• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gays from discrimination

chromium

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2013
Messages
16,968
Reaction score
3,770
Location
A2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay people from discrimination · PinkNews

"a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....

Baxley contends he was referred to by his supervisor as a “fag,” “faggot,” “f**king faggot” and “queer”.

Scott Medical Health Center had argued that the lawsuit had no grounds because there is no law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation."

This will inevitably end up before SCOTUS and with Scalia gone, has a decent chance. There are other cases using the 14th amendment strategy

So for 50 years congress utterly failed to do its job to protect ALL citizens equally. The "Employment Non Discrimination Act" recently very nearly passed, but Republicans in their endless hatred blocked it. Contrary to most of the public's belief, only 18 states and some cities protect homosexuals from employment and housing discrimination. Now we turn to the courts, once again, to ensure an equal playing field in 'the pursuit of happiness'

That's my take on it anyway. My question is what do you think will come of this and what should come of it?
 
a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....

It doesn't.

That's not to say, as I'm sure people will take it, that there should not be protections for homosexuality. But it doesn't exist in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and no, sexual orientation is not a component of "the protected characteristic of sex."

If you think it is, "logically," I would like to see the formal proof.
 
Judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay people from discrimination · PinkNews

"a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....

Baxley contends he was referred to by his supervisor as a “fag,” “faggot,” “f**king faggot” and “queer”.

Scott Medical Health Center had argued that the lawsuit had no grounds because there is no law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation."

This will inevitably end up before SCOTUS and with Scalia gone, has a decent chance. There are other cases using the 14th amendment strategy

So for 50 years congress utterly failed to do its job to protect ALL citizens equally. The "Employment Non Discrimination Act" recently very nearly passed, but Republicans in their endless hatred blocked it. Contrary to most of the public's belief, only 18 states and some cities protect homosexuals from employment and housing discrimination. Now we turn to the courts, once again, to ensure an equal playing field in 'the pursuit of happiness'

That's my take on it anyway. My question is what do you think will come of this and what should come of it?


How do you explain affirmitave action, diversity goals or preference point systems as being consistent with treating all people equally? Obviously, if you can legally favor one person with "good discriminaton" then that has the effect of disfavoring another.
 
Judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay people from discrimination · PinkNews

"a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....

Baxley contends he was referred to by his supervisor as a “fag,” “faggot,” “f**king faggot” and “queer”.

Scott Medical Health Center had argued that the lawsuit had no grounds because there is no law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation."

This will inevitably end up before SCOTUS and with Scalia gone, has a decent chance. There are other cases using the 14th amendment strategy

So for 50 years congress utterly failed to do its job to protect ALL citizens equally. The "Employment Non Discrimination Act" recently very nearly passed, but Republicans in their endless hatred blocked it. Contrary to most of the public's belief, only 18 states and some cities protect homosexuals from employment and housing discrimination. Now we turn to the courts, once again, to ensure an equal playing field in 'the pursuit of happiness'

That's my take on it anyway. My question is what do you think will come of this and what should come of it?

I think people do well to work, where they get along with management. As a matter of fact, one is pretty stupid to stay, when bosses have demonstrated you don't have a chance.

Having said that, it seems pretty obvious that homosexuals should be treated as anyone else would be. That you would best not say to a female employee "Hey! Woman! Get the f*** over here!" is as acceptable as using "Queer" or "Frog" or "Yankee" in the same way. There are jerks around and I have found it best to just avoid them. Today's society is pluralistic enough and making an issue is more effort than it's worth. Better to just get on with it.
 
If you think it is, "logically," I would like to see the formal proof.
A woman in a relationship with a man wouldn’t be sacked. A man in a relationship with the same man would be. The only difference between the two individuals is their gender.

Legally I think it’s a stretch and I think it’s a mistake to try to make such stretches to try to account for a failure of governments to introduce properly words contemporary legislation on the issue. I think you can justify the raw logic though.
 
A woman in a relationship with a man wouldn’t be sacked. A man in a relationship with the same man would be. The only difference between the two individuals is their gender.

No. Apparently, if it's going to happen, it would happen to a woman in a relationship with another woman as well, entirely negating this. So;

Legally I think it’s a stretch and I think it’s a mistake to try to make such stretches to try to account for a failure of governments to introduce properly words contemporary legislation on the issue. I think you can justify the raw logic though.

Yes.
 
How do you explain affirmitave action, diversity goals or preference point systems as being consistent with treating all people equally? Obviously, if you can legally favor one person with "good discriminaton" then that has the effect of disfavoring another.

In the 1950s there were real issues systemic discrimination. Obviously some think there still is. Personally, I don't believe it is anymore. It is now jerks on both sides being obnoxious.
 
