• 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 Court: Civil Rights Law protects employment discrimination based on sexual orientation

AGENT J

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
**Title edited to fit**
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/civil-rights-law-employment-discrimination/index.html

Federal Court: Civil Rights Law protects claims of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation


(CNN)A federal appeals court in New York ruled on Monday that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that bans employment discrimination because of sex, also protects claims of discrimination based on sexual orientation. "Sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination because sexual orientation is defined by one's sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted," a 10-3 opinion issued by the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals stated. The ruling is a loss for the Trump administration, which had argued that Congress did not mean Title VII to extend to claims of sexual orientation. The court, based in New York, becomes the second appeals court to rule that the civil rights law covers discrimination based on sexual orientation. Last year, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a similar ruling.
Click to expand...
Back-up Links:
Federal appeals court rules in favor of gay rights | TheHill
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/26/5889...les-the-civil-rights-act-protects-gay-workers
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/federal-court-ruling-hailed-huge-victory-gay-workers-n851681
A New York federal appeals court says America?s anti-discrimination law covers sexual orientation | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/27/opin...rimination-caroline-polisi-opinion/index.html
https://nypost.com/2018/02/26/court-gay-people-are-protected-under-workplace-discrimination-law/

Its what I've been saying for a very long time. Eventually sexual orientation will be nationally protected under the term "SEX" just like common sense says it should be. Just another stone in the road to equality and making this country greater than it already is. Another equality that will be fixed and righted in my life time and it makes me proud.

#EqualRightsAreWinning
 
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot!

The ruling is a loss for the Trump administration, which had argued that Congress did not mean Title VII to extend to claims of sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

So the government was fighting this? Wha???
 
Huh. I've seen that proposed in the past but didnt know it had any traction at the federal level.

While I am in total support of equal rights for gays, I'd like to have seen them recognized legitimately as a group, like women or minorities. This to me seems like more of a shortcut...kinda the ends justifying the means.

And that may weaken gay's status elsewhere down the line.

But this is a positive result.
 
Lursa said:
Huh. I've seen that proposed in the past but didnt know it had any traction at the federal level.

While I am in total support of equal rights for gays, I'd like to have seen them recognized legitimately as a group, like women or minorities. This to me seems like more of a shortcut...kinda the ends justifying the means.

And that may weaken gay's status elsewhere down the line.

But this is a positive result.
Click to expand...

My problem with this ruling is the concern that defining "sex" as other than it's biological connotation of "male or female" now also applying to sexual orientation may lead to a further expansion.

The concern is expansion to what is currently accepted by Canada, and being pushed by SJW-Americans, i.e. that GENDER is "fluid" and that "sex" under Title VII must needs include legal protection for that ideology.

That could lead to things like Canada's Bill C-16 amending their Human Rights Act to require not only non-discrimination, but affecting free speech by criminalizing some speech and requiring citizens to use other forms of speech under penalty of law.

IMO that trend would conflict with our First Amendment rights to free expression.

I would rather Title VII be properly amended to include "sexual orientation" rather than simply lumping it all under "sex."
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Huh. I've seen that proposed in the past but didnt know it had any traction at the federal level.

While I am in total support of equal rights for gays, I'd like to have seen them recognized legitimately as a group, like women or minorities. This to me seems like more of a shortcut...kinda the ends justifying the means.

And that may weaken gay's status elsewhere down the line.

But this is a positive result.
Click to expand...

Pretty much my take. While I am pleased with the ends, I’m not too crazy about the means.
 
Lursa said:
Huh. I've seen that proposed in the past but didnt know it had any traction at the federal level.

While I am in total support of equal rights for gays, I'd like to have seen them recognized legitimately as a group, like women or minorities. This to me seems like more of a shortcut...kinda the ends justifying the means.

And that may weaken gay's status elsewhere down the line.

But this is a positive result.
Click to expand...

interesting . . i dont see the week part though?

if sexual orientation is included under sex as it should be (and how i always wanted) then sexual orientation is always protected and it because just as strongly protected as race or gender or religion etc. What am I possible over looking?
 
Captain Adverse said:
My problem with this ruling is the concern that defining "sex" as other than it's biological connotation of "male or female" now also applying to sexual orientation may lead to a further expansion.

The concern is expansion to what is currently accepted by Canada, and being pushed by SJW-Americans, i.e. that GENDER is "fluid" and that "sex" under Title VII must needs include legal protection for that ideology.

That could lead to things like Canada's Bill C-16 amending their Human Rights Act to require not only non-discrimination, but affecting free speech by criminalizing some speech and requiring citizens to use other forms of speech under penalty of law.

IMO that trend would conflict with our First Amendment rights to free expression.

I would rather Title VII be properly amended to include "sexual orientation" rather than simply lumping it all under "sex."
Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what you are talking about as im not familiar with "Canada" but why that would happen? I mean since the first exists what would be different about this. that hasnt happened with race, gender and religion etc so why would it happen with sex?
 
Lursa said:
Huh. I've seen that proposed in the past but didnt know it had any traction at the federal level.

While I am in total support of equal rights for gays, I'd like to have seen them recognized legitimately as a group, like women or minorities. This to me seems like more of a shortcut...kinda the ends justifying the means.

And that may weaken gay's status elsewhere down the line.

But this is a positive result.
Click to expand...

Its the same thing as recognizing that interracial couples are protected against discrimination. That a person cannot be fired for having a spouse of a different race. It is the same thing. Being attracted to someone of a different race is not something we are born as and in itself is similar to being attracted to someone of the same sex. If race protects interracial couples, then sex should protect same sex couples.
 
Captain Adverse said:
My problem with this ruling is the concern that defining "sex" as other than it's biological connotation of "male or female" now also applying to sexual orientation may lead to a further expansion.

The concern is expansion to what is currently accepted by Canada, and being pushed by SJW-Americans, i.e. that GENDER is "fluid" and that "sex" under Title VII must needs include legal protection for that ideology.

That could lead to things like Canada's Bill C-16 amending their Human Rights Act to require not only non-discrimination, but affecting free speech by criminalizing some speech and requiring citizens to use other forms of speech under penalty of law.

IMO that trend would conflict with our First Amendment rights to free expression.

I would rather Title VII be properly amended to include "sexual orientation" rather than simply lumping it all under "sex."
Click to expand...

Why? What exact impact would that definition hold in relation to this particular ruling? From my point of view, the fact that legal sex is and has been for a while fluid (a person could legally change their sex in almost every US state for at least a decade or more) shows one good reason why this ruling was fits. Legal sex is fluid and gender has been included separately in many laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom