CNBC Supreme Court clashes over meaning of ‘sex’ in LGBT discrimination cases
For a change of pace, we can go back to one of our favorite arguments.
And if you wish to expand discussions, it looks like the balance of SCOTUS will be tested this session
For a change of pace, we can go back to one of our favorite arguments.
And if you wish to expand discussions, it looks like the balance of SCOTUS will be tested this session
9 comments:
Seems pretty simple to me:
If you treat Bill differently for marrying Patrick than you do John for marrying Patricia, you're doing so because of Bill's sex.
Furthermore, if it becomes okay to fire someone because of their sexual orientation, that will include heterosexuals.
Moose
Your are correct...
Probably too simple for many people...
We can go back to Merriam Webster:
1A : either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
//In the past, couples could hold fast to their dreams about their baby's sex until the moment of truth in the delivery room. — Jacquelyn Mitchard
1B: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females
//Doctors can alter the physical characteristics of sex, but bodily sex does not determine gender. — Dinitia Smith
1C: the state of being male or female
//… Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex. — Tamar Lewin
1D: males or females considered as a group
//He gave the minister a sly look, daring him to disparage the female sex.— Evelyn Anthony
"If you treat Bill differently for marrying Patrick than you do John for marrying Patricia, you're doing so because of Bill's sex."
Actually no. You may be doing so because Bill has chosen to do something that you find sinful, unnatural and morally repugnant. Or something that may scare away customers.
Kind of like if a guy was working at a PETA friendly organization during the day. And trapping animals at night. If the owner finds out about his life choice, can he be fired?
Now the question is can someone fire a person for their personal beliefs and actions that occur outside the work place?
Now let's reverse this...
If a guy was working at gay centered company and was hired in part because people thought he was gay...
Could the owner fire him when he found out that he was married to a woman and had three kids at home?
"Actually no."
Actually yes.
If you believe a male should act a certain way, but they act differently, and you treat them differently, you are basing it on the man's sex and its expression.
But if heterosexuals want to go down this route of discrimination based on sexual orientation, then they might just find out it is THEIR ox that gets gored.
Hopefully, CJ Roberts still has a moral bone in his body. Alito, Gorsuch*, Kavanaugh**, and Thomas most likely won't find theirs.
* stolen seat
** rapist
Moose
"you are basing it on the man's sex and its expression"
I agree with the second part...
Do you think it is okay if the PETA sensitive employer fires the Man who expresses through trapping and killing animals?
Because killing animals is the same as sexual orientation?
Moose
To many people hunting animals for food and fur is more natural than men mating...
So again...
Do you think it is okay if the PETA sensitive employer fires the Man who expresses through trapping and killing animals?
Moose,
????
Post a Comment