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.
You are only providing half of the question that would be relevant to his decision. If a male teacher were to walk into the girls bathroom topless and they did not fire him then it would sex discrimination against the female.
You snipped the part of my post where I stated pretty much what you say: "With sexual orientation it would be sex discrimination if an employer discriminated against gay men but not lesbians, or lesbians but not gay men.
An employer who, for example, fired a male who played for a gay softball team but not a lesbian who did the same, discriminates on account of sex. An employer who'd hire a gay man who's married to a man but not a lesbian who's married to a woman discrimates on account of sex.
You are refusing to acknowledge that one’s sex is essential to the definition of homosexuality, to the point of being comically obtuse. Federal law prohibits adverse action towards employees on the basis of sex. If you terminate A and B because of their sex (which is inherent to the definition of their homosexuality), you are violating federal law, man or woman.
What you are refusing to acknowledge is sexuality and being an individual of one of the sexes are two distinct things and classifications. You are conflating them together.
If I fire A age 57 who is a pedophile and not B age 21 who is not a pedophile, I did not discriminate because of the age of A or even because of the age of who A sexually desires per se. I fired A because of their sexuality and that A is a pedophile., Age is essential to pedophilia but I'm not discriminating because of the employee's age or against older employees.
With sexual orientation it would be sex discrimination if an employer discriminated against gay men but not lesbians, or lesbians but not gay men.
That is correct, you enumerated two examples of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII.
To be clear, there are other scenarios that also rise to impermissible discrimination under Title VII. One such example, as the Court decided, is adverse action against an employee due to his or her sexual orientation. This scenario is not mutually exclusive to the scenario you mentioned. Discrimination against gay men but not lesbian women, or discrimination against gay men but not straight men are all forms of sex discrimination prohibited under federal law.
To use a similar example, if an employer were against interracial relationships and he fired an Asian employee for being in an interracial relationship, but not an Asian employee who isn’t in an interracial relationship, that would amount to a Title VII claim. Similarly, if the employer fired an Asian employee but not a white employee who are both in interracial relationships because he disliked Asians, that would also qualify for a Title VII claim.
We don’t have to come up with the full spectrum of possible scenarios to understand discrimination against homosexuality IS sex discrimination under Title VII. To think, we have a Federalist Society devotee to thank for penning one of the most expansive decisions for LGBTQ+ civil rights of the 21st century. This case, alongside Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell, now belongs to the pantheon of historic LGBTQ+ civil rights cases in American history. Everyone from bright-eyed elementary school students just learning about the foundations of our great nation to erudite constitutional scholars will be studying, citing, and celebrating this case.
You accused me of making this about sex acts but it's you that is using that argument. Once again the basis for his opinion has nothing to do with homosexuality.
If you are going to fire a male for having sex with a male but not apply the same rule to females having sex with a female it's sex discrimination. The homosexual relationship is irrelevant. It's that simple.
No your side cannot construct your argument without using sexual activity. It's right there in front of you and it's like you have blinders on.
"Sex" in the civil rights act clearly always meant male and female. It did not mean sexual activity and desires whether homosexual, pedophilia or whatever or any other activity one of the sexes might do, ie, wearing dresses, wearing make up etc.
It's like an old joke where a person is asked what's the person's sex, and the person answers "Yes, please.".
No your side cannot construct your argument without using sexual activity. It's right there in front of you and it's like you have blinders on.
"Sex" in the civil rights act clearly always meant male and female. It did not mean sexual activity and desires whether homosexual, pedophilia or whatever or any other activity one of the sexist might do, ie, wearing dresses, wearing make up etc.
There are many LGBTQ+ people who are not sexually active. Identifying your same-sex (or opposite-sex) attraction is not the same as being sexually active.
There are many LGBTQ+ people who are not sexually active. Identifying your same-sex (or opposite-sex) attraction is not the same as being sexually active.
