US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-07-2017, 11:45 AM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2017 11:48 AM by Emma.)
US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
The US Department of Justice has filed a brief arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not protect sexual orientation:

https://www.lambdalegal.org/in-court/leg...icus-brief

They argue that because they are treating homosexuals the same, whether male or female, that this is not discrimination based on sex. Employees who fire gay people will fire them regardless of whether they are a male gay person or a female gay person.

This is contrary to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) position that "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act "makes it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity) or religion.""

Quote:The ACLU, in its amicus brief in the case, writes that the "Supreme Court has explained that sex discrimination occurs whenever an employer takes an employee’s sex into account when making an adverse employment decision. Courts have applied this principle to countless forms of employer bias, from cases involving a ban on hiring mothers of preschool-aged children to bias against Asian-American women to the failure to promote a Big Eight accounting firm partnership candidate because she was considered to be 'macho.' Time and again, courts have refused to allow generalizations about men and women – or about certain types of men and women – to play any role in employment decisions."
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...n_is_legal

In short, making employment decisions based on gender stereotypes (including stereotypes about which gender a particular gendered person should be attracted to) are considered sex discrimination.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Emma's post
27-07-2017, 12:04 PM
RE: US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
Here's an article with a better explanation. Since the DOJ was not a party in this case, it is odd that they weighed in with an opinion on the matter. Well, it would be odd, except that we know that the administration is anti-LGBT at its core.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Emma's post
27-07-2017, 12:05 PM
RE: US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
Shouldn't it just be illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of anything that is irrelevant to the job? I mean, can I refuse to hire someone because I don't like their favourite movie?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Robvalue's post
27-07-2017, 12:11 PM
RE: US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
A sensible world would limit discrimination to pertinent factors such as ability to do the job, but otherwise ban discrimination outright and scrap the laundry list which makes it possible to be an asshole and claim legal sanction because the laundry list is missing a line item.

Religious Liberty wherever it gets invoked is someone who wants to be a dick wanting legal sanction to be a dick. No person or institution doing actual good ever has to defend themselves by crying "religious liberty" - it is only the assholes who fly that flag, assholes wanting to affect someone else adversely. Our species has a strong tendency to degrade others as a means of shoring up self-worth - another gene of ours we need to find so we can chop it out and send it to Mars. But getting there is still a long way off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Airportkid's post
27-07-2017, 12:12 PM
RE: US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
In Florida you sure can. You can also fire someone for something just as trivial.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
(27-07-2017 12:12 PM)ImFred Wrote:  In Florida you sure can. You can also fire someone for something just as trivial.

Yep- it's true. Undecided
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
To be clear, this was not an issue that has been truly decided in finality by courts- whether sexual orientation is protected under Title VII. Some argue that it is protected, and others argue that it's not. For that matter, while some argue that gender identity has more basis for being protected by the language, it also has not really been decided on.

So- while we might want to celebrate that the gay agenda has achieved its goal for world domination with the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage, we still have a long way to go for full equality and protection for minority groups.

Ugh...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2017, 01:10 PM
RE: US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
(27-07-2017 12:05 PM)Robvalue Wrote:  Shouldn't it just be illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of anything that is irrelevant to the job? I mean, can I refuse to hire someone because I don't like their favourite movie?

Generally speaking, you can fire someone for not liking their favorite movie. Or their clothes. Or their hair. Most employees in the US are "at will" which means you can be fired for almost any reason. The reasons you can't be fired are set forth by statute. Statutes can be either federal or state. You can also be covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement which can change your at will status. There are a few ways but, generally, most people are at will employees.

What the DoJ is saying is that the federal statute, Title VII, does not cover gay people. I've not read that law in a long time but, unless they made an amendment, that is technically correct. And, under federal law you are not prohibited from firing someone for being gay. There are a number of states with employment laws that say otherwise.

It's a position based on the law. And, it's probably correct. That's not a moral judgment, just a legal one. Congress cam change it, not the executive branch.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
27-07-2017, 01:14 PM
RE: US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
(27-07-2017 11:45 AM)Emma Wrote:  The US Department of Justice has filed a brief arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not protect sexual orientation:

I'm not American, but even I know who's presiding over that office and what he's known for. So, what did you expect?

[Image: Labrador%20and%20Title.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2017, 01:19 PM
RE: US DOJ Files Brief Arguing that Title VII Does Not Protect Homosexuals
(27-07-2017 01:14 PM)abaris Wrote:  
(27-07-2017 11:45 AM)Emma Wrote:  The US Department of Justice has filed a brief arguing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does not protect sexual orientation:

I'm not American, but even I know who's presiding over that office and what he's known for. So, what did you expect?

Who was that acting DOJ person whom Trump fired for refusing to enforce his bullshit Muslim ban? Sally someone. She was obviously replaced with some groveller with no integrity.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: