BOOM: Federal Appeals Court Rules Civil Rights Act Of 1964 Applies To Anti-Gay Workplace Discrimination

Dominic Holden reports at Buzzfeed News:

A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that a 1964 civil rights law bans anti-gay workplace discrimination. The decision rebukes the Trump administration — which had argued against a gay worker in the case — and hands progressives a win in their strategy to protect LGBT employees with a drumbeat of lawsuits.

The dispute hinges on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex, also bans workplace discrimination due to sexual orientation.

The Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled Monday, “We now hold that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of discrimination ‘because of . . . sex,’ in violation of Title VII.” In doing so, the court overruled a lower court — and a precedent from two previous court cases — and remanded the case to be litigated in light of their reading of Title VII.

The appeal was heard en banc by all 13 judges, meaning that the only next step would be the US Supreme Court. Hit the link for much more.

  • gaycuckhubby

    What!!!!! I know not to count the chickens until the eggs are hatched, but this is amazing!

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      * I actually have some peeps hatching next week Wednesday.

      • gaycuckhubby

        Awww… pics when they come!

  • Ninja0980

    Once again, it’s going to come down to Kennedy.
    Damn shame the both sides are the same folks didn’t come out to vote in 2016, then it wouldn’t be.

    • j.martindale

      If it is heard before he resigns…which may come at the end of this term.

      • JCF

        Don’t think so: he loaded up w/ staff, which suggests he’s staying on.

        • j.martindale

          Here’s hoping!

  • Dreaming Vertebrate

    And the evil Keebler elf is already typing up his appeal to the Supreme Court.

    • Nowhereman

      I was just thinking about how this is the first administration that I recall that has actually tried to take hard-earned civil rights AWAY from minority groups through the justice system.

    • ChrisMorley

      Because that’s a complete waste of the elf’s time because the federal appeal court has just sent the case back to the district court for them to decide the case on the basis that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is illegal.

  • another_steve

    Great news.

    That said, this will only strengthen the evangelical christofascists’ embrace of the thrice-married sexual predator currently in the White House.

    He might get to nominate the next Supreme Court justice, you see.

    • Dreaming Vertebrate

      He might get to nominate even two more rightwing hacks.

    • Ninja0980

      The next two possibly.

    • Cipher

      We need to seize the Senate in November and freeze all Trump judicial nominees.

      • another_steve

        People are excited about the Dems’ real shot at regaining control of the House this November, but it’s actually more crucial to get back control of the Senate.

        For the precise reason you mention there.

        • Ninja0980

          To me, that was the biggest lost in 2016.
          Not getting the Senate back meant not being able to stop the right wing take over of our courts.

        • Blake J Butler

          It should have been in 2016 where that excitement should have been more evident, not now that we have a fascist demagogue in the white house. The first black president handing the reigns over to America’s first female president with the most admirable resume in history, not a reality tv trash celebrity as “president” who’s a prime example of why we need Roe V. Wade.

          Its every 2 and every 4 fucking years, and it shouldnt have to motivate people to vote because of a incompetent waste of sperm on the ballot.

          Fake news, purist bullshit, foreign interference with election process, depressed voter turnout, the therapy bills that are being run up because some people didn’t care, care enough to vote, and vote CORRECTLY.

          And here’s the window this year that is open to undo some of what happened in 2016. and the past election cycles electing incompetent candidates for office.

  • whollyfool

    Woohoo! About time!

  • justme

    Now if only the SCOTUS would reverse it’s decision on the voter rights act and reinstate it until congress make the changes they required..

  • gaycuckhubby

    Fuck Trump… this isn’t about rebuking him or his administration, this is something we’ve worked for decades on. We’re on the cusp!

    • Todd20036

      But Sessions can push us back into the darkness… if another SCOTUS justice is appointed.

      • gaycuckhubby

        True. Some of the tweets just made it sound like it was a purely political win. But this has been a legal hurdle for a very long time. It seems larger than just a political loss for the president

  • April

    *sigh* I wish this ruling happened 15 years ago when I was dealing with my sexual harassment lawsuit. 🙁

  • gaycuckhubby

    If this stands, it would undoubtedly carry over to housing and banking

  • AdamTh

    But the 2nd CCA is New York, Vermont & Connecticut.

    IT’S NEW YORK!!!!

    Get ready for that to be the argument…..

