Anti-LGBTQ hate group asks the Supreme Court to formally foreclose protections for LGBTQ workers

[phands]

I hope these people live forever...in screaming agony....

Back in March, I wrote about a remarkable bright spot: the Sixth Circuit’s decision in favor of a transgender plaintiff discriminated against by the funeral home she worked for, siding with the Obama-era Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—a proponent of protections for LGBTQ workers.


“Discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex,” wrote the Sixth Circuit panel. That ruling was all the more remarkable because that appeals court is usually fairly conservative; it’s the court that hears appeals from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.


Now in July it’s time to review the very predictable petition for certiorari—a.k.a. plea for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal—filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ hate group focused on eroding LGBTQ rights in law and promoting a perverted concept of “religious liberty,” among other things.


The case is EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes, and ADF is urging SCOTUS to overrule the six federal appellate courts that have held that the “sex” of “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, meant to ban workplace discrimination, also protects employees from being discriminated against on the basis of gender identity. Another two appeals courts have ruled that sex discrimination also covers sexual orientation, by the way.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...rmally-foreclose-protections-for-LGBT-workers

 

[repoman]

Oh man,

I am picturing this not really being done for religious reasons but because the boss thought that it would be disruptive and weird to the customers in the emotional time of a funeral.

How old was the boss? How much did the newly transgender director stick out and jar the people attending the funeral? Is there footage of the director speaking around the time of the firing? Did the director have a great deal of contact with the mourners?

The funeral attendees have to process this transgender person in addition to the funeral? Sucks...

Why not have a severe burn victim as the funeral director? That would not jar the mourners...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Oh man,

I am picturing this not really being done for religious reasons but because the boss thought that it would be disruptive and weird to the customers in the emotional time of a funeral.

How old was the boss? How much did the newly transgender director stick out and jar the people attending the funeral? Is there footage of the director speaking around the time of the firing? Did the director have a great deal of contact with the mourners?

The funeral attendees have to process this transgender person in addition to the funeral? Sucks...

Why not have a severe burn victim as the funeral director? That would not jar the mourners...

Wow. Your posts are typically down there, but this seems to just go that extra mile... deep into the ground.

 

[repoman]

Is it not the real reason the director was fired?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Is it not the real reason the director was fired?

Oh... I forgot... we are talking about the real reason, not what was put into the record.

Rost testified that he fired Stephens because “he was no longer going to represent himself as a man. He wanted to dress as a woman.” Rost avers that he “sincerely believe that the Bible teaches that a person’s sex is an immutable God-given gift,” and that he would be “violating God’s commands if [he] were to permit one of [the Funeral Home’s] funeral directors to deny their sex while acting as a representative of [the] organization” or if he were to “permit one of [the Funeral Home’s] male funeral directors to wear the uniform for female funeral directors while at work.” In particular, Rost believes that authorizing or paying for a male funeral director to wear the uniform for female funeral directors would render him complicit “in supporting the idea that sex is a changeable social construct rather than an immutable God-given gift.”

 

[repoman]

If this was guaranteed to makes a lot more money and less hassle, would Stephens have been fired?

This was a CYA.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That makes me picture this not really being done for religious reasons but because the boss thought that, say, a black usher would be disruptive and weird to the customers in the emotional time of a funeral.

How redneck was the boss? How much did the race of the director stick out and jar the people attending the funeral? Did the director have a great deal of contact with the mourners? Did he speak cultured or 'street,' as it were?

The funeral attendees have to process* this black person in addition to Grandma's funeral? Sucks...

*"Process" apparently meaning that they have to acknowedge that melanin-enhanced people exist in the world, i guess? Shocking...

 

[repoman]

watch the video:

[video]https://www.wxyz.com/news/region/wayne-county/transgender-woman-sues-metro-detroit-funeral-homes-after-losing-her-job[/video]

"Gender specific dress code to avoid offending the sensibilities of funeral attendees." The religion thing was an after the fact CYA.

 

[James Madison]

I hope these people live forever...in screaming agony....

Back in March, I wrote about a remarkable bright spot: the Sixth Circuit’s decision in favor of a transgender plaintiff discriminated against by the funeral home she worked for, siding with the Obama-era Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—a proponent of protections for LGBTQ workers.


“Discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex,” wrote the Sixth Circuit panel. That ruling was all the more remarkable because that appeals court is usually fairly conservative; it’s the court that hears appeals from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.


Now in July it’s time to review the very predictable petition for certiorari—a.k.a. plea for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal—filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ hate group focused on eroding LGBTQ rights in law and promoting a perverted concept of “religious liberty,” among other things.


The case is EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes, and ADF is urging SCOTUS to overrule the six federal appellate courts that have held that the “sex” of “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, meant to ban workplace discrimination, also protects employees from being discriminated against on the basis of gender identity. Another two appeals courts have ruled that sex discrimination also covers sexual orientation, by the way.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...rmally-foreclose-protections-for-LGBT-workers

As much as I disagree with the funeral home’s decision, the federal statute doesn’t contemplate gender identity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trausti]

I hope these people live forever...in screaming agony....

Back in March, I wrote about a remarkable bright spot: the Sixth Circuit’s decision in favor of a transgender plaintiff discriminated against by the funeral home she worked for, siding with the Obama-era Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—a proponent of protections for LGBTQ workers.


“Discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex,” wrote the Sixth Circuit panel. That ruling was all the more remarkable because that appeals court is usually fairly conservative; it’s the court that hears appeals from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.


Now in July it’s time to review the very predictable petition for certiorari—a.k.a. plea for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal—filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ hate group focused on eroding LGBTQ rights in law and promoting a perverted concept of “religious liberty,” among other things.


The case is EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes, and ADF is urging SCOTUS to overrule the six federal appellate courts that have held that the “sex” of “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, meant to ban workplace discrimination, also protects employees from being discriminated against on the basis of gender identity. Another two appeals courts have ruled that sex discrimination also covers sexual orientation, by the way.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...rmally-foreclose-protections-for-LGBT-workers

As much as I disagree with the funeral home’s decision, the federal statute doesn’t contemplate gender identity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is kind of the issue. All types of discrimination is legal. To be illegal, Congress must specify the certain types of discrimination which are proscribed in the statute. The Court can't simply legislate where Congress has not.

 

[James Madison]

I hope these people live forever...in screaming agony....

Back in March, I wrote about a remarkable bright spot: the Sixth Circuit’s decision in favor of a transgender plaintiff discriminated against by the funeral home she worked for, siding with the Obama-era Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—a proponent of protections for LGBTQ workers.


“Discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex,” wrote the Sixth Circuit panel. That ruling was all the more remarkable because that appeals court is usually fairly conservative; it’s the court that hears appeals from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.


Now in July it’s time to review the very predictable petition for certiorari—a.k.a. plea for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal—filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ hate group focused on eroding LGBTQ rights in law and promoting a perverted concept of “religious liberty,” among other things.


The case is EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes, and ADF is urging SCOTUS to overrule the six federal appellate courts that have held that the “sex” of “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, meant to ban workplace discrimination, also protects employees from being discriminated against on the basis of gender identity. Another two appeals courts have ruled that sex discrimination also covers sexual orientation, by the way.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...rmally-foreclose-protections-for-LGBT-workers

From the article:

“ Sure, there aren’t a lot of folks who’ll tell you that a majority of Congress in 1964 anticipated the question of whether Title VII protects LGBTQ people as it does women. But there are plenty of us who’ll point out that pretending legislation can be entirely exhaustive in its language at any point in time is a fallacy.

Laws are rarely passed for the purpose of being “entirely exhaustive” or to be construed as “entirely exhaustive.” (I’m unaware of any law passed to be “entirely exhaustive,” a law of continued perpetuity for an infinite number of years of scenarios not originally covered by the law). Under this rubric, future legislation by the legislature to remedy some situation not presently covered by existing law is unnecessary as the courts can stretch the law to extend to the specific situation. The statute isn’t “entirely exhaustive,” isn’t supposed to be “entirely exhaustive.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

As much as I disagree with the funeral home’s decision, the federal statute doesn’t contemplate gender identity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is kind of the issue. All types of discrimination is legal. To be illegal, Congress must specify the certain types of discrimination which are proscribed in the statute. The Court can't simply legislate where Congress has not.

I do not disagree, but Phands apparently does disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Does Title VII of the Civil Rights act prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin? If it does, then it seems this appeal is questioning the constitutionality of Title VII. Otherwise, it would appear the lower courts ruled properly.

 

[James Madison]

Does Title VII of the Civil Rights act prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin? If it does, then it seems this appeal is questioning the constitutionality of Title VII. Otherwise, it would appear the lower courts ruled properly.

The decision rests upon principles of statutory interpretation, and there is a compelling argument the statute was misinterpreted.

Posner, in a concurring opinion by the 7th circuit, in a different case, honorably and candidly admitted he and the majority were reaching an interpretation of the statute not supported by the statute, in case holding the word “sex” in the statute included sexual orientation. Posner just came right out and admitted they were making it up. Same here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Does Title VII of the Civil Rights act prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin? If it does, then it seems this appeal is questioning the constitutionality of Title VII. Otherwise, it would appear the lower courts ruled properly.

The decision rests upon principles of statutory interpretation, and there is a compelling argument the statute was misinterpreted.

Posner, in a concurring opinion by the 7th circuit, in a different case, honorably and candidly admitted he and the majority were reaching an interpretation of the statute not supported by the statute, in case holding the word “sex” in the statute included sexual orientation. Posner just came right out and admitted they were making it up. Same here.

Seems pretty obvious that sex discrimination means discrimination based on sexual identity which is not the same as sexual orientation. If one accepts transgender is a form of sexual identity, it seems to me that these plaintiffs are going to be disappointed by the SCOTUS on this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I hope these people live forever...in screaming agony....

Back in March, I wrote about a remarkable bright spot: the Sixth Circuit’s decision in favor of a transgender plaintiff discriminated against by the funeral home she worked for, siding with the Obama-era Equal Employment Opportunity Commission—a proponent of protections for LGBTQ workers.


“Discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex,” wrote the Sixth Circuit panel. That ruling was all the more remarkable because that appeals court is usually fairly conservative; it’s the court that hears appeals from Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.


Now in July it’s time to review the very predictable petition for certiorari—a.k.a. plea for the Supreme Court to hear an appeal—filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBTQ hate group focused on eroding LGBTQ rights in law and promoting a perverted concept of “religious liberty,” among other things.


The case is EEOC v. Harris Funeral Homes, and ADF is urging SCOTUS to overrule the six federal appellate courts that have held that the “sex” of “sex discrimination” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, meant to ban workplace discrimination, also protects employees from being discriminated against on the basis of gender identity. Another two appeals courts have ruled that sex discrimination also covers sexual orientation, by the way.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...rmally-foreclose-protections-for-LGBT-workers

As much as I disagree with the funeral home’s decision, the federal statute doesn’t contemplate gender identity.

Nope, doesn't speak one way or the other about "gender identity", for or against. Doesn't mention "sex at birth" either, just "sex".

So why does that mean "sex" doesn't include "gender identity"? What part of gender identity doesn't fall under 'gender stereotyping'?

Title VII is about protecting the people and establishing their right to not be discriminated against. What normal people do is ask, "What is in the law gives us an indication that X was NOT meant to be protected?" Dominionists hide behind technicalities and ask "What in the law specifically protects X?" Dominionists will certainly be glad that Kennedy is gone from SCOTUS.

 

[repoman]

This should be based on what was meant by "sex" when the law was passed.

If society has actually expanded what is meant by sex then a new law will be passed to be precise about this.

 

[James Madison]

Does Title VII of the Civil Rights act prohibit employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin? If it does, then it seems this appeal is questioning the constitutionality of Title VII. Otherwise, it would appear the lower courts ruled properly.

The decision rests upon principles of statutory interpretation, and there is a compelling argument the statute was misinterpreted.

Posner, in a concurring opinion by the 7th circuit, in a different case, honorably and candidly admitted he and the majority were reaching an interpretation of the statute not supported by the statute, in case holding the word “sex” in the statute included sexual orientation. Posner just came right out and admitted they were making it up. Same here.

Seems pretty obvious that sex discrimination means discrimination based on sexual identity which is not the same as sexual orientation. If one accepts transgender is a form of sexual identity, it seems to me that these plaintiffs are going to be disappointed by the SCOTUS on this.

The “pretty obvious” logic isn’t a persuasive approach to statutory interpretation.

Posner’s rationale pertains to statutory interpretation, and isn’t limited to the specific facts of the case, and his rationale is applicable to the issue of statutory interpretation in this case and presently under discussion. For sake of brevity, Posner astutely said the meaning of the word “sex” was at issue and that meaning is framed by context, and the context is specifically the events and facts which precipitated the legislation. As in his case, in which sexual orientation was not part of the context, gender identity, transgender, wasn’t part of the context.

And the funeral home has a decent chance of winning at SCOTUS with a Kavanaugh appointment.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[laughing dog]

Seems pretty obvious that sex discrimination means discrimination based on sexual identity which is not the same as sexual orientation. If one accepts transgender is a form of sexual identity, it seems to me that these plaintiffs are going to be disappointed by the SCOTUS on this.

The “pretty obvious” logic isn’t a persuasive approach to statutory interpretation.

Posner’s rationale pertains to statutory interpretation, and isn’t limited to the specific facts of the case, and his rationale is applicable to the issue of statutory interpretation in this case and presently under discussion. For sake of brevity, Posner astutely said the meaning of the word “sex” was at issue and that meaning is framed by context, and the context is specifically the events and facts which precipitated the legislation. As in his case, in which sexual orientation was not part of the context, gender identity, transgender, wasn’t part of the context.

And Posner is wrong because gender identity was part of the context, otherwise the phrase "discrimination by sex" has no meaning.

And the funeral home has a decent chance of winning at SCOTUS with a Kavanaugh appointment.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with the correct application of the law.

 

[James Madison]

And Posner is wrong because gender identity was part of the context, otherwise the phrase "discrimination by sex" has no meaning.

And the funeral home has a decent chance of winning at SCOTUS with a Kavanaugh appointment.

Of course, but that has nothing to do with the correct application of the law.

And Posner is wrong because gender identity was part of the context, otherwise the phrase "discrimination by sex" has no meaning.

What evidence is there supporting the notion that gender identity in relation to a transgender, the facts of this case, formed the context for the word “sex” in the federal statute?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk