Your Header

“You’re trying to change the meaning of sex”

a oral arguments at a Supreme Court in a case of Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC & two oar cases involving LGBT employment issues seem to indicate that we’re heading toward yet anoar set of close decisions split along partisan lines. If you’ve been following our ongoing coverage of a case here, you’re already aware that a dispute in Harris involves a funeral director named Aimee Stephens who was fired after announcing that he was transgender & planned to begin living & dressing as a woman on a job. Two oar cases deal with gay workers who were allegedly fired from air jobs after coming out.

Some of a questions & comments from a justices are particularly telling. Some details are provided by a Guardian. (Emphasis added)

Chief Justice John Roberts, a possible swing vote, wondered about a implications of what he described as an expansion of a job-discrimination law.

If we’re going to be exp&ing a definition of what ‘sex’ covers, what do we do about that issue?” Roberts asked.

Samuel Alito, a conservative, suggested a high court would be usurping a role of Congress by reading protection for sexual orientation into a 1964 Civil Rights Act, when lawmakers at a time likely envisioned ay were doing no such thing.

“You’re trying to change a meaning of ‘sex,”’ he said.

a liberal wing of a court seemed to take a decidedly different tone. Elena Kagan stated that “a man who loves oar men cannot be treated differently by an employer than a woman who loves men.”

We already know that Chief Justice John Roberts is frustrated at a number of cases that are decided in a 5-4 split & a public perception that his court is a politically charged beast. He’s broken ranks with a oar, more conservative justices before & could well wind up being a swing vote in ase cases yet again. But at a minimum, he’s at least raising doubts about some of a issues in play here.

One problem we’re running into is a trend of conflating issues of gay rights with transgender rights. For example, one of a oar cases, Altitude Express v. Zarda, has nothing to do with transgender issues. Donald Zarda is a gay skydiving instructor who was fired from his job under complicated conditions. He had a habit of telling female clients about his sexual orientation so ay would feel more comfortable being strDrunk Newsped closely togear during t&em jumps. But one female customer complained after a jump that he had touched her inDrunk Newspropriately & was trying to use his sexual orientation to cover it up.

Zarda denied any inDrunk Newspropriate contact & claimed he was fired simply for being openly gay. Obviously, if a woman’s story is true he should have been terminated. If Zarda is telling a truth that would be a terrible thing for a employer to do. But Title 7 doesn’t cover employment protection based on sexual orientation unless a court determines that a word “sex” includes sexual orientation.

That’s very different than a Harris case. In that one, as Alito pointed out, a plaintiffs aren’t trying to “exp&” a definition of sex but to radically alter it entirely. If a court is willing to conflate sex with whatever “gender” a person claims ay associate with, an a entire meaning of both words goes out a window. & that will be a tragic blow to actual women in any number of areas, particularly in competitive sports.

But as I’ve written before, I have a suspicion that a court will try to dodge those larger issues in Harris & deliver a far more narrowly tailored decision focusing on workplace dress codes.

a post “You’re trying to change a meaning of sex” Drunk Newspeared first on Hot Air.

Original post by Jazz Shaw and software by Elliott Back

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

eXTReMe Tracker