    • Todd20036

      NYC is very blue, but the rest of NY is quite red.

  • gaycuckhubby

    Any sense of how many judges dissented?

    • Ninja0980

      It appears two of them did, Debra Livingston, a W judge and Gerald Lynch, who is an Obama appointee, who said the only way to truly do this is through Congress.

      • gaycuckhubby

        Honestly, I’m a bit surprised at the outcome. I welcome it, but I can very clearly see the argument that this is something that needs to pass through Congress and that

        • Ninja0980

          Only problem what do you do when Congress is controlled by folks who are in power through gerrymandering and have made it clear they will never do so unless forced to?

          • gaycuckhubby

            Youre right. Isn’t that one third of the determination of what qualifies a suspect class? The lack of ability to seek equality through the legislation?
            Either way, I applaud the decision. I think it’s monumental.

          • mpatreyu

            I believe our system of checks and balances is supposed to be a three-way street. We should take the win.

  • Todd20036

    If Trump doesn’t seat another “justice” to replace someone who thinks we’re full citizens, this should stand at the SCOTUS level.
    If we get another Scalia, well, the first step to the camps is to legalize discrimination.

  • worstcultever

    As Ninja is constantly preaching – the courts are IT. We MUST do EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER to ensure a BLUE TSUNAMI in November to COMPLETELY ARREST all further wingnut infestation of our courts at all levels!!!!!!

    (caps borrowed from Billbear, exclamation points my own)

    • Blake J Butler

      That also means no purity tests either.

      • Cranky Squirrel

        Correct. To turn the tide we need to agree to vote blue no matter who.

        • Cipher

          The vote that matters most is the first one they take: Who do you want as leader of the chamber- a D or a Rethug?

        • The_Wretched


          Yellow dogging doesn’t fix anything. Worse, it gives the blue dogs more deference than they are worth. And I’m just rubbed the wrong way by all forms of the “sit down and shut up, that’s why” argument.

          • Berdawn Hutchinson

            Jones (AL) is a Dem and has voted with the administration every time. How is that better than a Republican? The “vote blue no matter who” are the ones who are ensuring that both parties are the same.

          • The_Wretched

            #188, not interested.

            See also –

            You’re substantively wrong. I ask that everyone doubled check the people you dislike but also the people who seem to be supporting you.

          • Berdawn Hutchinson

            Thanks for the link! I was only aware of his FISA, budget, and DHHS votes.

          • Berdawn Hutchinson

            which are still pretty big policy votes. He’s not been there very long, so he may catch up with Manchin :/

          • Cipher

            The reality check I see is that some states are not going to elect a liberal or progressive. Never. Ever. Ain’t gonna happen. So we are left with a practical reality. Support a Blue Dog or cede the state to a Republican.

            A Blue Dog might be able to get away with *just not blocking* a moderate or liberal Supreme Court justice, which would help the left. A Blue Dog may, by voting for a Democratic leader, allow the committee leaderships for every single post to flip from R to D, which would allow, for example, real investigations to commence and proceed, permit Democrat-authored bills to reach the floor and get voted on, etc. The outcome of applying a left wing purity test to the candidate for West Virginia, for example, is not going to get the issues I care about anywhere. You will just hand the Republicans another vote for Mitch McConnell when we need to stop Trump from packing the (lifetime-appointed) judiciary with wing-nuts.

            Sometimes progress happens in increments. Hint: It doesn’t happen at all when the courts are packed with Trumpezees and the democratic party has no chamber to push its agenda. Levers of power matter.

          • The_Wretched

            Liberals can win in California.

          • Cipher

            L.A., the Bay Area, sure. Other parts, yes. Orange County? Nope. And parts of that state may as well be Utah or Kansas. There’s a whole different Cali in the rural parts.

      • JCF

        This needs to be repeated. With so MANY Dems running this year—which is freaking FANTASTIC!—it’s inevitable that, for many of us, “my favorite candidate” won’t win the Democratic primary. We MUST come together behind the D nominee, EVEN IF you think the winner “said nasty things about my favorite candidate” in the primary. That’s just the way campaigns go.


    • Ninja0980


    • (((GC)))

      Amen! If I could add blazing, blinking, fluorescent pyrotechnics to your message, I would! (And Billbear has enough allcaps for us all.)

