Quote:
Originally Posted by Mephariel
Are you living in an alternative universe? ...... thinks abortion is killing babies....
|
Abortion IS killing babies. The science says so. The Left only likes science when it benefits their views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zentropa
No they are not talking about the sex act. They are talking about the sex of your partner. You can't discriminate against people on the basis of the sex of their choice of partner. If a woman prefers a man = fine. If a woman prefers a woman = also fine. Get it now?
|
The law from 1964 only protects a person discriminated because of their sex. If a woman prefers a man = fine. If a woman prefers a woman = not fine. If a man prefers a woman = fine. If a man prefers a man = not fine. Both sexes are treated equally as proscribed by law. Get it now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
The argument is that if you fire a male based on him having sex with male but do not fire a female for same reason you are discriminating against males. It's got nothing to do with sexual orientation but instead two different rules for male and female employees which is sex discrimination.
|
No the rules are the SAME for males and females. Sex with your same sex is not covered by Title VII. Both sexes are therefore treated equally.
Whether or not you think that is right is neither here, nor there, it is equal treatment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
Only a politically dishonest person [] would think otherwise.
|
Political dishonesty s how SCOTUS justices sleep at night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellopity
While the original intent plays an integral role in many textualist interpretations of the law, going back half a century or so to divine the original intent of the legislators poses significant problems.
|
No it doesn't.
Everyone knows what the exact intent was and everyone knows what the text is. Not a single legislator in 1964 or 2020 would tell you that "sex" in Title VII covered sexual orientation and really not transgenderism. That is why Congress has been considering the Employment Non Discrimination ACT (ENDA) in every session since 1994. But they have been unable to pass it for many reasons, which is a separate topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellopity
In this case, the text of the law says “sex”. It does not say women. If the final intent of the law is to protect only women as you claim, the law certainly would have been worded as such. Now, you claim the language of the law specifically used the word “sex” to be “constitutional and fair”. First, lets assume you are correct, the law was passed with this language “to be constitutional and fair”. This means that Title VII, as it was passed and signed into law with the word “sex” instead of “women”, intentionally included BOTH men and women in the adopted language. So there goes your original intent argument.
|
That is irrational and illogical. The word sex means just that, the sex of an individual. In 1964 there were "boy" jobs and "girl" jobs. At one point U.S. air carriers would only hire females to be cabin attendants. Even though Title VII should have eliminated such discrimination it took 7 more years for airlines to drop the "female only" rules. There was also unwritten sex discrimination against men in jobs like elementary school teachers and registered nurses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellopity
Now, many will disagree with you and say that at least some legislators wanted to make sure men are also protected under this statute. Is the original meaning really meant to include only women in its use of the word “sex”? Why didn’t the legislators pass a law that specifically said “women” if that was the actual intent? To a true textualist, the text of the law supersedes subjective interpretations of intent that are informed by legislative records, historical records, news/media and the like. This is particularly true when there is ambiguity in the “original intent”. What you think the original intent is in this case really doesn’t matter at all because the word “sex” appears in the adopted version of the law. A textualist has to construe the law in its adopted language. A textualist like Gorsuch is not going to change the word “sex” to mean “women” like you want him to because that, to a textualist, would be judicial activism.
|
There was zero ambiguity in the “original intent”. Absolutely no one in 1964 thought or intended that the law was to cover sexual orientation.
As to text. The text is also unambiguous. A person's sex is not the same as their sexual orientation. No one thinks it is.
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.
