The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a combined set of cases, based on differing rulings in US Circuit courts, as to whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects LGBTQ individuals from employment discrimination — specifically, in these cases, whether an employer can fire someone for being gay.
The issue is whether Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, protects LGBT people from job discrimination. Title VII does not specifically mention sexual orientation or transgender status, but federal appeals courts in Chicago and New York have ruled recently that gay and lesbian employees are entitled to protection from discrimination. The federal appeals court in Cincinnati has extended similar protections for transgender people.
While it’s almost certainly true that the congressfolk who passed the Civil Rights Act 55 years ago gave no thought to it protecting LGBTQ folk (indeed, I suspect that, had that been mentioned during legislative debates they would have carved out an explicit suggestion), it would not be the first time the letter of the law has been used to give new meaning to the law as society has changed, as new applications have come up, etc.
So, for example, Title VII has been used to prevent firings based on stereotypes regarding sex — regarding dress, hairstyle, behavior. “I fired her because she wanted to wear pants and I won’t have any pants-wearing women in my office” will get you in a load of trouble these days, because you are deciding to discriminate based on the sex of the worker and what you expect from them because of that. Or, put another way, if you would have a different criterion on what’s acceptable (wearing pants) from an employee based on their sex, e.g., only when it’s women doing it, not men, you are engaging in discrimination based on sex.
Various courts have taken this precedent to say that singling out sexual orientation (for example) as a basis for firing is also discriminatory — “I fired him because he kissed a man and I won’t have any man-kissing men in my office” is a parallel construction, and if your restriction on kissing men is only when it’s men who do it, not women, then it’s discrimination based on sex.
It’s a logical argument to me, but that “what would a congressman in 1964 have said” has also weighed on the various courts that have considered it. As SCOTUS takes up the challenge, how Trump’s two appointees, one of them very much an originalist, will weigh in on the cases is of particular interest.
Of course, all of this could be easily resolved if Congress passed a law explicitly adding sexual orientation and gender identity to the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act. But that seems highly unlikely, given GOP control of both the Senate and, of course, the White House.
The other wild card here is with the question — as it’s been so far ducked by SCOTUS — of whether “religious freedom” trumps such civil rights laws — allowing people with “sincere religious beliefs” to discriminate under the Civil Rights Act, most prominently against LGBTQ individuals, but also potentially based on sex, age, religion, etc. How that plays out will probably be an even more significant question.
Do you want to know more? Supreme Court to hear LGBT job discrimination cases | PBS NewsHour
I assume that when the law was passed 55 years ago, it was a given that God created a man or a woman. The creation of skin color or gender was and still is a given. The enlightened changes to include sexual orientation is new and isn’t part of the intent of the law.
Given the fact that women, men of color and god forbid if they were a black woman, where, in many parts of the country, discriminated against. Many States had laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages. The main core and intent of the law was that these citizens didn’t choose to be black or a woman, that’s how they were born. Gays and transgender are choices unless I’ve missed the latest scientific results stating the there is a specific gene that creates a gay or transgender person. Quite the opposite all the research seems to be finding.
Now, we have people that make choices regarding their gender or sexual orientation, which is fine with me. But, to expect those (please ask any black person about this and they will tell you they are insulted because they didn’t choose to be black) that make choices in their lives and to expect 97.5% of the country to believe the same way they live, is wrong to ask. You’re asking them to give up their rights or beliefs and to accept your beliefs.
Does that mean one should be legally allowed to discriminate against someone because they don’t like the way they choose to live their life? No, but there are many of other laws out there that protect workers, home buyers and renters. Just try to fire or discriminate against someone that is in the LGBTQ group. The left goes after them and their lively hood, for good reason. They want to make an example of how they will make your life a living hell because you don’t think or believe the same way you do.
But, as you stated, this could all be taken care of by Congress. That’s the wisest statement you’ve made. However, it will never happen and hasn’t happened in years. See, since Roe v. Wade, Congress found that they could pass the buck on tough issues to the Supreme Court. See, we only get two years and gee, I just got used to all the perks that come from being a Congress Person. So, why rock my boat. It will never happen.
But, if it’s this world you seek, move back to California. We have all those laws you want. We have all the Socialism ideals being practiced and enacted. We even passed a plastic straw ban and now are hiring plastic straw ban enforcers-at 60k a year starting salary will all the perks-to make sure those evil plastic straws aren’t killing off all the turtles and whales. I kid you not. Or, go to SF and see all the homelessness and drug users. You want legalization of drugs, go to SF and see the wonders of those results. It’s sad.
So, in an ideal world, yes, we would see and treat everyone the same way, the ways you love to quote from the greatest book ever written, love thy neighbor as yourself. However, if you don’t love or like who you are, don’t expect them to like or love you. This is personal to you, which I can understand, but don’t be upset if it doesn’t go the way you’d like. Life’s not fair. Once you realize that, life is much easier to handle