jaF0
Watcher
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Posts
- 38,540
Legitimate question. Does it require an Act Of Congress? Amendment?
From here: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-protected-class-4583111
Examples of Protected Classes are listed below in that article
Below there are acts from four Presidents, all of which only seem to affect Federal employees or contractors and not go into state or private persons.
US EEOC lists:
https://www.eeoc.gov/discrimination-type
"In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (S. Ct. June 15, 2020),[1] the Supreme Court held that firing individuals because of their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. The Court reached its holding by focusing on the plain text of Title VII. As the Court explained, “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.” For example, if an employer fires an employee because she is a woman who is married to a woman, but would not do the same to a man married to a woman, the employer is taking an action because of the employee’s sex because the action would not have taken place but for the employee being a woman. Similarly, if an employer fires an employee because that person was identified as male at birth but uses feminine pronouns and identifies as a female, the employer is taking action against the individual because of sex since the action would not have been taken but for the fact the employee was originally identified as male.
The Court also noted that its decision did not address various religious liberty issues, such as the First Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and exemptions Title VII provides for religious employers. "
Why would the SCROTEs make that distcintion here when the same argument could not apply to a website designer or cake decorator refusing to do work for Blacks, Jews, or women?
How does this get corrected? Can Joe just waive his hand or maybe even just think about protecting the class at the Federal level?
From here: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-protected-class-4583111
What Are the Protected Classes?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA) and subsequent federal laws and regulations prohibited discrimination against individuals or groups of individuals because of particular traits. The following table displays each protected trait alongside the law/regulation that established it as such.Examples of Protected Classes are listed below in that article
Gender Class Protection
Since 1965, four presidents have issued executive orders which prohibit consideration of sex and gender attributes in employment decisions of the United States federal government and its contractors, eventually including both sexual orientation and gender identity.Below there are acts from four Presidents, all of which only seem to affect Federal employees or contractors and not go into state or private persons.
US EEOC lists:
https://www.eeoc.gov/discrimination-type
"In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (S. Ct. June 15, 2020),[1] the Supreme Court held that firing individuals because of their sexual orientation or transgender status violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination because of sex. The Court reached its holding by focusing on the plain text of Title VII. As the Court explained, “discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.” For example, if an employer fires an employee because she is a woman who is married to a woman, but would not do the same to a man married to a woman, the employer is taking an action because of the employee’s sex because the action would not have taken place but for the employee being a woman. Similarly, if an employer fires an employee because that person was identified as male at birth but uses feminine pronouns and identifies as a female, the employer is taking action against the individual because of sex since the action would not have been taken but for the fact the employee was originally identified as male.
The Court also noted that its decision did not address various religious liberty issues, such as the First Amendment, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and exemptions Title VII provides for religious employers. "
Why would the SCROTEs make that distcintion here when the same argument could not apply to a website designer or cake decorator refusing to do work for Blacks, Jews, or women?
How does this get corrected? Can Joe just waive his hand or maybe even just think about protecting the class at the Federal level?
