And Alito, and Kavanaugh. Fuck man, that's hard to even type.

I think the Court got it wrong on that LGBTQ+ employee discrimination case. I don't think the Civil Rights Act applies to sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination (while I certainly think those types of discrimination should be outlawed).

The majority went through some real legal gymnastics to get to that decision.

End of the day, the Court took 3 plaintiffs - Bostock (white man), Zarda (white man), and Aimee Stephens (white woman who was born a white man) - and said the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to them, and I just don't think it does.

_____________________________________

Let me guess, I can have "good day" now, right?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

>And Alito, and Kavanaugh. Fuck man, that's hard to even
>type.
>
>I think the Court got it wrong on that LGBTQ+ employee
>discrimination case. I don't think the Civil Rights Act
>applies to sexual orientation or gender identity
>discrimination (while I certainly think those types of
>discrimination should be outlawed).
>
>The majority went through some real legal gymnastics to get to
>that decision.
>
>End of the day, the Court took 3 plaintiffs - Bostock (white
>man), Zarda (white man), and Aimee Stephens (white woman who
>was born a white man) - and said the Civil Rights Act of 1964
>applies to them, and I just don't think it does.
>
>

<--- Big Baller World Order

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

.

you're saying the decision is right but basing it on the 1964 act isn't so what's the *correct* legal way to handle it?

that specifically made it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity/gender dysphoria.

_____________________________________

Let me guess, I can have "good day" now, right?

or just selectively literal when it comes to gay/trans rights?

But I do believe that words have meaning, and we have to start there.

But I do not believe the intent to the 64 Act was to prohibit discrimination against homosexual and transgender individuals (especially, since that wasn't really a thing). I believe it meant to prohibit discrimination against historically disadvantaged groups (at the time) which included women, and the word "sex" in that Act means you can't discriminate against women.

So, intent + text in this case = I disagree with the majority.

_____________________________________

Let me guess, I can have "good day" now, right?

RQQ to the Ques

But its well documented that Rustin didn't participate in any gay rights activism until the late 70s or 80s. All of his work in the 40s, 50s and 60s was strictly civil rights for black people, unless you consider openly living as a gay man and act of activism (which, to be honest, I do). Either way, just because gay people were in the CRM doesn't mean the Civil Rights Act necessarily applied to them.

_____________________________________

Let me guess, I can have "good day" now, right?

that was a journey lol

_____________________________________

Let me guess, I can have "good day" now, right?

... you can't fire a man for having sex with men. That would be discrimination because of an individual's sex.

If you don't fire somebody born with female genitals for living as a woman, you can't fire somebody born with male genitals for living as a woman. That would be discrimination because of an individual's sex.

So there you go. It's pretty much Gorsuch's just-read-the-statute reasoning: "By discriminating against homosexuals, the employer intentionally penalizes men for being attracted to men and women for being attracted to women."

The thing that's potentially distressing is that, absent these kind of word games, it's not clear that we really have a meaningful way of asserting gay and transgender people's continuing right to live and interact with society. The ability to do jujitsu with the phrase "discrimination because of an individual's sex" isn't the same thing as a full, active, and thorough understanding of human rights. This decision is wonderful and worth celebrating, but it doesn't seem based on a real promising vision for how we ought to live with each other.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

He said your example only mentions two types of employees, women who have sex with men and men who have sex with men. But if you expand that to also include women who have sex with women and men who have sex with women, and you discriminate against both men and women having sex with the same sex then you're not actually discriminating based on sex, you're discriminating based on sexual orientation.

As far as transgender goes, I think this is the more interesting argument because "transgender" didn't really exist in the popular parlance in 1964. But i agree again with Alito that you can have a policy which restricts the hiring of a transgender individual without any knowledge of that person's biological sex, and therefore you're discriminating based on sex.

As far as you final paragraph, I agree with that completely. There needs to be a full accounting of lgbtq+ rights to guarantee safeguards, not this kind of shoehorning into preexisting rights designed for other groups.