  • gaycuckhubby

    What a day for discus to be acting up. I’ve had to refresh the story 7 times already

  • Ninja0980
    O/T but this is why despite all he’s done for us LGBT wise, Kennedy is still an asshole.

  • boatboy_srq

    Dear LCR:

    You’re welcome.

    The Left You Love to Hate.

    • gaycuckhubby

      Well put

    • Todd20036

      I miss that show. Did either of the “Stivics” become right wingers?

      • DJ John Bear

        Neither Rob Reiner’s character nor him in real life *ever* became a right winger. I’m not sure about Gloria though…hmm….

      • worstcultever

        Rob sure didn’t, and so far as we know Sally became a bleeding heart on the side of good. Btw I hope nobody missed Norman Lear’s fantastic memoir of all the fighting he had to do to bring these and so many other indelible characters into our popular culture

      • ZRAinSWVA

        My dad never did realize that the show was i>making fun of Archie and his deplorable beliefs.

        I, of course, only watched it because of ‘meathead’…

    • worstcultever

      Edith/Jean S was a GODDESS, that is all

  • Dana Stinson

    but Trans people are still fucked.

    • djcoastermark

      I think (and I hope) this ruling also covers Trans persons the way the full ruling reads.

    • gaycuckhubby

      It seems like this case only included sexual orientation. And that’s all the court could rule on, because of the system in the US. Judges can’t rule on something that’s not in front of them. But trans workers have gotten good results out of the courts recently. In fact multiple courts have ruled that gender identity is covered under sex discrimination, wheras sexual orientation was not.
      So far these have been lower or state courts and hopefully a federal court will Rectify this quickly.

    • BobSF_94117

      No, trans people were already covered by a previous ruling that was a lot more sensible.

      • fuow

        Which, somehow, never is applied.

  • fuzzybits

    Sure,the orange turd would’ve ran into that school in Florida.

    • worstcultever

      wrong thread but always welcome anyway

  • Ben in Oakland

    Somewhat specious reasoning. What we need is a decision that bans sexual orientation discrimination on religious belief, which the Civil rights Act does cover.

    • IDavid


  • DoctorDJ

    How does this affect religious employers? Are their employees slaves to the church’s bigotry?

  • fuzzybits
  • Uncle Mark

    Between this and the DACA ruling, Trump, Pence & Sessions are having a bad day. I’m waiting for Mueller to make it a hat trick before the end of the day.

    • Nowhereman

      Maybe Hope HIcks will be called in to to testify. Or even Omarosa.

      • Chris Gardner

        I can’t stand Omarosa but if they called her in to testify, I’d have to pop some popcorn and tune in for the show!

      • Chase Woofer

        Omarosa is out doing the BB Celeb tour right now.

  • Ross


    The BOOM was a nice touch.

  • Ninja0980
    They are sadly about to get their wish.
    For all the Bernie/Stein bots, congrats.
    You helped killed the working class with your 2016 actions but hey, you have your purity right?

    • worstcultever

      Really. Forget DACA et al – this is the one the pukes really want. And will likely get.

    • stevenj

      I smell the Koch bros.

      • Paul

        I thought I could smell an open sewer, but yeah I think you’re correct.

    • The_Wretched

      Purity is the FEDDEMS not funding and releasing opposition research on liberals and progressives. Keep attacking 40% of the base and wonder why the base stops showing up for elections.

      Keep up that endless anti-progressive drum beat and then cry “why oh why” is politics moving to the right.

      AND let’s note its the conservatives and the oligarchs behind them that are the actual villains here. Best we never mention them, right?

    • gaycuckhubby

      I’m surprised this hasn’t gotten more mention, but Bernie Sanders has just turned into Trump on Russia matters. He says it’s Hillary’s fault that the Russians were able to manipulate the election, because she didn’t do anything about it. I don’t know what he thinks she could have done? He also reject Mueller’s finding that the 13 Russians that were indicted in anyway tried to elevate his campaign at the expense of Hillary

      • Treant

        Fortunately, if you look on his ass, he’s got an expiration date of July 25, 2016.

        I don’t recommend doing that, but it’s the last day he was relevant.

    • ian

      I expect the rightwing judges will of course prove to be the partisan hacks they are. Once again Kennedy may be the decider, unless he’s already signaled his position against unions.

      • Ninja0980

        Kennedy has made clear he will be writing the majority option striking them down.

