What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Do gay workers deserve protection under Title VII? The Trump Administration says no. (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
Remember how at the 2016 GOP Convention, President Trump was the first Republican nominee ever to endorse gay rights? I regarded  that at the time as one of the few positives of his campaign. But it hasn’t come to pass: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1045971

Its an interesting question nonetheless, one that the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on (though they will now.) Should gay people be regarded as a protected class? I think yes, but I also believe that you don’t have to be a homophobe to disagree. Thoughts? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The DOJ’s argument is fairly simple: Title VII bars discrimination based on “race, religion, sex, or national origin.” Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ offers no opinion about whether it should be covered, only that it isn’t, and that if you want it to be you need to change the law, not reinterpret existing law. In other words, the traditional conservative “original language” argument. 

Is this a compelling point of view? 

 
The DOJ’s argument is fairly simple: Title VII bars discrimination based on “race, religion, sex, or national origin.” Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ offers no opinion about whether it should be covered, only that it isn’t, and that if you want it to be you need to change the law, not reinterpret existing law. In other words, the traditional conservative “original language” argument. 

Is this a compelling point of view? 
It will be to Kavanaugh. 

 
The DOJ’s argument is fairly simple: Title VII bars discrimination based on “race, religion, sex, or national origin.” Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ offers no opinion about whether it should be covered, only that it isn’t, and that if you want it to be you need to change the law, not reinterpret existing law. In other words, the traditional conservative “original language” argument. 

Is this a compelling point of view? 
It is not a compelling point of view. This line of logic, if used throughout our laws, is to simply rewind our laws to a time before much of what we know today existed. Times change, laws change, interpretations change based on each of those. To claim to have to go back to change every law to keep up with the times is impossible nor should this line of thinking be given any prominent place in our thought process. Also, if using this line of logic consistently, "traditional conservatives," will find themselves on the short end of the stick much of the time.

 
The DOJ’s argument is fairly simple: Title VII bars discrimination based on “race, religion, sex, or national origin.” Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ offers no opinion about whether it should be covered, only that it isn’t, and that if you want it to be you need to change the law, not reinterpret existing law. In other words, the traditional conservative “original language” argument. 

Is this a compelling point of view? 
It’s pretty much been the primary interpretation of Title VII since it’s inception. Interestingly, courts have found that Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender employees (“because of sex” covers failure to abide by traditional gender norms) but not gay or lesbian employees. 

 
It is not a compelling point of view. This line of logic, if used throughout our laws, is to simply rewind our laws to a time before much of what we know today existed. Times change, laws change, interpretations change based on each of those. To claim to have to go back to change every law to keep up with the times is impossible nor should this line of thinking be given any prominent place in our thought process. Also, if using this line of logic consistently, "traditional conservatives," will find themselves on the short end of the stick much of the time.
Things dont change that much. This isnt an actual problem that legislators cant keep up with the times. 

 
As i've stated several times here over the years, because religion is protected and is, as we now know, an expression rather than a birthright, intrinsic expression of sexuality is grandfathered in. I prefer that both be unprotected and believe the founders would, too.

 
Also, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act has been introduced multiple times in Congress, but has yet to be passed. It would expressly make sexual orientation a protected class for purposes of federal employment discrimination laws. 

 
The DOJ’s argument is fairly simple: Title VII bars discrimination based on “race, religion, sex, or national origin.” Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ offers no opinion about whether it should be covered, only that it isn’t, and that if you want it to be you need to change the law, not reinterpret existing law. In other words, the traditional conservative “original language” argument. 

Is this a compelling point of view? 
It is not a compelling point of view. This line of logic, if used throughout our laws, is to simply rewind our laws to a time before much of what we know today existed. Times change, laws change, interpretations change based on each of those. To claim to have to go back to change every law to keep up with the times is impossible nor should this line of thinking be given any prominent place in our thought process. Also, if using this line of logic consistently, "traditional conservatives," will find themselves on the short end of the stick much of the time.
The 2nd Amendment wouldn't fare so well...

 
Mario Kart said:
It is not a compelling point of view. This line of logic, if used throughout our laws, is to simply rewind our laws to a time before much of what we know today existed. Times change, laws change, interpretations change based on each of those. To claim to have to go back to change every law to keep up with the times is impossible nor should this line of thinking be given any prominent place in our thought process. Also, if using this line of logic consistently, "traditional conservatives," will find themselves on the short end of the stick much of the time.
No, I think it's pretty reasonable to ask Congress to do its job and pass, abolish, or amend laws to keep up with the times.  