_____________________________________

Let me guess, I can have "good day" now, right?

So, I'm not a lawyer and as my subject line indicates - this isn't a type of thinking that I think really offers anything to some full idea of human dignity and freedom. But I think what you're pointing to, broadly, is that sexual orientation and gender identification both seem pretty under-theorized, legally. This is probably for pretty benign reasons (the age of the Civil Rights Act) and more potentially loaded reasons, like the fact that both sexual orientation and gender identity are states that we only identify when they become action.

In my view, the flip that got Roberts/Gorsuch on board works not just because of the word game (though it relies to an uncomfortable degree on that word game) but also because of the under-theorized status of orientation/gender-identification. I get what you're saying about Alito's position, but it feels like he's also widening the scope to an arbitrary degree - and that including the folks that you're talking about clarifies that we can see discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as discrimination which is based on firm and inflexible ideas of what it means to be a man or what it means to be a woman - ie: that men have sex with women and men dress and behave like men.

Or not. Kind of curious to hear what you think. Again, this whole dynamic is super weird because I actually kind of enjoy these exercises in reasoning but it gets kind of weird and gross when we start doing it with people's rights. Which... it sounds like you agree with:

>As far as you final paragraph, I agree with that completely.
>There needs to be a full accounting of lgbtq+ rights to
>guarantee safeguards, not this kind of shoehorning into
>preexisting rights designed for other groups.

Uh huh. Which is why I appreciate you making this post and agreeing to get yelled at by people. This ruling is a win for lgbtq+ rights in the sense that it got the job done, and your post isn't an attempt to diminish those rights but rather a pretty big red flag that this decision:

a)isn't necessarily going to provide a basis for other protections of those rights

b)may not be correctly argued, even if we can enjoy the idea of a conservative court getting upended up by what kind of seems like a textualist argument.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you - in which case, please correct.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

>He said your example only mentions two types of employees,
>women who have sex with men and men who have sex with men. But
>if you expand that to also include women who have sex with
>women and men who have sex with women, and you discriminate
>against both men and women having sex with the same sex then
>you're not actually discriminating based on sex, you're
>discriminating based on sexual orientation.


Let's keep it simple with just 4 kinds of pairings:
M->M, M->F, F->M and F->F

Even if someone only wanted to discriminate against M->M and F->F, they'd still be treating M->M differently than F->M based on sex and F->F differently than M-> F based on sex.

Sex based discrimination is inherent to orientation discrimination if the goal is to exclude gays.

It wouldn't be purely based on orientation unless you just said we don't want to employ people that are attracted to men or that are attracted to women.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

I mean, you just made the argument that won the day, so I guess its at least reasonable. But if I discriminate against M->M and W->W, but not M->W and W->M, then I'm just not buying the argument that I discriminated in any way based on sex. Just because every person biologically has a sex doesn't mean I'm discriminating based on that.

>Let's keep it simple with just 4 kinds of pairings:
>M->M, M->F, F->M and F->F
>
>Even if someone only wanted to discriminate against M->M and
>F->F, they'd still be treating M->M differently than F->M
>based on sex and F->F differently than M-> F based on sex.

_____________________________________

Let me guess, I can have "good day" now, right?

_______________________________________

which courts have agreed with for over a decade.

prototype

stand ur ground, believe in urself,
believe in love, prepare urself for love, remove the negativity from ur life, and accept the love u kno u deserve

>And Alito, and Kavanaugh. Fuck man, that's hard to even
>type.
>
>I think the Court got it wrong on that LGBTQ+ employee
>discrimination case. I don't think the Civil Rights Act
>applies to sexual orientation or gender identity
>discrimination (while I certainly think those types of
>discrimination should be outlawed).
>
>The majority went through some real legal gymnastics to get to
>that decision.
>
>End of the day, the Court took 3 plaintiffs - Bostock (white
>man), Zarda (white man), and Aimee Stephens (white woman who
>was born a white man) - and said the Civil Rights Act of 1964
>applies to them, and I just don't think it does.
>
>

This should speak for itself to black people, but it won’t resonate in their minds that you can’t combine the two. Just like you can’t combine the white feminist agenda with minorities. This doesn’t mean that you can’t rally behind other entities to bring about justice. As a matter of fact blacks should stick stick their necks out for other causes like white have done for us. Where are we on police brutality to whites? Nonexistent is where we are.

