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.
"The US Congress WON'T add me as a protected class under the Federal Civil Rights Act."
:c rying::cry ing::cryin g:
Guess where the problem is...
State law may not be less restrictive than federal law. It may be more stringent, however.
Where Federal law is silent, as with discrimination against people based on sexual orientation, a state may prohibit such discrimination. It is not unconstitutional.
"But in the absence of federal law, or when a state law would provide more protections for consumers, employees, and other residents than what is available under existing federal law, state law holds. For instance, federal anti-discrimination law does not include LGBTQ individuals as a protected class. Therefore, an openly gay employee in Kansas can be lawfully fired simply for being gay. But an Illinois employee may sue under state law for wrongful termination if their sexual orientation or gender identity (either actual or presumed) was a factor in the firing."
Quote:
Originally Posted by max210
[Islamic bakery cartoon]
No, they don't have to. They would not be making such cakes for anyone, so it is not discriminatory to refuse to make one.
State law may not be less restrictive than federal law. It may be more stringent, however.
Where Federal law is silent, as with discrimination against people based on sexual orientation, a state may prohibit such discrimination. It is not unconstitutional.
"But in the absence of federal law, or when a state law would provide more protections for consumers, employees, and other residents than what is available under existing federal law, state law holds. For instance, federal anti-discrimination law does not include LGBTQ individuals as a protected class. Therefore, an openly gay employee in Kansas can be lawfully fired simply for being gay. But an Illinois employee may sue under state law for wrongful termination if their sexual orientation or gender identity (either actual or presumed) was a factor in the firing."
...
For example, quite a number of "states and territories gave women full or partial suffrage before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed in 1920:
Wyoming (1869)
Utah (1896)
Colorado (1893)
Idaho (1896)
Washington (1910)
California (1911)
Oregon (1912)
Arizona (1912)
Kansas (1912)
Alaska (1913)
Illinois (1913)
North Dakota (1917)
Indiana (1919)
Nebraska (1917)
Michigan (1918)
Arkansas (1917)
New York (1917)
South Dakota (1918)
Oklahoma (1918)"
It don't supercede the Constitution though. It is a state law that expands it.
Incorrect. Free Exercise and Free Speech are specifically enumerated Constitutional Rights. And the Supremacy Clause specifically states:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The other issue is that despite numerous attempts, the US Congress has ALWAYS declined to add LGBT as a protected class under the Federal Civil Rights Act.
I'm thinking that there is a concept that can be applied here... the Federal government has included "sex" (which they define as including gender identity and sexual orientation) as a protected class for EEOC purposes. Not that this applies directly, as, unlike some here, I don't claim to be a legal expert, but that it seems like there is a basis for the Feds to treat LGBT as a protected class, even without congress passing a law specific to it. Just sayin'
This is what the EEOC (amazingly - an agency of the Federal government!) says:
"Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex. Discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status, or because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. For more information about LGBT-related sex discrimination claims, for more information
I'm thinking that there is a concept that can be applied here... the Federal government has included "sex" (which they define as including gender identity and sexual orientation) as a protected class for EEOC purposes. Not that this applies directly, as, unlike some here, I don't claim to be a legal expert, but that it seems like there is a basis for the Feds to treat LGBT as a protected class, even without congress passing a law specific to it. Just sayin'
Incorrect, and even LGBT advocates/activists know it:
Quote:
"says David Stacy, government affairs director for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay-rights group, "With limited or no federal protections, an LGBT person can get legally married in most states, but then be evicted from an apartment and denied a home loan."
My question is... If this is so important to LGBT, why haven't they convinced the US Congress to add LGBT as a protected class under the Federal Civil Rights Act?
I'm thinking that there is a concept that can be applied here... the Federal government has included "sex" (which they define as including gender identity and sexual orientation) as a protected class for EEOC purposes. Not that this applies directly, as, unlike some here, I don't claim to be a legal expert, but that it seems like there is a basis for the Feds to treat LGBT as a protected class, even without congress passing a law specific to it. Just sayin'
This is what the EEOC (amazingly - an agency of the Federal government!) says:
"Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex. Discrimination against an individual because of gender identity, including transgender status, or because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex in violation of Title VII. For more information about LGBT-related sex discrimination claims, for more information
That's an invalid "interpretation." Title VII says nothing about gender identity, sexual orientation, or transgender status.
And neither does Title IX, which is why Federal Court upheld Pitt's expulsion of a F to M but still anatomically female transgender student for using men's locker/shower room facilities on campus after male students complained.
Not when it tramples Constitutional Rights: Supremacy Clause.
I note you declined to quote the entire phrase that I quoted from FindLaw.
The supremacy clause does not prevent a state from making legislation that adds a protected class of people when federal law has declined to do so. That no more tramples anyone's rights than a federal law preventing discrimination on the basis of race.
Just more intolerance from those that pretend to follow Jesus and Christianity.
What about the endless masses who don't follow Jesus and Christianity who murder, steal, rape, cheat and lie day in and day out for all time?
I think a couple refusing to bake a cake is the LEAST of the world's problems, wouldn't you think? But yeah, turn your blind eye to this sick, dying world and point the fingers at a Christian couple because they didn't want to bake a cake. Why not go confront Islamists who are drowning gays and throwing them from rooftops? Lets not be stupid, mmmkay?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
