. The problem is that the lefttards have deliberately confused sex and gender. There are social gender roles that mostly conform to one’s biological sex, but they are NOT the same thing. One does not change their biological sex just by identifying. That’s utter bullshit. At the minimum it takes a series of medical procedures.

    Sex discrimination laws refer to sex. As in biological sex. They do NOT apply to a chosen social identity. If one has actually had the series of medical procedures to change their sex, then they are that new sex, and the sex discrimination laws do apply. But at the left’s insistence, “transgender” no longer refers to sex, but refers to an ephemeral choice of identity.

    p.s. I have nothing against transgender individual, either those that have changed their biological sex, or those that merely identify as a different gender. But in both cases they made a personal choice and the use of legal means to compel my acceptance of their choice is coercion. Rights granted under compulsion are not legitimate. These people should not be discriminated against, but “should” is NOT the same thing as “must”.

    1. I realize that society must wait for the stupidest among us to reach a critical minimum in order to treat oppressed minorities like the human beings they are, but I’m curious: In what ways do you intend to discriminate against trans people?

      1. You’re not asking to be free from discrimination. You’re asking government to force others to celebrate your mental disorder, which is what it is it most closely aligns with anorexia or ableism, both mental disorders of body dysmorphia.

    2. At the minimum it takes a series of medical procedures…If one has actually had the series of medical procedures to change their sex, then they are that new sex…

      False. There is no “procedure” that can change your sex. The procedures can only create an illusion, and, in most cases, they do that very poorly.

      1. Is there a skin graft that can turn me into St. Jerome?

  14. Roberts: “It’s a sex.”

  15. Activist groups look to the courts to shortcut legislation that they often can’t get passed by lawmakers. I’m fairly sure that if it were up to congress to legislate this issue, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation would be made illegal, but if the original intent was to cover this area, the law would have said so. Court decisions tend to be very narrow, so a decision favoring the plaintiffs in this case wouldn’t really resolve the issue. The solution lies in working through the House and Senate, where most likely result is that sexual orientation would be illegal, although the hazy area of chosen “genders” or “sexes”, (I always get confused as to which is which under the current re-definition) they may have a harder time.

    1. Well, apart from the actual text of the CRA, “original intent” could have gone well beyond its written meaning. After all, the several hundred legislators responsible for it could well have each had their own goals, purposes, and motives for passing it into law. Oh, and no sane person wants the job of discovering LBJ’s “original intent” for the Civil Rights Act.

  16. The same folks who press for limitless special privilege for superstition-based snowflakes can’t abide the idea of gays being treated decently.

    One more reason to applaud clingers’ failures in the culture war.

    1. I can’t be sure of what a superstion-based snowflake is, but I know it is possible for someone to be politically opposed to any form of anti-discrimination laws. Of course, only those principled enough to see beyond the ignorant, shortsighted, false dilemma of banning discrimination or being evil can understand that the government has no place in even bringing this stuff up for discussion.

  17. We already know it’s not covered, because it wasn’t included when the law was passed. You can’t just reinterpret stuff later. Try to add it, it will probably pass.

  18. Is it too forlorn a hope that the SCOTUS decides this bullshit has gone too far, look to the Constitutional powers granted to Congress, and decide the whole CRA was not within the bounds the Founders decided was OK?
    At least as far as imposing it’s restrictions on free association to individuals and private businesses.

    1. Whoa, whoa, whoa, but that would make about 95% of what the federal government does unconstitutional. We can’t let that happen, can we? I mean article I section 8 is only a couple of paragraphs long.

  19. Mental illness is certainly a protected class, but that doesn’t mean acknowledging their illness (and refusing unnecessary accommodations) is discriminatory.

    1. The real question is in refusing the necessary accommodations. Should that be illegal? Am I responsible for someone else’s needs? And how is the government going to determine what is “necessary?”

      1. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say you can’t fire someone for being trans, ceteris paribus. At the same time, forcing an employer to pay for elective surgery, HRT and daily penis dilations is patently absurd and fuck anyone who thinks that not wanting to subsidize mental illness is discriminatory.

        1. I think the examples you just gave illustrate prefectly why laws attempting to ban private discrimination inevitably create an impossible mess of conflicting court rulings and jerks who will purposefully take advantage of business owners who they know to be morally, religiously, or just preferentially opposed to certain things.

          The solution is NOT more legislation.

          1. Isn’t the problem the scope of legislation and not the mechanism itself? I see no problem with the moral equivalent of wheelchair ramps for trans people, like unisex bathrooms.

            1. I have a problem with legislation that tells people, whether business owners or not, they are not allowed to “discriminate” within some arbitrarily constructed scope of characterization (ie. race, religion, sex). I believe individuals have an inalienable right to own their person and property and should have every lawful ability to discriminate as they choose within any category of identification, orientation, description, affiliation, or whatever.

        2. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say you can’t fire someone for being trans, ceteris paribus.

          Not at all reasonable. The employer created the job. As long as the employment contract is at will, it doesn’t matter what that will is.

          Otherwise, mandatory 2 weeks notice before being let go as the former gender and getting hired as the new gender and old aliases/genders need to be disclosed on background checks before hiring.

          I’m not saying I prefer the latter just that the “it’s perfectly reasonable to say you can’t fire someone for being trans” isn’t reasonable or is only reasonable if you ignore any and all complexities and fuck over people legally required to manage, enforce, or clarify those complexities.

          1. Here’s the thing: if firing someone just because they’re trans is illegal, nothing will really change until employers aren’t allowed to fire trans people at all for any reason. An employer can always make up other reasons for firing someone if he has to keep the real reason secret.

            This is why all anti-discriminatory legislation is really a veiled attempt at, not only destroying the essence of freedom and the rights of property owners, but also thought control. I say thought control because it requires delving into the mind of the suspected criminal and discerning the motives of his actions.

    2. “Mental illness is certainly a protected class”

      Are you referring to ostensible adults whose superstition causes them to claim that fairy tales are true (and make them be bigots).

      If not, why not?

      Carry on, clinger.

      1. Carry on, clinger.

        Is there a hotkey for that, or is it cut-and-paste?

Please to post comments