>This should speak for itself to black people, but it won’t
>resonate in their minds that you can’t combine the two.
>Just like you can’t combine the white feminist agenda with
>minorities.

race was only 1 of like 5 discriminatory criteria covered. so they were literally 'combined' by virtue of the broad/sweeping legislation.

and it not only helped women but it's now been (I believe rightfully) interpreted to include gays is delicious.

<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->
<-><-><-><-><-><-><-><-><->

The Civil Right Act came about because of the ethnic discrimination that whites were perpetrating toward blacks (people of color/negros). Those statutes were for black people... allowing black people the right to vote, go to schools, public places in general etc. They could not be discriminated against. That should be simple to understand.

they would use this ruling to hammer white evangelical anti-gay/trans religious entities/institutions and even threaten their tax exemption (they essentially act as republican super pacs as it is).

they could put this on steroids once they get their appointees in the doj.

attack these republican allied groups the same way repubs have zero shame attacking labor unions and defanging a critical segment of dem funding/organization strength.

but dems are scared to play by the same rules.

The Civil Rights act of 1964 is a civil and labor law , that clearly states that no one can be discriminated against due to their color, race, SEX , nationality or RELIGION.

It can be argued that one’s sexual preference is their religion or belief.

lol

_____________________________________

Let me guess, I can have "good day" now, right?

One's sexual orientation or preference is one's CIVIL RIGHT, and one's civil rights cannot be discriminated against. You can try to twist it any way you want to, or make something extremely technical, when it is quite simple.

The march and fight for Civil Rights were for ALL PEOPLE, and its enactment is for ALL PEOPLE.

CIVIL RIGHTS. The rights of the CIVILIANS of the united states of America that no one can be discriminated against due to their RELIGION( Beliefs or way of life) or SEX.

And as I stated, one's sexual preference or orientation is a way of life or belief, so therefore it can be perceived as a religion, so it is protected on that element as well.

It simple enough to say that it covers "sex" and leave it there.





>One's sexual orientation or preference is one's CIVIL RIGHT,
>and one's civil rights cannot be discriminated against. You
>can try to twist it any way you want to, or make something
>extremely technical, when it is quite simple.
>
>The march and fight for Civil Rights were for ALL PEOPLE, and
>its enactment is for ALL PEOPLE.
>
>CIVIL RIGHTS. The rights of the CIVILIANS of the united
>states of America that no one can be discriminated against due
>to their RELIGION( Beliefs or way of life) or SEX.
>
>And as I stated, one's sexual preference or orientation is a
>way of life or belief, so therefore it can be perceived as a
>religion, so it is protected on that element as well.
>
>
>


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

And in general practice people do make accommodations for the way of life associated with that religion (holidays off, prayer time, change of schedule for fasting seasons)

______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

>I think the Court got it wrong on that LGBTQ+ employee
>discrimination case. I don't think the Civil Rights Act
>applies to sexual orientation or gender identity
>discrimination (while I certainly think those types of
>discrimination should be outlawed).

Hey, I know people in the south that argued it didn't apply to black people too.

>
>The majority went through some real legal gymnastics to get to
>that decision.

They said "If you can't fire a woman for wanting to fuck a man then you can't fire a man for wanting to fuck a man."

That's not a lot of gymnastics.

>End of the day, the Court took 3 plaintiffs - Bostock (white
>man), Zarda (white man), and Aimee Stephens (white woman who
>was born a white man) - and said the Civil Rights Act of 1964
>applies to them, and I just don't think it does.

So would you agree with it is they were black??

