Trump Admin Urges Supreme Court to Approve Anti-Trans Discrimination

[BUtterfield 8 41,816]

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who is part of the Department of Justice, filed a brief to that effect Friday afternoon, the Washington Blade reports. It comes in the case of R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, over the company’s firing of a funeral director, Aimee Stephens, after her gender transition; the owner said she violated the dress code by wearing women’s clothing. The high court will hear the case October 8 along with cases involving the firing of gay men.

At issue is whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans sex discrimination, also bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In Stephens’s case, a federal appeals court ruled that it applies to gender identity, and another appeals circuit ruled that it applies to sexual orientation in the case of the late skydiving instructor Donald Zarda, who said he was fired for being gay. A third appeals court ruled the opposite in the case of Georgia social worker Gerald Bostock, setting up the conflict that appears to have led the Supreme Court to take the case.

The position laid out in the brief signed by Francisco is that since Title VII does not explicitly say sexual orientation and gender identity are covered, they are not. “As it stands, Title VII prohibits treating an individual less favorably than similarly situated individuals of the opposite sex,” the brief says. “It simply does not speak to discrimination because of an individual’s gender identity or a disconnect between an individual’s gender identity and the individual’s sex.”

To argue that Title VII does not apply to gender identity, the brief points to congressional efforts to add the characteristic to federal law, as in the never-passed Employment Non-Discrimination Act and its successor, the now-pending Equality Act. Congress “has specifically addressed gender-identity discrimination in multiple other statutes, listing ‘gender identity’ separately from and in addition to ‘sex’ or ‘gender,’” the document says.

Francisco had also argued for the lawfulness of anti-transgender discrimination in a brief filed with the Supreme Court last year, when the court was weighing whether to hear the Stephens case.

However, others, even some Republicans, have made the argument that if an employer treats a worker differently because of her gender identity, it’s treating her differently because of her sex. Of the Stephens case, a group of prominent Republicans (although none currently holding office) wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief,“Had the plaintiff been assigned female at birth (or had the employer otherwise believed her to be female in essence), she would not have been discharged for representing herself as a woman.” And eight federal appeals courts and 35 federal district courts have ruled that anti-transgender discrimination is sex discrimination, the Blade reports, citing figures from the National Center for Transgender Equality.

The solicitor general filed his brief because the federal government is a party in the Stephens case, with the EEOC, a quasi-independent federal agency, having brought the suit on behalf of Stephens. However, the Trump administration recently instructed the EEOC to stop advocating for transgender workers. No EEOC attorney signed the Francisco brief.

https://www.advocate.com/transgender/2019/8/16/trump-admin-urges-supreme-court-approve-anti-trans-discrimination?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=transgender

[Jill 31,812]

Maybe he just means banning Anti-Trans protection so the protection market can self-regulate and then we will all be happy under our new corporate protected overlords?

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

October 8th is the day SCOTUS will issue their judgement.

This is the most important case for LGBTQ Rights!

 

[Marilyn MonHoe 11,011]

But the real question is.... should LGBT people throw their support behind democrats or republicans? No one should be beholden to one ideology 

Spoiler

 

[Adakam 2]

47 minutes ago, Marilyn MonHoe said:

But the real question is.... should LGBT people throw their support behind democrats or republicans? No one should be beholden to one ideology 

  Hide contents

 

ShOulD gAyS sUpPorT tHe LeFt oR nOt?

 

[uo111 5,282]

Unfortunately many gays are transphobic. They don’t care if their brothers and sisters rights are being stripped from them.

They will only care when their own rights are being stripped away, and who will be left to fight for them?

[Lilmonzter 2,864]

To all the lgbt people who voted for him well done!

 

[ltlmnstr 2,771]

2 hours ago, uo111 said:

Unfortunately many gays are transphobic. They don’t care if their brothers and sisters rights are being stripped from them.

They will only care when their own rights are being stripped away, and who will be left to fight for them?

It’s very telling on here because this thread was made 12 hours ago and it’s barely a page of comments.

This affects Gay people too! They will make it legal to fire you if you are Gay!

This is a conservative court now. I’m not holding my breathe.

[ladylinners 485]

One step forward, two steps back. 

It's horrific how the US is going backwards on equality. If this is approved I don't even know what to say. It will destroy so much of the progress that has been made and workplaces are going to be unsafe for so many. 

It's scary how much closer the US is getting to Gilead. Gilead is also very much against LGBTQ+ 

 

It saddens me that people hold so much hatred for other humans. I understand dislike of others but also respecting their rights. To actively work to take away people's right because you find them different than you is appaling on so many levels. That is taking away their human rights. 

 

Updated statistics can be found here https://transgenderlawcenter.org/equalitymap