The cases center on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of "sex." The justices will consider whether the term covers sexual orientation and gender identity -- a question over which lower courts have divided.
I understand that gender identity is a relatively new concept in the past 50 years, but I feel that if Congress wants it, or sexuality, to be part of the CRA, then they have to amend the CRA.
SCOTUS will hear in October, and decide... eventually.
I would love to hear a legal argument that explains how there are more than 2 sexes.
Also, if this goes through, won't straight white males be the only type of person without government protection, and thus, suggest they need protection?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Leisher wrote: I would love to hear a legal argument that explains how there are more than 2 sexes.
I think you can get a biological argument. From a sex perspective, there are 2 sexes that the vast majority of people fall under, then a small minority that have various intersex characteristics.
Gender, being a mental/social construct, is theoretically unlimited.
Leisher wrote: Also, if this goes through, won't straight white males be the only type of person without government protection, and thus, suggest they need protection?
No, white is also covered as part of race, and males are already covered via discrimination based on sex.
TheCatt wrote: I think you can get a biological argument. From a sex perspective, there are 2 sexes that the vast majority of people fall under, then a small minority that have various intersex characteristics.
I am willing to add a box for hermaphrodite, but let's be fair, they can just check both or either.
TheCatt wrote: Gender, being a mental/social construct, is theoretically unlimited.
And that statement alone is why it doesn't merit protected status.
TheCatt wrote: No, white is also covered as part of race, and males are already covered via discrimination based on sex.
So everyone is already covered? When everyone is covered, why do we need more protection?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
TheCatt wrote: I cannot tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or not.
Not intentionally, but here's why:
TheCatt wrote: You can fire them for being straight/lesbian/gay.
Not where I live. I remember a specific instance back at OAPI, post Gordon and Cake, when a redheaded IT guy was fired. He visited a lawyer to sue and the guy laughed at him because Ohio is a "right to work" state and you can be fired for any reason. Plus, he told him "You're a white male", so you're screwed. Thing is the IT guy then revealed to the lawyer he was gay. Now the lawyer had cause to sue, and if I remember correctly, they settled out of court. Funniest part is the person who fired the ginger was herself a lesbian.
So what am I missing here? Is it not a national thing, and thus, there's the distinction?
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
On one stipulation: This had better not turn into a "fucking kids/animals" should be protected, which is EXACTLY what some folks are trying to push.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
Going back to this, Ohio is leading the nation in laws regarding tolerance at the workplace? WTF? This was back in the 90s!
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
TheCatt wrote: I understand that gender identity is a relatively new concept in the past 50 years, but I feel that if Congress wants it, or sexuality, to be part of the CRA, then they have to amend the CRA.
SCOTUS will hear in October, and decide... eventually.