      • The_Wretched

        he has. This one is over and done before the opinion is written. It’ll be something about the free speech rights of the non-union employees cannot be infringed in any way and will all but ignore the free rider problem.

    • gaycuckhubby

      By the way, Bernie has a series of speeches set for guess where? Iowa!

      • The_Wretched

        Let me guess, he’s working to ensure the unions get killed? The democratic socialist really wants them to die and like yesterday.

        • gaycuckhubby

          Should have tagged that OT.
          I don’t have much problem with Sanders policies.

  • Girlgoon

    Its a race to pack the supreme court with enough conservative kooky judges now to defeat the suit on appeal.
    We’re not out of the redneck woods yet.

    • Stuart Wyman-Cahall

      To the “Bernie or Bust” and “Anybody But Hillary” gang… A BIG F. U. if our Supreme Court gets one more Gorsuch. I pray for the good health of RBG every day. Trust me. 4 or 8 years of Hillary was a lot more politically logical than 50 years of Gorsuch. Not that you really cared, you petulant children.

      • The_Wretched

        McConnel blew up 250 years of law and tradtion in not holding the vote for Merrik Garland. Where are the floor speeches of Schumer and the Senate Dems raising holy hells about that? the FEDDEMS kept their powder dry, softly softly they went so as to not draw any attention to that.

      • Michael

        From the “Bernie or Bust” crowd:

        That BIG F U works both ways.

        I don’t think you can fathom the BS attitude you’re giving right now is EXACTLY the attitude you gave during the primaries and so arrogantly expected everyone else just to fall in line. Next time try not being such a d!ck and maybe people will be more willing to fall in line.

        • Treant

          Yet strangely, Bernie fans applauded and offered exactly the same attitude as “proof” that their candidate was better. They then got pissy when the folks on the other side of the fence didn’t agree, doubled down, and rode that dying horse right into the ditch.

          Glass houses, stones, in other words.

        • fuow

          Wow, right – so because we Democrats aren’t perfect, you went ahead and trashed gay rights for decades. Yeah, I see your logic.

        • Ninja0980

          I know people who LOATHED Trump that voted for him because of SCOTUS.
          Too bad you and others didn’t do the same.

      • fuow


      • Ninja0980

        They’ve made that clear again their purity matters more then anything else, immigrants, LGBT folks etc. be damned.

    • Treant

      Then let the next Democratic President inflate the court size to 13.

  • Macbill

    Tony P. is going to be ever so mad. Mad enough to spit.

    • Tempus Fuggit

      Not to mention Brian B!

  • The_Wretched

    2nd? Ah good. Were it 9th, I’d be concerned. 4th and I’d be shocked.

  • evanedwards

    More good news from SCOTUS:

    U.S. Supreme Court rejects Tucson woman’s argument in gay marriage, child custody matter

    The U.S. Supreme Court this morning rejected a bid by a Tucson woman arguing that gay marriages are not legally the same as others, at least when it comes to divorce.

    Without comment the justices rejected a bid by Kimberly McLaughlin to deny
    shared custody of her biological child with Suzan McLaughlin, who she was legally married to at the time of the child’s birth.

    Today’s ruling also could open the door to forcing other changes in law dealing with existing statutes, rules and regulations to the extent they deny same-sex spouses all the benefits afforded opposite-sex spouses. That includes taxation, property rights, hospital access and adoption rights.”… (More at link above.)

    • JCF

      Since the article’s behind a paywall (but I know a way around that!) Here it is:

      The U.S. Supreme Court this morning rejected a bid by a Tucson woman arguing that gay marriages are not legally the same as others, at least when it comes to divorce.

      Without comment the justices rejected a bid by Kimberly McLaughlin to deny shared custody of her biological child with Suzan McLaughlin, who she was legally married to at the time of the child’s birth.

      Keith Berkshire, Kimberly McLaughlin’s attorney, acknowledged to the justices that two prior rulings had said that all marriages are entitled to the same benefits.

      But he argued that the law still needs to understand that there are biological differences between men and women. More to the point, Berkshire said there is a basic fact that the justices cannot ignore: The child cannot possibly be biologically related to Suzan McLaughlin. [JCF: this is factually incorrect: I know of lesbian couples where the birth mother and the, um, “egg mother” are each member of the couple.]

