It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One Two Punch! DOJ Moves to Undermine Gay Rights in the Work Place

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This morning Trumped tweeted the news that transgender individuals will no longer be allowed to serve in the armed forces, in any capacity.

This afternoon the Department of Justice filed a brief arguing that Title VII doesn't protect sexual orientation, in an appeal in the 2nd Circuit Court.

Justice Department brief argues against protections for LGBTQ workers


The case before the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Zarda v. Altitude Express, centers on a now deceased skydiver. In 2010, Zarda said he was fired because of his sexual orientation. In April, the Second Circuit decided that it would not accept the argument that discrimination on sexual orientation isn’t permitted under Title VII. However, Lambda Legal requested that the ruling be reconsidered, which is why the Justice Department planned to file its amicus brief.



The strongest decision for the recognition of sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII was in Hively v. Ivy Community College, in which the Seventh Circuit held that sexual orientation was covered under sex discrimination in Title VII for three reasons. In that ruling, Chief Judge Diane Wood referenced Price Waterhouse V. Hopkins, a case that is commonly used to support sexual orientation as protected through Title VII by arguing that says sex discrimination includes sex stereotyping. If a stereotypical woman is considered to be heterosexual, then dating women is a failure to conform. Looking at it another way, if a woman were a man dating a woman she would not face discrimination; therefore she is facing discrimination because she is a woman.

And yet another way to consider discrimination would to look at the matter of association. The Loving v. Virginia case found that discrimination based on association with someone of a different race is discrimination on the basis of race. In the case of sexual orientation, Wood used this “associational theory” to say that a refusal to promote someone based on their association with someone of the same sex qualifies as sex discrimination.



In the brief, the Justice Department noted in Hively, Judge Diane Sykes said sex as “common, ordinary usage in 1964” means “biologically male or female,” which may have been the department’s method of calling into question the rights of transgender people under Title VII as well.


So, those are the arguments, kinda, and this is the Trump Administration fighting HARD against LGBT rights, across the board, from our children's schools, to the job market, the consumer and the military, appeal after appeal. This issue will undoubted be fought all the way to up to the Supreme Court.

At the Press Briefing today, Sarah H Sanders was asked if the White House was looking implement the transgender ban in the White House. She said that the President was committed to protecting everyone's rights. She was wrong.

Trump told the LGBT community he would fight for their rights.

He lied!

edit on 26-7-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

I was suspicious about and wondering when they would move on the next front (denying equal rights to gays).

Next up: No gays in the military. Maybe even: no Muslims in the military.

Anyway, while what is happening is certainly real, it's also a very convenient distraction.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


Anyway, while what is happening is certainly real, it's also a very convenient distraction.
exactly, even if it sticks it won't for long. The next president will likely overturn it if the Supreme Court doesnt before then, but it will serve its purpose flooding the news cycle.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


Personally, I think, because of the timing, this is (promised) payback because of Trump's health care failure last night and today! Why else unfurl so much hate in one day!


edit on 26-7-2017 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

so the former admin issues an interpretation
and the current admin of the opposite party has a different interpretation and you are surprised?

if congress would get off their ass and fix the bill there eould be no need for other interpretation



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Liquesence


Personally, I think, because of the timing, this is (promised) payback because of Trump's health care failure last night and today! Why else unfurl so much hate in one day!



Hence the distraction.

It attempts to shift attention away from what is going on in Congress, which is a lot more serious and has far greater consequences.

A calculated distraction.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
I have learned that many times these court cases have nmore than is appeared on the surface, so I will need to look into the specifics to see what exactly is being argued.

For example, one of the most famous cases cited by feminists as being horrible is the US v. Morrison.

Supposedly, this case allowed a university (I think if I remember correctly) to get away with allowing an employee to be raped.

Anyone in favor of this decision was clearly a sexist.

Only when you looked closely, what the decision really said was that Morrison could not sue her employer under the interstate commerce clause. She was making the argument that because universities did cross state business, she should be allowed to sue them because her assault affected interstate commerce. Absolutely absurd.

Similarly, this argument seems to be that Title 7 of the Civil Rights act which prohibits discrimination for reasons of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion does not cover sexual preference.