Attraction is pertaining to the sexuality definition of sex which is not just activity but attraction, desire, mental stimulation etc. Attraction is not part of the male and female definition of "sex" which is what "sex" always meant in the civil rights act. For example, one might discriminate against a pedophile even though they are not sexually active.
Attraction is pertaining to the sexuality definition of sex which is not just activity but attraction, desire, mental stimulation etc. Attraction is not part of the male and female definition of "sex" which is what "sex" always meant in the civil rights act. For example, one might discriminate against a pedophile even though they are not sexually active.
Your unfortunate confusion here is that you are unable to understand the logical simplicity of the Court’s analysis. Your obsession with same-sex sexual activity blinds you to the most crucial part of the decision: it is the sex of the employee that is inherent to the adverse action, and Title VII explicitly prohibits sex discrimination. Without taking into account the sex of the employee, there is no homosexuality or heterosexuality. Therefore, when an employer discriminates on the basis of homosexuality, he is inherently discriminating on the basis of sex.
Please, find peace with this decision. It is fait accompli, as they say.
(To add, I’m not sure why you brought up pedophilia. You certainly display a curious obsession with sexual activity both legal and illegal.)
Your unfortunate confusion here is that you are unable to understand the logical simplicity of the Court’s analysis. Your obsession with same-sex sexual activity blinds you to the most crucial part of the decision: it is the sex of the employee that is inherent to the adverse action, and Title VII explicitly prohibits sex discrimination. Without taking into account the sex of the employee, there is no homosexuality or heterosexuality. Therefore, when an employer discriminates on the basis of homosexuality, he is inherently discriminating on the basis of sex.
Please, find peace with this decision. It is fait accompli, as they say.
(To add, I’m not sure why you brought up pedophilia. You certainly display a curious obsession with sexual activity both legal and illegal.)
That is false. As Justice Kavanaugh already explained if I have 4 employees, 2 men and 2 women, and I fired 1 man and 1 woman, who were homosexual then I did not fire them on the basis of sex male or female. I made no distinction between being male or female. It was a distinction based on sexuality. If it was based on the sex of the employees I would've fired 2 men or 2 women.
That is false. As Justice Kavanaugh already explained if I have 4 employees, 2 men and 2 women, and I fired 1 man and 1 woman, who were homosexual then I did not fire them on the basis of sex male or female. I made no distinction between being male or female. It was a distinction based on sexuality. If it was based on the sex of the employees I would've fired 2 men or 2 women.
As Gorsuch explained in his 6-3 opinion, that analysis is incorrect because firing on the basis of homosexuality inherently and necessarily involves discrimination on the basis of sex. You fired a gay man because he is a man, and you fired a lesbian woman because she is a woman. Firing both a gay man and a gay woman does not mean you didn’t discriminate on the basis of sex. It means you discriminated in both instances on the basis of sex. As another example I discussed earlier, if you fired a white employee AND a black employee for being in interracial marriages, it doesn’t mean you didn’t violate Title VII. You would have violated Title VII in BOTH instances.
Give it a rest, it’s done. You don’t have to agree with the decision, but it is a decision that employers in the US will have to observe and respect.
As Gorsuch explained in his 6-3 opinion, that analysis is incorrect because firing on the basis of homosexuality inherently and necessarily involves discrimination on the basis of sex. You fired a gay man because he is a man, and you fired a lesbian woman because she is a woman. Firing both a gay man and a gay woman does not mean you didn’t discriminate on the basis of sex. It means you discriminated in both instances on the basis of sex. As another example I discussed earlier, if you fired a white employee AND a black employee for being in interracial marriages, it doesn’t mean you didn’t violate Title VII. You would have violated Title VII in BOTH instances.
Give it a rest, it’s done. You don’t have to agree with the decision, but it is a decision that employers in the US will have to observe and respect.
1. civil disobedience is being celebrated today by leftists, maybe the conservatives can start
2. I get your view on observe but why should I respect a decision that is worthy of the Volksgerichtshof
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.
