Court Rules Gay Employees Not Protected Under Civil Rights Law

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I wouldn't hire or fire based on homosexuality unless the person was flamboyant. That personality type does not fit my line of work. But transgenders have ZERO chance of being considered by me. I would never hire someone with those kind of mental problems.

Says the alcoholic ex con...

Blow me dyke

 

[heil hitler]

In a setback for gay rights

How come it is never presented as "In a big win for normal people".
The entire apparatus is geared toward ANYTHING anti-White or anti-straight errrrgo...Normal!
This is great news.

If you were "normal" you wouldn't have had to leverage violence, force, and "the law" to shove your perceptual reality upon humankind in the Americas and beyond. Yours is merely another authoritarian system.

Please take the time to separate 'me', Heil Hitler, from whatever perceived power group which you are referring to. Your phrasing is a bit muddied.

Have you noticed your screen name?

There's the proof that you are anything BUT normal.

Define normal.

 

[Seawytch]

I wouldn't hire or fire based on homosexuality unless the person was flamboyant. That personality type does not fit my line of work. But transgenders have ZERO chance of being considered by me. I would never hire someone with those kind of mental problems.

Says the alcoholic ex con...

Blow me dyke

Ironically I have no gag reflex...but not if you were the last drunk ex con on the planet.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I wouldn't hire or fire based on homosexuality unless the person was flamboyant. That personality type does not fit my line of work. But transgenders have ZERO chance of being considered by me. I would never hire someone with those kind of mental problems.

Says the alcoholic ex con...

Blow me dyke

Ironically I have no gag reflex...but not if you were the last drunk ex con on the planet.

Get some new material dear

 

[MrMike]

I do have a honest (curious) question. Why do so many Lesbians go butch and act/look like dudes? Are they not fully committed to transition to like transgendered folks do and sort of stuck between a cock and a soft space?

And women who go for the butch lesbians? Why not go for the real thing rather than a lesbian trying to act butch male? I really only ask (not to be mean) but because it's something I never could figure out (why)?

 

[Seawytch]

I do have a honest (curious) question. Why do so many Lesbians go butch and act/look like dudes? Are they not fully committed to transition to like transgendered folks do and sort of stuck between a cock and a soft space?

And women who go for the butch lesbians? Why not go for the real thing rather than a lesbian trying to act butch male? I really only ask (not to be mean) but because it's something I never could figure out (why)?

Why do you ask dumb questions based on 1950s stereotypes of lesbians?

 

[The Professor]

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not the final authority on the issue and given the legislative history involving claims of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I would be surprised if the case was not appealed and overturned.

The question is whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964. Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on this specific issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:

“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”

Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)

It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so is discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. . I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

Conclusion: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy. I expect the decision of the 11th Circuit to be overturned on appeal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is not the final authority on the issue and given the legislative history involving claims of discrimination based upon sexual orientation, I would be surprised if the case was not appealed and overturned.

The question is whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII of the Civil rights Act of 1964. Lower courts have issued conflicting opinions on this issue and the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has not made a decision on this specific issue. However in the case of Price Waterhouse v Hopkins the SCOTUS concluded that discrimination based upon sexual stereotypes is a violation of Title VII. The case involved a woman who was denied a promotion because he employer thought she was not feminine enough in the way she walked, talked, dressed and acted. Here are the details:

“Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). The Supreme Court recognized that employment discrimination based on sex stereotypes (e.g., assumptions and/or expectations about how persons of a certain sex should dress, behave, etc.) is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. Price Waterhouse had denied Ann Hopkins a promotion in part because other partners at the firm felt that she did not act as woman should act. She was told, among other things, that she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, [and] dress more femininely" in order to secure a partnership. Id. at 230-31, 235. The Court found that this constituted evidence of sex discrimination as "n the . . . context of sex stereotyping, an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender." Id. at 250. The Court further explained that Title VII's "because of sex" provision strikes at the "entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes." Id. (quoting City of Los Angeles Dep't of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707 n.13 (1978) (internal citation omitted)).”

Examples of Court Decisions Holding LGBT-Related Discrimination Actionable Under Title VII

(Note: The above link also gives examples of lower court rulings showing that sexual orientation is protected against discrimination.)