While I think there should be laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference, I dont believe that Title 7 covers that, and so if that is what is being argued, I agree.



edit on 26-7-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
Trump told the LGBT community he would fight for their rights.

He lied!

Did he say which rights? I don't recall?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



While I think there should be laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual preference, I dont believe that Title 7 covers that, and so if that is what is being argued, I agree.


I disagree. The case being cited addresses a lesbian "outted" because she was dating another woman. The logic that stood was that if she was man, she could date her, ergo discrimination. To loosely sum up the case of precedent cited.

The government, that is arguing against rights for a sector its citizens, asserts that sex is male or female, period. Weak, narrow and binary, in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler


The government, that is arguing against rights for a sector its citizens, asserts that sex is male or female, period. Weak, narrow and binary, in my opinion.




Well there you go!

Yep, sex with a few exceptions of medical anomalies, is just male and female.

I agree 100% with this, and support this interpretation.

Having said that, I also fully support any law that says discrimination based on sexual preference (as long as it legal, no pedo's etc.) should be outlawed.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: windword
Trump told the LGBT community he would fight for their rights.

He lied!

Did he say which rights? I don't recall?



Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.
10:31 AM - Jun 14, 2016



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: windword
Trump told the LGBT community he would fight for their rights.

He lied!

Did he say which rights? I don't recall?



Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.
10:31 AM - Jun 14, 2016




This is what you were looking for.



Fight my ass.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Yep, sex with a few exceptions of medical anomalies, is just male and female.


Please explain why it's okay for a man to have sex with a woman, but if a woman has sex with a woman, she can loose her job? How is that not discrimination?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: windword
Trump told the LGBT community he would fight for their rights.

He lied!

Did he say which rights? I don't recall?



Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs.
10:31 AM - Jun 14, 2016

Well, if he said he was going to fight "for you" (and then mentions freedoms and beliefs) ... I would imagine that's what he meant. He didn't say he was enlisting in the Social Justice Warriors thingy and he didn't say anything about upholding Politically Correct ideology.

He said LGBT folk are free (probably to be LGBT folk all they want) and that they can believe anything they want.

He didn't say 'do' or 'have' or 'rights' or any of the other words you seem to be attributing to him.

Now, the real question (yeah ... you know it's rhetorical, coming from me): Did you vote for him and have you supported your President fully all the way up to today?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler



Yep, sex with a few exceptions of medical anomalies, is just male and female.


Please explain why it's okay for a man to have sex with a woman, but if a woman has sex with a woman, she can loose her job? How is that not discrimination?




It is discrimination, I agree. Its just not discrimination based on sex, race religion, etc.

She was discriminated not because she is a woman, but because of her sexual preference.

If I discriminate against a pedophile because they are 30 and had sex with a 15 year old, I didn't discriminate against them because they are a 30 year old,; I did so because I found the sexual activity to be offensive.

Your argument would be had the person been 15 too, then I wouldn't have had a problem, therefore I am engaging in age discrimination.

This is absurd.



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



She was discriminated not because she is a woman, but because of her sexual preference.


Do you think it should be legal to fire a man for having a sexual preference of BIG women? I mean, it's his sexual preference? Can you fire a guy because he prefers blondes?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler



She was discriminated not because she is a woman, but because of her sexual preference.


Do you think it should be legal to fire a man for having a sexual preference of BIG women? I mean, it's his sexual preference? Can you fire a guy because he prefers blondes?


No it shouldn't be allowed to fire people for those reasons.

I think you are missing the point, so I will turn the question to you.

Are you claiming that a man that was fired for liking big women has a title 7 civil rights act case?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I would think so! I think he would definitely have a good case for it!



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler


I would think so! I think he would definitely have a good case for it!



Wow!!! You can't be serious!!

So liking big women is a civil rights issue!!!

Hahahaha!!!

What part of race, sex, or religion does liking big women fall into?

I can't wait for join the march on Selma for the right to like large women!



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



So liking big women is a civil rights issue!!!


I think sexual preference is a civil rights issue.




top topics



 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join