re: Supreme Court - "Sex discrimination" includes gay and transgender discrimination

when conservative judges and liberal judges just follow the law it always disapoints.. why is this such a big issue with conservative voters.

quote:

---

It's not the f*cking job of the Supreme Court to give any group "new civil rights."

---

It kind of is, though. Brown v the Board of Education interpreted the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to rule that segregation laws were unconstitutional. Do you disagree that the SCOTUS should have had the power to rule on that? Because that's essentially what happened with this ruling today just with a different class of people.

Hernandez v Texas added national origin in 1954 on the same basis.

There's a multitude of SCOTUS decisions that made rulings based on gender.

The idea that the SCOTUS function isn't to make interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment protections is a pretty ignorant position to hold.

I do think this may be a slippery slope and have some controversial consequences, but to say it's not the SCOTUS' job is just not true. That's why SCOTUS appointments have always been so important.

quote:

---

I really don’t see the argument on why race and sex are protected classes but sexuality isn’t. I’m a libertarian to where I’d revoke Title VII if I had my way and then go shop at other places that weren’t being racist or sexist. But so long we’re playing this game, I think this is a natural extension of what Title VII initially had in mind. I find sexuality to be more plausible under Title VII than pregnancy and certainly over 40.

---

It's expected to interpret law based on what was meant at the time the law was written. Sexuality was not included. "Sex" by all definitions at the time were biological and anatomical characteristics of male and female. And with that, sexuality is materially different from "sex" (maleness and femaleness) and needs to be treated separately in this case, which should have required an amendment to the law.

Just because you feel that they are closely related doesn't mean that they are to the point of extending one concept to include another.

These people would have found another way to destroy their and their children's lives.

quote:

---

But what’s the argument that race and sex are be protected classes but sexuality isn’t?

---

Because that's what the law says is protected.

quote:

---

It's expected to interpret law based on what was meant at the time the law was written. Sexuality was not included. "Sex" by all definitions at the time were biological and anatomical characteristics of male and female. And with that, sexuality is materially different from "sex" (maleness and femaleness)

---

Religion is a protected class and that isn’t an innate physical characteristic. You have failed to make an argument why sexuality isn’t a protected class.

quote:

---

Because that's what the law says is protected.

---

“Because I said so” is a pretty weak argument. What is the actual argument that race, sex, and religion are protected classes and sexuality is not?

quote:

---

It’s the same thing per the Supreme Court. Gay and transgender are both simply different expressions of sex.

---

Thank you for the clarification.

quote:

---

It's expected to interpret law based on what was meant at the time the law was written.

---

man then i have a something to tell you about the second amendment

Dude, this is a natural extension of the law. Gay rights weren’t really a thing when the Civil Rights Act was being written, but if were as acceptable to be gay in the 60s as it is today, you can bet your arse that would have been included. If you can’t make a better argument than it isn’t explicitly written there, then you lose in the courts. This is stuff that our Founding Fathers had in mind for the evolution of our nation.