It seems to me me that if discrimination based upon sexual stereotyping is a violation of Title VII so is discrimination based upon sexual orientation. After all, the disparate treatment of gays and lesbians is based upon their non-conformity to the stereotype of what others expect their sexual behavior to be. . I expect the SCOTUS to find that sexual orientation is afforded the full protections of Title VII. Further the SCOTUS has shown that they generally give deference to rulings made by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and The EEOC has already taken a position that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act affords protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

“In 2012, David Baldwin, a federal employee, filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging he was discriminated against because of his sex and sexual orientation. Specifically, Baldwin alleged he was denied a promotion because he is gay. In its decision, the EEOC relied upon the existing prohibition on discrimination based on sex-based stereotypes or assumptions, concluding it “applies equally in claims brought by lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals under Title VII.” According to the EEOC, “sexual orientation is inseparable from and inescapably linked to sex.” Without resolving the merits of the claim, the EEOC ultimately found that “sexual orientation is inherently a ‘sex-based consideration,’ and an allegation of discrimination based on sexual orientation is necessarily an allegation of sex discrimination under Title VII.” See Baldwin v. Foxx, FAA-2012-24738 (EEOC June 15, 2015).”

EEOC says sexual orientation protected under Title VII | JD Supra

Conclusion: The lower courts are in disagreement regarding whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII. The SCOTUS has not addressed the issue head on; however, the Court has found discrimination based upon sex stereotyping to be a violation of Title VII and in my opinion it is impossible to separate sexual orientation from sexual stereotyping. The EEOC has already ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is a violation of Title VII and the SCOTUS usually goes along with the EEOC in matters of policy. I expect the decision of the 11th Circuit to be overturned on appeal.

Nicely done, Prof!

 

[MrMike]

I do have a honest (curious) question. Why do so many Lesbians go butch and act/look like dudes? Are they not fully committed to transition to like transgendered folks do and sort of stuck between a cock and a soft space?

And women who go for the butch lesbians? Why not go for the real thing rather than a lesbian trying to act butch male? I really only ask (not to be mean) but because it's something I never could figure out (why)?

Why do you ask dumb questions based on 1950s stereotypes of lesbians?

No, I asked those questions based on the Lesbian's I see out there today (plenty of examples). Many of them try to act/look like men (aka that term "Butch"). I wasn't sure if this was a pattern of them moving into "transition/sex change" but not being able to follow through or if it were something else?

The second question was why would the feminine version of a Lesbian be interested in a male-acting (Butch) lesbian female when the real thing is out there? I have noticed that usually the "Butch" version of Lesbian's are generally not very attractive (even if they were male), many are also grossly overweight so it just didn't make much sense.

I'm really not trying to be mean, just curious about what could possibly be the root cause that drives those two patterns of behavior?

 

[Johann]

Having a fat chick or foot fetish is no more a choice than homosexuality, I don't personally have any peculiar fetishes but you wouldn't see me spreading that shit at work. Sexuality isn't like race, something that appears on your face. It's something that should stay where it belongs, in your private, personal life.

 

[MrMike]

Having a fat chick or foot fetish is no more a choice than homosexuality, I don't personally have any peculiar fetishes but you wouldn't see me spreading that shit at work. Sexuality isn't like race, something that appears on your face. It's something that should stay where it belongs, in your private, personal life.

I totally agree. I don't understand their need to constantly push it everywhere unless it is out of some unhappy insecurity to get attention for their affliction. They are in fact their own worst enemy when it comes to creating a backlash against their agenda.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Having a fat chick or foot fetish is no more a choice than homosexuality, I don't personally have any peculiar fetishes but you wouldn't see me spreading that shit at work. Sexuality isn't like race, something that appears on your face. It's something that should stay where it belongs, in your private, personal life.

So that fact that a man and woman are married should remain in their private, personal life?


Spouses should not be invited (same-sex or different-sex) to work events or outside the home because that would expose a portion of a persons private, personal life?

Employers should not extend health-insurance to spouses (same-sex or different-sex) because that would expose a portion of a persons private, personal life?

Spouses should not be allowed to have pictures of their significant others on their desks because that would expose a portion of a persons private, personal life?



>>>>

 

[MrMike]

Having a fat chick or foot fetish is no more a choice than homosexuality, I don't personally have any peculiar fetishes but you wouldn't see me spreading that shit at work. Sexuality isn't like race, something that appears on your face. It's something that should stay where it belongs, in your private, personal life.

So that fact that a man and woman are married should remain in their private, personal life?


Spouses should not be invited (same-sex or different-sex) to work events or outside the home because that would expose a portion of a persons private, personal life?

Employers should not extend health-insurance to spouses (same-sex or different-sex) because that would expose a portion of a persons private, personal life?

Spouses should not be allowed to have pictures of their significant others on their desks because that would expose a portion of a persons private, personal life?



>>>>

That's fine. And gays should be able to do the same (go for it). However, don't try to legislate and force that me or anyone else has to agree with that lifestyle or like it.