 
No, I think it's pretty reasonable to ask Congress to do its job and pass, abolish, or amend laws to keep up with the times.  
It is reasonable. However, Congress tends to move slow and not always in favor of the populace in question. The courts are there to interpret the laws and also interpret the intent as well as the intention their ruling will have. The court is our last hope where congress and the executive fail to do their job. While asking Congress to pass, abolish, or amend a law is reasonable, unfortunately, history has proven to not agree. 

 But, you’re a smart man, IK. I believe you know that Congress doesn’t or rarely lives up to the citizens standards. 

 
timschochet said:
The DOJ’s argument is fairly simple: Title VII bars discrimination based on “race, religion, sex, or national origin.” Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ offers no opinion about whether it should be covered, only that it isn’t, and that if you want it to be you need to change the law, not reinterpret existing law. In other words, the traditional conservative “original language” argument. 

Is this a compelling point of view? 
If a woman married a man she wouldn’t get fired. 

If a man marries a man he gets fired. 

How is that not sex discrimination?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
The DOJ’s argument is fairly simple: Title VII bars discrimination based on “race, religion, sex, or national origin.” Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ offers no opinion about whether it should be covered, only that it isn’t, and that if you want it to be you need to change the law, not reinterpret existing law. In other words, the traditional conservative “original language” argument. 

Is this a compelling point of view? 
Maybe the Democrats in the House should pass a bill extending this provision to sexual orientation and transgender status. I'm sure" Moscow Mitch" will put it up for a vote and the non-bigoted GOP members of the Senate will vote for it by a veto-proof majority.  :lmao:  

 
That (gay) man is also free to marry a woman and not get fired. That is the argument I heard anyway. 
Yeah, I’ve heard that one, too.  Never seemed very convincing. 

A Jewish person is free to convert to Christianity, too, and not get fired.

 
Mario Kart said:
It is not a compelling point of view. This line of logic, if used throughout our laws, is to simply rewind our laws to a time before much of what we know today existed. Times change, laws change, interpretations change based on each of those. To claim to have to go back to change every law to keep up with the times is impossible nor should this line of thinking be given any prominent place in our thought process. Also, if using this line of logic consistently, "traditional conservatives," will find themselves on the short end of the stick much of the time.
Of course it is.  A law is what the words describe it as.  The remedy here, if there is one, is legislative, not judicial.  Sexual orientation does not fall under those categories - it's up to Congress to make it so.

 
timschochet said:
The DOJ’s argument is fairly simple: Title VII bars discrimination based on “race, religion, sex, or national origin.” Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The DOJ offers no opinion about whether it should be covered, only that it isn’t, and that if you want it to be you need to change the law, not reinterpret existing law. In other words, the traditional conservative “original language” argument. 

Is this a compelling point of view? 
There is a huge difference between interpreting broad language written hundreds of years ago and clear specific language written in modern times.  Our system of government loses all balance should the executive branch just be able to make up rules and then enforce them.  It is more than compelling, it is the basis of our system.  If you want to change the clear language of the law, do it properly. 

 
Mario Kart said:
It is not a compelling point of view. This line of logic, if used throughout our laws, is to simply rewind our laws to a time before much of what we know today existed. Times change, laws change, interpretations change based on each of those. To claim to have to go back to change every law to keep up with the times is impossible nor should this line of thinking be given any prominent place in our thought process. Also, if using this line of logic consistently, "traditional conservatives," will find themselves on the short end of the stick much of the time.
I am unclear why it would be impossible.  If it is possible for the courts to do It,  it is possible for the legislature to do so.

 
There is a huge difference between interpreting broad language written hundreds of years ago and clear specific language written in modern times.  Our system of government loses all balance should the executive branch just be able to make up rules and then enforce them.  It is more than compelling, it is the basis of our system.  If you want to change the clear language of the law, do it properly. 
I agree with this.   

 
There is a huge difference between interpreting broad language written hundreds of years ago and clear specific language written in modern times.  Our system of government loses all balance should the executive branch just be able to make up rules and then enforce them.  It is more than compelling, it is the basis of our system.  If you want to change the clear language of the law, do it properly. 
I kind of agree with jon. :unsure:

My only hesitation is that I'm not sure how the statute has been interpreted vis-a-vis spouses, partners etc. in the past. If a person is discriminated against for dating or marrying someone of a particular race, religion or national origin, is that considered a violation of the Act? I honestly don't know and I'm too tired to research it. If so, then obviously it would also be discrimination to do the same because a person dated or married someone of a particular gender.

