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.

 

Justice Department Argues Landmark Civil Rights Law Doesn’t Protect Gay People

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 06:19 AM
link   

The Department of Justice argued in a legal brief on Wednesday that the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 offers no protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation, a position advocacy groups condemned as “shameful” and “politically driven.”

DOJ lawyers, arguing under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in which they said the department did not believe the law ― which bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin ― applied to lesbian and gay people. The brief was filed as part of a lawsuit filed by a now-deceased skydiving instructor, Donald Zarda, who said he was fired for his sexual orientation. His lawyers contend the dismissal violated of the act’s Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination.

Source

So remember yesterday when Trump announced banning transgenders from serving in the military and his supporters claimed that it was just the administration being practical not anti-LGBTQ? I think it has become a bit harder to make that argument following this announcement.

The DOJ is pretty much sending a message to the LGBTQ community that all their fears about being treated as second class citizens under Trump were justified.

It will be interesting to see how Trump and his supporters try to spin this in to a good thing.




posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 06:42 AM
link   
When I joined the military, if you had a mental disorder you couldn't join. Could that be factored in as a reason?

Also, should the military be burdened with the ongoing counseling and possible reassignment surgeries and hormone therapy as it may arise?

How would that effect performance of duties?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

What does that have to do with the DOJ saying that homosexuals do not have their rights protected by law?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

They're right... it doesn't.

That is a fact.

Facts are bad.

Queue the outrage.


edit on 27-7-2017 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254



which bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin


Sexual orientation is not sex. My sex is male. My sexual orientation is straight. Sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Law.

This is not to say the Civil Rights Law cannot be amended to include sexual orientation, Down syndrome, Prader Willi syndrome, Asperger syndrome, microcephaly, progeria, and what have you.
edit on 27-7-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254




So remember yesterday when Trump announced banning transgenders from serving in the military and his supporters claimed that it was just the administration being practical not anti-LGBTQ? I think it has become a bit harder to make that argument following this announcement.


In response to this. ^^^^^^^

Are transgenders considered homosexual?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:13 AM
link   


which bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin


Sexual orientation literally isn't mentioned. So it doesn't protect gays, lesbians or bisexuals. Or straight people for that matter.

Maybe the Obama administration, or any other administration should've passed a law that covered that. Oh well.
edit on -050007am7kam by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

In 2012 and 2015 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that sexual orientation is protected by the Civil Rights Act.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bone75

In 2012 and 2015 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that sexual orientation is protected by the Civil Rights Act.


Does that commission create law? Do they enforce law? Do they rule in a court of law?

Triple No.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   
And so begins the nasty side of the conservative backlash.

Things need to change for sure, but picking soft targets like the LGBT community is nothing more than petty chest beating.

What about the REAL issues that Trump has not solved? Like healthcare and that national deficit?



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bone75

In 2012 and 2015 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that sexual orientation is protected by the Civil Rights Act.


Well they're wrong then because how can a law say anything on something which is not even mentioned within it?

You can start saying all sorts of asinine things about any and every law.

Like the war crimes act of 1996 protects the rights of those who like to wear pink hats to shoot clay pigeons on a golf course in Serbia.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka


which bans discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin


Sexual orientation literally isn't mentioned. So it doesn't protect gays, lesbians or bisexuals. Or straight people for that matter.

Maybe the Obama administration, or any other administration should've passed a law that covered that. Oh well.


So..... you support being forced by law to employ say a Muslim over a gay person? What if said Muslim is a radical and part of a terror cell?

The law protects far worse people than us gays.

What is the people's problem

edit on 27-7-2017 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Actually they do enforce the law. They are the ones that enforce all (or at least most) laws regarding discrimination in the workplace. And while they may not rule in the court of law there are certainly many courts that have agreed with their ruling. Although Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins should be enough to shut down any case of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Examples of Court Decisions Supporting Coverage of LGBT-Related Discrimination Under Title VII



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Heh. The Trump Admin makes a decision that is borderline un-American and super-regressive and the sycophants come out of the woodwork to argue how this is a good idea. It's like a broken record at this point.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

While Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services was about same-sex sexual harassment in the workplace I fell like this section of Scalia's decision is applicable:


As some courts have observed, male-on-male sexual harassment in the workplace was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII. But statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed. Title VII prohibits "discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex" in the "terms" or "conditions" of employment. Our holding that this includes sexual harassment must extend to sexual harassment of any kind that meets the statutory requirements.


This part of the decision also seems worth mentioning:


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that "t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). We have held that this not only covers "terms" and "condi tions" in the narrow contractual sense, but "evinces a congressional intent to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women in employment." Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson , 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated." Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. , 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Heh. The Trump Admin makes a decision that is borderline un-American and super-regressive and the sycophants come out of the woodwork to argue how this is a good idea. It's like a broken record at this point.


The gay community is like a weather vane.

When society turns against them, well ISIS, Nazi Germany, any repressive Islamic nation anyone?

Warning to the females among us - after they are done with us, they'll come for your freedoms next.
edit on 27-7-2017 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: markosity1973

Seriously, with how often Trump supporters use gays to reinforce why we should fear Muslims this makes them look like HUGE hypocrites.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: markosity1973

Seriously, with how often Trump supporters use gays to reinforce why we should fear Muslims this makes them look like HUGE hypocrites.


Right, but the alt-right does not even blink when they find out that Trump is into "water-sports."



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
"Protect?" That implies they are under attack.

Here's a nice article on civil rights:


Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular country or community.


legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Read that up and see how unconstitutional gay discrimination is.... unless they aren't citizens.



posted on Jul, 27 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

This is BS.

First of all, if you read Title 7, then you will see that the justice department is correct in their assertion that sex discrimination is uniquely different than discrimination based on orientation.

Not once did they say that gays and lesbians aren't entitled to civil rights under any other act or title than title 7 of the 1964 civil rights act.

What's more, and what you obviously omitted from your OP, the lawsuit they were commenting on is basically null because the person who filed it has since passed away.

So basically they are calling a spade a spade, and no where are they maligning policy that discriminates gays as a result of this.

This is a big nothing-burger.

But don't tell CNN! They need that ad money to crank up the generator for at least another week or two.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join