      The justices gave no reason for their ruling.

      Today’s ruling also could open the door to forcing other changes in law dealing with existing statutes, rules and regulations to the extent they deny same-sex spouses all the benefits afforded opposite-sex spouses. That includes taxation, property rights, hospital access and adoption rights.

      That last issue could be crucial given that Arizona law reads that in placing a child for adoption preference should be given to a married man and a married woman.

      The issue in this case surrounds an Arizona law which says that a child born to a woman within 10 months of her marriage is presumed to be biologically related to the father.

      Kimberly and Suzan, legally married in California in 2008, agreed to have a child through artificial insemination using an anonymous sperm donor.
      Kimberly McLaughlin became pregnant in 2010.

      The couple moved to Tucson, entered into a joint-parenting agreement and executed mirror wills, declaring they were equal parents to the child. After the boy’s birth in 2011, Suzan McLaughlin stayed home and cared for him while Kimberly McLaughlin worked as a physician.

      When the boy was nearly 2, Kimberly McLaughlin moved out, taking him with her and cutting off his contact with Suzan McLaughlin.

      In filing for divorce, Suzan McLaughlin sought parenting time, citing that Arizona law about presumption of parentage.

      Kimberly McLaughlin has fought that at every step, arguing that legal presumption, by its plain wording, applies only when the other spouse is a man. Berkshire argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that there are legal and biological reasons why the presumption cannot be applied in cases of same-sex marriage.

      Today’s ruling does not guarantee that Suzan McLaughlin will get joint custody. Instead, it sends the still-pending custody matter back to a trial judge in Pima County.


      How much do I hate when gay exes (usually, sigh, lesbians) pull this kind of shit on each other? Well, since straights don’t fight fair in divorce, I guess it’s too much to expect that we LGBTs would…

  • Nowhereman

    That is interesting. When I woke up this morning I was thinking about how in my state, I can now legally get married, but I can get fired from a job and kicked out of a rental just because I’m gay.

    • The_Wretched

      We should do what Germany does and require all firings be either ‘for cause’ or from a showing to a court that the company can’t actually afford its staff.

      • Treant

        And when you are forced to drag their asses to the magistrate at the Unemployment office because they’re contesting your unemployment benefits, and they lose hands-down, they should be forced to pay for that annoyance.

        (Who, me, speak from experience? Nawwww).

        • The_Wretched

          I agree, the “it wasn’t a firing-firing” problem is under addressed. Maybe we should see if John Oliver can do a piece on it.

        • gaycuckhubby

          yeah, I see both sides of this. I am a worker who knows how important it is to feel secure in their job and not feel like you’re going to lose your way of life at any moment. But I also m in charge of hiring and firing at a job that requires skilled labor. And sometimes people you hire just aren’t nearly as good as you want them to be. And it takes so much work to get them fired. Sometimes they’re good just not as good as you would want and it’s virtually impossible to get rid of a worker like that.

          • Treant

            On the other side of the fence, you hired me for a set of skills, I quit my old job, and now you want to fire me because you made a mistake? 🙂 I shouldn’t have to be the one to pay for the fact that you misjudged, so if you’ll offer training to bring me up to par, or compensation for the period where I need to go looking for yet another job, that’d be fair.

          • gaycuckhubby

            I get that… in my particular instance we are small, very small, business that does not have available funds for off-site training or classes. It’s a cutthroat business and I don’t have any easy answers. It seems like the only places that have the ability to provide what workers need are large corporations.

          • The_Wretched

            Process protects every one and the ‘overhead’ cost is worth the protection it affords the targets of discrimination. I’d willingly put together a record for 10 necessary fires so that a single gay man isn’t wrongly fired by a xtian bigot.

          • Treant

            I should also amplify that. I’d been there three years. This most definitely wasn’t for lack of skills.

          • gaycuckhubby

            Absolutely. If you’ve been there that long and they’ve benefited from your skills and dedication that long then you deserve a Fair evaluation and compensation

  • AtticusP

    I can hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the “Christian“ right already.

    What a sweet, satisfying sound.

    Justice prevails. Fuck you, hypocrites.

  • Michael R

    Oh Gorsuch …. you surprising goon !

  • JWC

    Ah Donn, like the sound of slamming doors. Get used to it soon that will be steel on steel and those doors will have bars

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    The SADZ will be ever so delicious.

  • Hue-Man

    I know foreign courts mean nothing in America, but Canada’s Supreme Court extended discrimination based on sex to include sexual orientation in 1995.

    The courts accepted that section 15 [of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms] is to be interpreted broadly, and that
    “analogous” grounds, i.e., personal characteristics other than those listed,
    may also form the basis for discrimination against a group or an individual.
    (Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia). In 1995, the
    view that sexual orientation is such an “analogous” ground, and therefore a prohibited
    ground of discrimination under the Charter, was confirmed by the Supreme Court
    of Canada in the Egan decision, discussed below under the heading “Same-Sex

  • Rex

    So much for Trump being the best for the LGBT community. That was another bold faced lie right from Trump’s disgusting lips.

    • The_Wretched

      A bit obvious but it’s worth reminding ourselves of what’s a lie and what’s real. It’s a defense against the impacts of gaslighting.

  • BartmanLA

    What do you want to bet that Trump is going to call for this case to be appealed to the SCOTUS??? He won’t let this go because it’s a “loss” for his administration, and he can’t have that. Maybe all this NRA and Russia investigation will distract him for a while but I’m guessing the hard core anti-LGBTQ congress and lobbying groups will put a bug in his ear to do something about this case and not just accept the loss. Lets see what goes down.

    • -M-

      Pence, Sessions, DeVos, Miller etc. etc. Yeah, this isn’t over.

  • metrored

    I’m still holding my breath. I don’t think I’ll be able to breathe until at least June 26th.

  • BobSF_94117

    This is not good. Besides the absurdity of the idea that we’ve been covered since 1964 and no one happened to notice, this plays right into the GOP meme that the courts are exceeding their authority.

    • Tempus Fuggit

      Shirley, you can’t be serious. Did you really think about it before you made that comment?

      • BobSF_94117

        Yes, yes I did. For many years, ever since the issue arose.

        It’s a bad strategy. I don’t want my rights determined by a stretched interpretation of a law that doesn’t even mention us.

        • Tempus Fuggit

          Thank you; I’m refreshed and challenged by your imaginative perspective.

    • Friday

      Nah, saying that there have been longstanding injustices doesn’t actually say that. But as a matter of fact, 90 percent of Americans used to think LGBT people were already explicitly protected under Federal civil rights law.

      • Circ09

        Used to?!? Still do, I would say.

  • Gerry Panzica

    I was arguing this in 1990!!! I was a legal assistant back then, and people kept telling me that it didn’t apply to gays!!! I knew that it did!

  • ‘Til Tuesday

    While I’m happy with the ruling, I’m very concerned about the Supreme Court. They have a long history of overturning rulings like this. Given the court’s current conservative bent, it’s very likely this won’t stand.

    The Supreme Court also has a long history of issuing a historic ruling (like they did on marriage equality), but then pulling back or limiting the effects of their ruling. Which is why I’m very worried about the present case of the bakery that’s before them. Given their conservative bent, I can very well see them ruling that anti-discrimination laws don’t override a sincerely held religious conviction. That seems to be the direction they’ve been going of late.

    I think we should be prepared for the worst this June. Maybe, hopefully the non-discrimination side will win, but it’s not looking good imo.

  • Jefe5084

    hmmm. all the justices must be back on their meds today. We seem to be on a good little run today.

  • fuow

    And the Supremes will rule against us. Thanks, all you gay men who stayed home or voted ‘Green’ in November 2016. You deserve this. We who voted for Hillary don’t.

  • Jmdintpa

    Dont worry Gorsuch and Roberts and Thomas will take care of this.

  • Robert Anthony

    Wow. I didn’t think there was any good news left in the USA.

  • Jack

    “[I]n a 74-page dissent, Judge Gerard Lynch wrote that Title VII ‘was intended to secure the rights of women to equal protection in employment.’”

    And yet it somehow applies to men, too.

  • Rrhain

    Until the Supreme Court has its say, this is only temporary.

    Previous court decisions have said that protections regarding sex do not apply to sexual orientation. And while homophobia is strongly rooted in sexism (violation of norms regarding sex roles), there is more to it than that.

    If the court wants to get picky, they will adhere to that standard, saying that the Legislature needs to be specific and kick it back down to the appeals court with instructions to look at it as if the protections only applied to sex.

  • JCF
  • billbear1961