Also it's worth pointing out that states can include sexual orientation in their anti-discrimination statutes, and many have chosen to do so. Here's the map but you can probably guess what it looks like without clicking.

Finally, it will surprise no one to learn that the Dem House has passed a bill to address this by amending Title VII to explicitly include sexual orientation. It will also surprise no one to learn that McConnell refuses to take up the bill.  So if you believe in protecting the LGBTQ community from discrimination, you know what to do.

 
I have a radical idea

Lets treat EVERYONE the same - regardless of skin color, sexual choices, how much income you have, how much your parents have etc

Gay people shouldn't be treated any different than a rich while Christian person who owns 30 guns and who voted Trump. 

Agreed ?

 
I have a radical idea

Lets treat EVERYONE the same - regardless of skin color, sexual choices, how much income you have, how much your parents have etc

Gay people shouldn't be treated any different than a rich while Christian person who owns 30 guns and who voted Trump. 

Agreed ?
Is there any consequence to me if I choose not to treat everyone equal?

 
Lets treat EVERYONE the same - regardless of skin color, sexual choices, how much income you have, how much your parents have etc
Should the New York Jets treat everyone the same regardless of whether they're good at football?

I'm nitpicking at the way people are phrasing things, but it's kind of important. "Nobody should ever discriminate on any basis" and "everybody should always discriminate on every basis" are both going to have crazy implications. A little nuance is in order.

 
Should the New York Jets treat everyone the same regardless of whether they're good at football?

I'm nitpicking at the way people are phrasing things, but it's kind of important. "Nobody should ever discriminate on any basis" and "everybody should always discriminate on every basis" are both going to have crazy implications. A little nuance is in order.
per the threat title no - gays don't deserve protection anymore so than anyone else - they don't deserve any more special treatment or anything like that than you'd give a rich white Trump supporting gun owner would you ?

that was my point - this special treatment thing .... we as a country need to move beyond that because until we do? we're not moving beyond discrimination

discrimination to stop discrimination is guess what? discrimination 

the New York Jets don't need to treat non-football players like crap because they can't pass or run or tackle- no, treat them just like they'd treat football players, you know what I mean right ?

 
I don't know. That seems complicated. It also seems irrelevant to the question of whether anyone should ever be discriminated against.
It is irrelevant, and you could probably make the case that genetics play a bigger role in one becoming a football player.  Unless you are blessed with great size and speed, you have little to no chance of being in the NFL.  

 
It is irrelevant, and you could probably make the case that genetics play a bigger role in one becoming a football player.  Unless you are blessed with great size and speed, you have little to no chance of being in the NFL.  
Sure, but MT is talking about benign discrimination, where we discriminate on characteristics that are highly relevant to job performance.  NFL teams discriminate against weak, frail people.  The Air Force discriminates against people with bad eyesight.  Accounting firms discriminate against people who haven't studied accounting.  And so on.  

Sometimes a characteristic is relevant for one job but not for others.  It's illegal for accounting firms to discriminate against old people (by law, that's anyone over 40).  But it's perfectly fine for NFL teams to cut players who they deem too old.  Accounting firms can't refuse to hire women, but the Catholic church is within its rights to refuse to hire female priests.  

When people say "discrimination is bad," they pretty much never mean that literally all discrimination is bad.  Everybody is fine with the good kind of discrimination where we're picking people and passing others over based on job-related characteristics.  Some of those characteristics will be under the person's control and many aren't, but that doesn't matter.  What matters is whether the characteristic actually affects job performance.

There are probably some jobs out there where "being gay" would render a person unable to perform a particular job, and so discrimination would be okay in those cases.  For example, "being gay" theoretically makes it difficult to be a Catholic priest (the jokes write themselves here) so it would be okay for the Catholic church to refuse to hire an openly gay priest.  But it's hard to see why sexual orientation would affect one's ability to conduct an audit, so discrimination along those lines would be ethically wrong in the world of accounting.

 
I can’t believe this is 2019 and we’re actually dealing with discrimination like this still.

Then I have a flashback to November 2016 and it all makes sense.
And we have to listen to the Evangelical verbal judo that its really them that are being discrimanted against. Becasue they might have to cooexist with others who they detest. Which also seems antithetical to the teachings of their Christ.   

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top