Supreme Court: No protection For Sexual Orientation...

[seer]

Of course, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says nothing about sexual orientation. Sanity prevails.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is leaving in place a lower court ruling that a federal employment discrimination law doesn't protect a person against discrimination based on their sexual orientation.
The court on Monday declined to take up the question of whether a law that bars workplace discrimination "because of...sex" covers discrimination against someone because of their sexual orientation.

President Barack Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took the view that it does. But President Donald Trump's administration has argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars discrimination based on gender but doesn't cover sexual orientation. Federal appeals courts are split on the issue. That means the issue is likely to come to the court again.
The case the Supreme Court declined to take involved Jameka Evans, a gay woman who worked as a hospital security officer in Georgia. Lower courts said she couldn't use Title VII to sue for discrimination.

The Supreme Court didn't explain why it was declining to hear the case. But the hospital where Evans worked, Georgia Regional Hospital, told the court there were technical legal problems with the case.

http://www.registercitizen.com/news/...k-12421335.php

[Starlight]

Seer, Justice Kennedy is extremely pro-gay rights (he's so passionate about the issue that the majority always lets him write the decisions on these issues), so this court consistently rules 5-4 in favor of gay rights in all cases.

In this instance the court simply declined to hear a case that seems to have had legal issues. The usual process is that the court waits until there are contradictory rulings by different appeals courts and then chooses one of the cases that looks legally sound and issues a final ruling. Given this court's history it would be surprising if that ruling wasn't pro-gay rights.

The technical argument made regarding the 1964 civil rights law is that sexual orientation discrimination is another form of gender discrimination because you are discriminating based on the gender of the person's romantic partner. Or if you wish to argue about intent, then you can say it was the intent of the writers of the 1964 civil rights law that employers not discriminate on facts about the person themselves (e.g. race, gender etc) and rather that employers pay attention only to the quality of their performance in the workplace.

[seer]

The technical argument made regarding the 1964 civil rights law is that sexual orientation discrimination is another form of gender discrimination because you are discriminating based on the gender of the person's romantic partner. Or if you wish to argue about intent, then you can say it was the intent of the writers of the 1964 civil rights law that employers not discriminate on facts about the person themselves (e.g. race, gender etc) and rather that employers pay attention only to the quality of their performance in the workplace.

That makes no sense, and this does not follow. First the 64 act does not speak to orientation - period. Second, we can lawfully discriminate on things like criminal history. Third, the Act was specifically defined, no need to divine intent, it is spelled out in black and white.