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.
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.
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.
Anyway, while what is happening is certainly real, it's also a very convenient distraction.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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?
She was discriminated not because she is a woman, but because of her sexual preference.
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?
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Grambler
I would think so! I think he would definitely have a good case for it!