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

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.

Yes, but you left out this:

However, the rulings, while persuasive, are not binding on courts and would need to be addressed by the Supreme Court for a final decision.

The text of the Civil Rights Act is fairly clear, I doubt the response from the Supreme Court will be anything else than "No reason to take this to us; If you want to protect homeseuxals and transgenders under this act, no problem - just write an amendment then".

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Except there is plenty of legal precedence, not to mention the enforcing body, that states that sexual orientation is covered by Title VII. If this case doesn't matter why did the DOJ even need to make a statement? Not only that, but it seems mighty coincidental that they made this statement the same day that Trump made his Tweet regarding transgenders.

a reply to: DupontDeux

There have been plenty of courts that have sided with the EEOC's ruling. Even before that though you have cases like Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins which states that a person cannot be discriminated against based on gender stereotypes. This precedent has been used in many cases to argue that discrimination against a person based on sexual orientation is covered by Title VII.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Dude.

I really don't want to argue with you.

Can I just tell you that I'm gay, and that you're full of # and you need to stop fear mongering?

Both you & Huffpo.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I fail to see how it is fear mongering. Can you name any other instance of the DOJ making a similar, seemingly unprovoked, statement. There have been plenty of cases regarding sexual orientation being covered under Title VII, especially starting after the EEOC's initial ruling. Why has the DOJ not deemed it fit to state sexual orientation is not covered by the Civil Rights Act until now?

You may think me paranoid, but hey it's a conspiracy site. It just seems like, based on this statement from the DOJ and Trump's statement regarding transgenders in the military, that the administration is pivoting to the far Right when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights. Whether or not that's true remains to be seen but based off the evidence presented in the past 24 hours it does seem like it could be a very real possibility.

originally posted by: markosity1973
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?

Well simply as a legal standing it was slop law to claim rights under this act. Like the guy said above they would need to be amended of have a another device to protect orientation.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why has the DOJ not deemed it fit to state sexual orientation is not covered by the Civil Rights Act until now?

I'll tell you why,

Seriously, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the democrats would stop acting like they are entitled to the gay vote and gay people would stop thinking so much about the so called 'gay community' and more about themselves as individual Americans who happen to be gay.

The worst part about being gay in America today is to have to witness this blatant psyop being handed to us by the democrats, essentially trying to restrict our capacity to think for ourselves as individuals.

You've got gay liberal pundits who speak of the gay community as if it were this monolithic segment of society that all has to think and vote and spend $ a certain way.

And if one of your gay friends happens to be a conservative? Just sever all ties to them socially in person and online.

Because there's nothing radical about that idea.

It just seems like, based on this statement from the DOJ and Trump's statement regarding transgenders in the military, that the administration is pivoting to the far Right when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights. Whether or not that's true remains to be seen but based off the evidence presented in the past 24 hours it does seem like it could be a very real possibility.

I don't really consider this far right at all. It is purely a matter of interpreting all of the constitution and its amendments the same way you would any individual part of it.

Any added triggering as a result is because you fell for the psy-op.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: EternalShadow

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

Well, the "written law" does not specifically protect homosexuals, but one could argue that "the intent of the law" does, and should be extended to them, since the law itself encodes "a principle" that could be applied to all sorts of "minority" groups.

The problem then becomes one of "recognizing" some group of people as a valid and distinguishable "minority", distinct from the rest of us.

So, it's all about how do we recognize and classify individuals into their proper group.

A lesbian maybe automatically "covered" because she is also a "woman", for example.

But, so many new and alternative minority groups are beginning to pop up today, like transgender, to take on the mantle of "repressed minority", that soon every two or three individuals will have their own group.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm guessing that this may be a round-about attempt to reduce arguments against Trump's decision (is it final, yet?) about transgender people in the military.

That said, I agree that Title VII says nothing about protecting sexual orientation, and therein lies the problem with the way our laws are written. Instead of specifically including a list of items exempted from discrimination, it should give a broad, over-arching statement similar to, "No one may be discriminated against for any reason at any time." Yes, I'm sure that would cause problems as well, but at least it doesn't include a limited list that, over time, will constantly need updated.

two people I know voted for trump "so he'd take care of the gays"... worded exactly like that from one.

not surprised by this move at all. disgusting.

a reply to: knoxie

That seems like a stretch..

Pre this trump has only made pro LGBT comments..

That said trump had an amazing ability to make people think that no matter what he said, he was going to do what they really wanted done in the end..

a reply to: ColdWisdom

BWAHAHAHA

THAT IS THE SILLIEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD!!!

"Ignore the guy in the corner of the room yelling about how much he hates LGBT people.. it's the person offering civil protections to LGBT peeps that is the real threat.."

Man the mental gymnastics for that are just Olympic level..

a reply to: JoshuaCox


when pense became his vp and then sessions the writing was on the wall.

trump is a puss and con man. doesn't care about anyone but himself.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: EternalShadow

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

You understand that there are currently 15,000 transgendered people enlisted in the armed forces or working as civilians in military positions, stationed all over the world. Trump thinks he's just going to tell them all, "You're Fired" because, well, the guy is a giant douche.

originally posted by: markosity1973

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.

Dude, they come after our freedoms yearly.

originally posted by: usernameconspiracy

You understand that there are currently 15,000 transgendered people enlisted in the armed forces or working as civilians in military positions, stationed all over the world.

At an average cost of $20,000 per transition, we would save 30 million dollars... just food for thought.

Trump thinks he's just going to tell them all, "You're Fired"...

Well he is the Commander in Chief.

originally posted by: Bone75

At an average cost of $20,000 per transition, we would save 30 million dollars... just food for thought.

You don't fire people in the military, you send them to the Russian front.

Didn't trump see Hogan's Heroes?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

This "gay rights" thing is so stupid. Gay people aren't expecting special treatment. They walk, dress, pee, eat, love, hate, curse, swim, work, kiss, drive, etc.. just like everyone else.

Geesh! Americans love to make mountains out of mole hills, don't we?

originally posted by: Bone75
At an average cost of $20,000 per transition, we would save 30 million dollars... just food for thought.

We spend more than that on viagra for troops annually.