In the 1950s there were real issues systemic discrimination. Obviously some think there still is. Personally, I don't believe it is anymore. It is now jerks on both sides being obnoxious.

It is BS like this that is the issue:

Certification | Small and Minority Business Resources Department | AustinTexas.gov - The Official Website of the City of Austin

Right now, the city is only choosing those companies about 17 percent of the time when it does not include goals to seek minority- and women-owned companies. The study found that giving them extra consideration makes them twice as likely to win a contract when they're up against businesses owned by Caucasian males.

Study: Preference Crucial to Giving Minority-Owned Businesses a Chance
 
Last edited:
No. Apparently, if it's going to happen, it would happen to a woman in a relationship with another woman as well, entirely negating this.
That’s just the reverse example. A man in a relationship with a woman would be OK but a woman in a relationship with the same woman would be discriminated against. The point is that the two employees are doing exactly the same thing, the only difference between the two situations is their own gender.
 
That’s just the reverse example. A man in a relationship with a woman would be OK but a woman in a relationship with the same woman would be discriminated against. The point is that the two employees are doing exactly the same thing, the only difference between the two situations is their own gender.

But if the woman were in a relationship with another woman, the same thing would happen to her. That's the actual "exact same thing" -- being in a homosexual relationship. It doesn't matter what their "gender" is -- it's the relationship. The same thing would happen to men OR women in homosexual relationships.

If the woman in the homosexual relationship wouldn't be fired, then it's not discrimination based on homosexuality. It would just be discrimination against males.
 
Judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay people from discrimination · PinkNews

"a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....

Baxley contends he was referred to by his supervisor as a “fag,” “faggot,” “f**king faggot” and “queer”.

Scott Medical Health Center had argued that the lawsuit had no grounds because there is no law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation."

This will inevitably end up before SCOTUS and with Scalia gone, has a decent chance. There are other cases using the 14th amendment strategy

So for 50 years congress utterly failed to do its job to protect ALL citizens equally. The "Employment Non Discrimination Act" recently very nearly passed, but Republicans in their endless hatred blocked it. Contrary to most of the public's belief, only 18 states and some cities protect homosexuals from employment and housing discrimination. Now we turn to the courts, once again, to ensure an equal playing field in 'the pursuit of happiness'

That's my take on it anyway. My question is what do you think will come of this and what should come of it?

Article 4, Section 2 of our federal Constitution secures Due Process from the several States.
 
But if the woman were in a relationship with another woman, the same thing would happen to her. That's the actual "exact same thing" -- being in a homosexual relationship. It doesn't matter what their "gender" is -- it's the relationship. The same thing would happen to men OR women in homosexual relationships.
The relationship isn’t being discriminated against, the employee is. You can’t define a relationship (or an orientation – there’s nothing to say the victim is in an actual relationship at the time) without identifying the gender of the people involved so gender and sexual orientation and inexorably linked.

If the woman in the homosexual relationship wouldn't be fired, then it's not discrimination based on homosexuality. It would just be discrimination against males.
Actually, in the kind of working environment described in the OP, I suspect a woman perceived as homosexual would be treated differently to the man (though not necessary better :( ). There’s unlikely to be any actual examples to compare though.
 
Judge rules that 1964 Civil Rights Act protects gay people from discrimination · PinkNews

"a federal judge in Pittsburgh agreed with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in affirming that the protected characteristic of sex logically includes sexual orientation....

Baxley contends he was referred to by his supervisor as a “fag,” “faggot,” “f**king faggot” and “queer”.

Scott Medical Health Center had argued that the lawsuit had no grounds because there is no law outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation."

This will inevitably end up before SCOTUS and with Scalia gone, has a decent chance. There are other cases using the 14th amendment strategy

So for 50 years congress utterly failed to do its job to protect ALL citizens equally. The "Employment Non Discrimination Act" recently very nearly passed, but Republicans in their endless hatred blocked it. Contrary to most of the public's belief, only 18 states and some cities protect homosexuals from employment and housing discrimination. Now we turn to the courts, once again, to ensure an equal playing field in 'the pursuit of happiness'

That's my take on it anyway. My question is what do you think will come of this and what should come of it?

The rights of gay people should be a given for no other reason than they are people. Of course there is no reason that gays should not live where they choose, work when they qualify for jobs, or just be themselves wherever they are. This should be a cultural reality and part of the national morality.

But I object when gay people's desires and wants are given preference over other people's beliefs and moral center. Others should not be forced to change long standing definitions because gay people want them changed. The baker who does not believe in gay marriage for instance should not be allowed to interfere with that in any way, but neither should he be forced to participate in it in any way. He should not be able to deny a gay person purchase of a dozen doughnuts or cupcakes in the display case and should not refuse to prepare a special order of these for the gay person, but neither should he be forced to put decorations on a cake that he would not normally do nor set up a wedding cake at a gay wedding or anything else against his moral convictions. Likewise the gay baker should not be required to provide services at a Westboro Baptist function or any other function he sees as against his personal beliefs or convictions.

