Gay employees not protected against discrimination under Title VII

[Lion Heart 15,041]

The US Justice Department on Wednesday argued in a major federal lawsuit that a 1964 civil rights law doesn’t protect gay workers from discrimination, thereby diverging from a separate, autonomous federal agency that had supported the gay plaintiff’s case.

The Trump administration’s filing is unusual in part because the Justice Department isn’t a party in the case, and the department doesn’t typically weigh in on private employment lawsuits.

But in an amicus brief filed at the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, lawyers under Attorney General Jeff Sessions contend that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans sex discrimination, does not cover sexual orientation.

"The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination," says the Justice Department's brief. "It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts."

The Justice Department also contends that Title VII only applies if men and women are treated unequally.

"The essential element of sex discrimination under Title VII is that employees of one sex must be treated worse than similarly situated employees of the other sex, and sexual orientation discrimination simply does not have that effect," the brief says.

..

Earlier on Wednesday, Trump announced he would end all transgender military service.

“On the day that will go down in history as Anti-LGBT Day, comes one more gratuitous and extraordinary attack on LGBT people’s civil rights," said a statement from James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's LGBT & HIV Project. "The Sessions-led Justice Department and the Trump administration are actively working to expose people to discrimination."

“Fortunately, courts will decide whether the Civil Rights Act protects LGBT people, not an Attorney General and a White House that are hell-bent on playing politics with people's lives," he said.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/the-justice-department-just-argued-against-gay-rights-in-a?utm_term=.ivd4O9K1v#.loZdYm9gW

[Lion Heart 15,041]

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

Me: Pretends to be shocked

 

All that aside, this is so sad. Ugh. This was one effective way of protecting sexual orientation without any new legislation being passed. 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

 

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

I remember under the 'Gays for Trump banned from Pride' thread, where I stated they should be allowed to attend but questioned why they'd back someone who does not support LGBT rights, @jeabus1 challenged my 'bigotry' and asked how Trump did not support LGBT rights. I responded by mentioning how all LGBT pages were removed from whitehouse.gov on January 20 and their refusal to declare June 'Gay Pride Month'.

I just want @jeabus1 to know he can add this to the list. Oh, and @jeabus1, add barring trans individuals from serving in the military for being a 'burden' to the list as well. 

[PartySick 174,910]

10 minutes ago, Lion Heart said:

I still say this was a subtle form of protest. The words were written so that he'd have to hold the flag upside down for them to be read. I'm not sure about other countries but in the U.S., flying a flag upside down is "a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property".

[PartySick 174,910]

1 minute ago, IndieKylie said:

I remember under the 'Gays for Trump banned from Pride' thread, where I stated they should be allowed to attend but questioned why they'd back someone who does not support LGBT rights, @jeabus1 challenged my 'bigotry' and asked how Trump did not support LGBT rights. I responded by mentioning how all LGBT pages were removed from whitehouse.gov on January 20 and their refusal to declare June 'Gay Pride Month'.

I just want @jeabus1 to know he can add this to the list. Oh, and @jeabus1, add barring trans individuals from serving in the military for being a 'burden' to the list as well. 

There's uh...no point in tagging them

However, @rph99 and @Sam Dey are Trump supporters who've been vocal lately.

I would love to hear their take on this

[MJHolland 12,725]

It's never been protected under that law

This legally means nothing it was just an amicus brief, albeit super unnecessary and hateful on today of all days?

[Chromatislaps 34,854]

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

1 hour ago, PartySick said:

There's uh...no point in tagging them

However, @rph99 and @Sam Dey are Trump supporters who've been vocal lately.

I would love to hear their take on this

I figured he was 'gone', but I wanted to relish in being petty.

[MJHolland 12,725]

3 minutes ago, PartySick said:

There's uh...no point in tagging them

However, @rph99 and @Sam Dey are Trump supporters who've been vocal lately.

I would love to hear their take on this

I disagree. Thank you for tagging them @IndieKylie . F*ck this president, I have reached my limit this week. 

I almost started feeling bad for Sessions since trump as been blatantly cyber bullying him (which is also low key hilarious), but this just reaffirms he's a bigoted old man. 

Trump supporters should be banned from this sight. There's no way you can support Trump and be in line with our community guidelines. 

[PartySick 174,910]

6 minutes ago, MJHolland said:

Trump supporters should be banned from this sight. There's no way you can support Trump and be in line with our community guidelines. 

We try to be as open minded as possible and that means allowing people to support Trump (as gross as it is ). But hate speech or celebrating discrimination isn't tolerated here so there's that

And yeah, FDT. Everything he does just makes me more and more angry

[Morphine Prince 110,031]

Not shocked. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

How would we change it so it would protect them? Would that require a vote in congress?

[REALITY 80,342]

Title VII prohibits discrimination against race, religion, skin color, national origin, and sex. Sexual orientation was included probably because it wasn't, unfortunately, such a big deal that people of different sexualities were getting discriminated against back then.

So, nothing's really changed, however, they need to amend that ASAP, but knowing this Congress and this President, that's likely not going to happen.