Politics Title VII Doesn't Protect Gay Employees... again!

[BlazerCaravan]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html

The Justice Department has filed court papers arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama.

Back to the good old days, eh guys?

 

[crandc]

The interesting thing is that neither party to the case, nor the judge, asked for input. The Trump Administration (the gays love him!) went out of their way to take an antigay position.

 

[kingslayer]

 

[MARIS61]

It never did.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/27/nyregion/justice-department-gays-workplace.html



Back to the good old days, eh guys?

Should be easy enough to change the law right? It seems pretty obvious that it isn't covered under this law, am I wrong?

 

[crandc]

The courts have indeed been divided over this issue. But what Sessions proclaimed, on behalf of the Trump Administration (the gays love him!) was to intervene in a private employer court case when neither party, nor the judge, asked for federal intervention. It is very very unusual for the Justice Department to become involved in discrimination cases involving private employers; they are handled by EEOC or states. So the Trump Administration (who would be the most progay ever!) went out of their way, violated procedural norms, to make it clear that gays and transpeople are not covered by federal civil rights laws (unlike Hillary Clinton, Trump would protect gay people against hateful ideology )

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Should be easy enough to change the law right? It seems pretty obvious that it isn't covered under this law, am I wrong?

Depends on your interpretation, I think.

One could look at it as: "We fired him because he's attracted to his own gender, and we only want normal people who are attracted to the opposite gender, and Title VII doesn't cover attraction."
Or, one could look at it as: "They'll employ women who are attracted to men, but won't employ me because I'm a man attracted to men. Therefore, they're discriminating against me because of my gender, which Title VII prohibits."

If it were "obvious", it wouldn't have been ruled on multiple different ways over the past several decades.

 

[Denny Crane]

It is the executive branch's duty to defend the existing laws, whether they like them or not.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Depends on your interpretation, I think.

One could look at it as: "We fired him because he's attracted to his own gender, and we only want normal people who are attracted to the opposite gender, and Title VII doesn't cover attraction."
Or, one could look at it as: "They'll employ women who are attracted to men, but won't employ me because I'm a man attracted to men. Therefore, they're discriminating against me because of my gender, which Title VII prohibits."

If it were "obvious", it wouldn't have been ruled on multiple different ways over the past several decades.

It's pretty obvious by the verbal gymnastics you're employing that some well intentioned people tried to reinterpret a law in a way it wasn't written.

I can be attracted to hot air balloons and cotton candy and it has nothing to do with my gender.

I suppose you could say that women that are sexually attracted to hot air balloons keeping their jobs while men with the same mental disorder are fired would be gender discrimination.

If the people who wrote the law meant to include sexual orientation they would have done so.

Like I said, seems easy enough to fix.

I'm all for it but I don't like people changing laws in an inappropriate manner.

If tomorrow you get a speeding ticket and some cop reinterpreted the law to say that they could sieze your car for a minor infraction you'd be right to be angry.