Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
The Supreme Court, as in the US Supreme Court?
Why on Earth are they hearing cases about high school sports? Surely there are more pressing issues for them to deal with than HS softball.
This is an issue for the individual sanctioning bodies/leagues/conferences/whatever. I think that transwomen should absolutely NOT be allowed to participate in female sports. At the same time, I also don't think transmen should be forced to compete in female sports, like that state champion wrestler in TX. He wanted to wrestle on the boys team, he was forced to wrestle on the girls team where his hormone therapy obviously gave him an advantage the other wrestlers didn't have.
|
It's not a case about "high school sports".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
The SC is hearing arguments over whether the federal anti-discrimination law based on sex covers discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The girl's point is that if enough biological males self-identify as female and compete on a girl's team, women's sports is over. She's right.
|
That's exactly correct - it's 2 cases and both were filed until Title VII of the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
Because when they make a ruling it will affect a whole lot more things than HS sports. I would presume any school or sporsts organization that is directly or indirectly accepting taxpayer funding.
|
Exactly Correct - not just sports, but literally everything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Given the case that is actually being heard, I agree with you.
In fact, their decision might not impact HS sports at all.
|
The case is not about Sports, but it will surely impact Sports - one way or the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
If the SC rules the word 'sex' includes sexual orientation and gender identity, the effect will carry over to more than job discrimination.
|
You clearly are the only one in this thread that is familiar with the case -
2 very different cases - One is about whether Gay/Lesbians can be fired or have other common Civil Liberties (like housing) ignored just because they are Gay/Lesbians.
The other case is about the Civil Rights of Transgenders - that would include everything.
Military, sports, jobs, medical, bathrooms, showers, jails & prisons ..... everything.
This is an extremely consequential case - the heart of it is simple.
What is the definition of the word SEX in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's been to the US Supreme Court many times in the past, beginning in the 1970's.
The basic statutory provision prevents discrimination “on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.†The case of sex has always proved trickier than, say, race. There are so many legitimate reasons to discriminate on the basis of sex that Title VII acknowledges “bona fide occupational qualification[s]†(BFOQs) to limit the scope of that prohibition. And “good faith†did not impose strict scrutiny on the scope of the exception, at least in 1964. So actresses had no right to play male roles and men could be prevented from selling lingerie. BFOQs were part of a large tradition that allowed for sex differences in dormitories, athletics and the military. There is not a single word in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, or in its legislative history or in contemporary social commentary, that cuts against the then-conventional wisdom that sex refers to the dichotomous division between men and women. The 1964 Act banned the use of “help wanted female†for secretaries or nurses.
The most important thing to remember about this case is that the House of Representatives, the US Senate passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the President signed that Law. At that time - "SEX" was included in Title VII to mean that females could not be discriminated against because they were female.
This case should NOT be in front to the US Supreme Court - it is not the JOB of the US Supreme Court to write new LAW, it is their JOB to interpret written LAW. At any time - Congress could have amended this LAW and should have. The US CongressCritters have ZERO interest in actually passing meaningful Legislation .... the first of these cases hit the US Supreme Court in 1974 - that's 45 years Congress has kicked this can down the road. I expect the Supreme Court to do what it has done in the past - interpret the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as written and once again - tell Congress to Amend it.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