Or are you saying black trumps the others - so if they fire a black gay man then the civil rights act should apply because he's black?

Then they could just refuse to her all black people by saying "I'm sure he's gay - he's just lying (and just HAPPENS to be black)."

The real solution is: If you don't want to hire people because of color or religion or sexuality there's one solution: Use your freedom and close your business.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

I stopped reading when you said people argued that the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 didn't apply to black people.

_____________________________________

Let me guess, I can have "good day" now, right?

>I stopped reading when you said people argued that the CIVIL
>RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 didn't apply to black people.

To show how stupid your position is.

There are DEFINITELY SOME PEOPLE (not me) who don't think that the civil rights act was aimed at black folks.

They are WRONG.

As are you.

That's why I used it the ridiculous example - to show how ridiculous you are.

So I now get your potion: Bigot, but for the right reasons.
Being bigoted against black people is bad to you.
Against gays? Not so bad to you.

Got it.

And yes, I'm a bigot against bigots - it's the tautology that proves the tautology.

Edit:Unless your just saying "It was the right decision but for textual reasons that don't fit into the legal framework that I agree with."

If that's the case you're still lost on this one.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

.....I'll say first, I'm not a lawyer, but the Civil Rights of 1964 and other statutes inform my daily job and has for 20+ years. I'm currently the Director of EEO and Diversity and Inclusion at my gig.

From what I've been made to understand, and from my many years of hearing EEOC colleagues speak about the matter, I don't believe it's as much of a stretch that you make it out to be. Under Obama, the law was interpreted to be sex discrimination based on gender stereotyping.

As in "that's not how a man/woman acts, dresses, behaves or lives so we're going to take adverse action against you." Between that interpretation and the current one that just came down, I don't think it's a bridge too far at all.

Plus add in the fact that the justices all have different schools of thought that they adhere to when it comes to the law. We know this and accept their rulings anyway. In addition, this law has been expanded before to include sexual harassment. Lastly- it's just the right thing to do.
______________________________________________________________________________

"To Each His Reach"

but.....

Fuck aliens.

I disagree with everything else lol.

But I appreciate your viewpoint as an HR professional.

Justice Alito countered your "gender stereotyping" argument in a few different ways. He first noted that the majority was not persuaded by that argument because they chose not to rely on it or mention it. He then pointed out (correctly) that the jurisprudence on this issue shows that while gender stereotyping (and remarks to that affect) can be used as evidence of sex discrimination, an employee must still show that the employer relied on gender to make the discriminatory decision.

He also made the point that "heterosexuality is not a male or a female stereotype" and that "it is not a sex-specific stereotype at all".

But, hey, the majority of Supreme Court Justices agree with you, at least in principle. You should go to law school (if you want to spend a lot of money to be broke for a long time lol).

_____________________________________

Let me guess, I can have "good day" now, right?

it went that far.

Specifically, I do not think it could be interpreted as requiring transgendered athletes to be allowed to compete in the sport they identify with gender-wise. Or that you had to allow transgendered to use the bathrooms they identify with.

Again, I just read summaries.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Nothing is protected or respected. It's either all or nothing. And the law of nature does not flow like that. Nature takes no sides, it just measures and ensures that no entity or element is more dominant than the other. Deserve or entitled are not principles or elements that exist.

What man can make man can unmake. But man cannot not make or unmake natural law. That's where I reside.


black ,white, gay,straight, religious, non religious....tired of all that man made shit.

Do not allow anyone to decide or coerce you to believe or follow what you do not believe or want to follow. You have that natural right, and you have that natural right as an organism to fight for it til the death if you have to.

You have a right to air. You have a right to water. You have a right to shelter, and you have a right to care and protect your well being. That's it. Those are the only principles and elements that matter when it comes to surviving earth. All the other stuff is man-governed systems, beliefs, structures, classes and categories, etc.

If you choose to want to fit in that, than that is your choice. If you choose to not want to fit in that, then that is your choice as well.

The Matrix definitely applies here.