Gay people are absolutely entitled to their beliefs as much as any person is. But gay people should not be privileged to require others to believe in the same way any more than a straight person should be able to demand that gay people be straight, try to get straight, or be punished or ostracized because they are not.

It is not treating all citizens equally if some are forced to provide unusual services to others against their moral convictions. That is granting special privileges to some which skews equality.
 
Last edited:
The relationship isn’t being discriminated against, the employee is. You can’t define a relationship (or an orientation – there’s nothing to say the victim is in an actual relationship at the time) without identifying the gender of the people involved so gender and sexual orientation and inexorably linked.

The homosexual nature of the person is being discriminated against.

Actually, in the kind of working environment described in the OP, I suspect a woman perceived as homosexual would be treated differently to the man (though not necessary better :( ). There’s unlikely to be any actual examples to compare though.

If the homosexual nature of the woman would be treated differently because she's a woman, then the actual discrimination is sex (gender)-based, not based on the homosexuality. I already said that.

I think you've lost track of what the actual point of discussion is, whether or not sexual orientation is "logically" a part of sex (gender). You 1) keep bringing up examples which show it isn't, and 2) by making these assumptions about this and that, you're entirely outside the realm of logic.
 
I think you've lost track of what the actual point of discussion is, whether or not sexual orientation is "logically" a part of sex (gender). You 1) keep bringing up examples which show it isn't, and 2) by making these assumptions about this and that, you're entirely outside the realm of logic.
I was just noting an interesting aside on the male/female element (in response to your own off-topic comment). I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the underlying logic element.
 
I was just noting an interesting aside on the male/female element (in response to your own off-topic comment). I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on the underlying logic element.

Logic isn't something you agree to disagree on. It's logical, or it isn't, and that's objectively so, like math.
 
I love how we keep expanding a law that violates the right to association, the right to property, and the right to your own labor.

You know a society is ****ed when they rationalize forced commerce by appealing to government licensing.
 
The relationship isn’t being discriminated against, the employee is. You can’t define a relationship (or an orientation – there’s nothing to say the victim is in an actual relationship at the time) without identifying the gender of the people involved so gender and sexual orientation and inexorably linked.

Actually, no. The decision is based on the individual being homosexual. Or in other words, the decision is based on orientation.
 
How do you explain affirmitave action, diversity goals or preference point systems as being consistent with treating all people equally? Obviously, if you can legally favor one person with "good discriminaton" then that has the effect of disfavoring another.

What does that have to do with gay people wanting equal treatment? That is seriously a stretch and you have no idea what i think of racial quotas
 
A woman in a relationship with a man wouldn’t be sacked. A man in a relationship with the same man would be. The only difference between the two individuals is their gender.

Legally I think it’s a stretch and I think it’s a mistake to try to make such stretches to try to account for a failure of governments to introduce properly words contemporary legislation on the issue. I think you can justify the raw logic though.

One could rationally argue that the CRA never intended to protect sexual orientation or gender identity (as the Obama admin has fought for), but i don't really care how the right and just thing comes about. Whatever strategy is necessary, just like the other side has attempted for decades
 
In the 1950s there were real issues systemic discrimination. Obviously some think there still is. Personally, I don't believe it is anymore. It is now jerks on both sides being obnoxious.

A recent study for that gay men are about 1/3 less likely to get an interview and the need to stay closeted at work is still an epidemic
 
What does that have to do with gay people wanting equal treatment? That is seriously a stretch and you have no idea what i think of racial quotas

What I responded to (and bolded for you) made no reference to sexual preference, race, religion, gender or ethnicity. I was addressing equal treatment of all under the law. BTW, I agree with the ruling in the case presented but even white males (which are a minority) deserve equal protection of the law.
 
A recent study for that gay men are about 1/3 less likely to get an interview and the need to stay closeted at work is still an epidemic

How would they know they were gay. Do people put that on their CV/resume? Seems like a suspect claim as far as the interview goes.
 
A recent study for that gay men are about 1/3 less likely to get an interview and the need to stay closeted at work is still an epidemic

You know? When I stopped sending a CV with the title page stating clearly that I f*** women, I got more interviews. On the other hand, I had three gays on the desk in the bank that all did okay. And that is a good many years ago.
 
How would they know they were gay. Do people put that on their CV/resume? Seems like a suspect claim as far as the interview goes.

Only, when they are either stupid or want something to gripe about. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom