Court Rules Gay Employees Not Protected Under Civil Rights Law

[Trinnity]

In a setback for gay rights advocates hoping for an expansion of workplace discrimination protections, a federal appeals court in Atlanta has ruled that employers aren’t prohibited from discriminating against employees because of sexual orientation.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled 2-1 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on a variety of factors, doesn’t protect against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“This is not the end of the road for us and certainly not for Jameka,” attorney Greg Nevins said in an emailed statement. “There is no way to draw a line between sexual orientation discrimination and discrimination based on gender nonconformity because not being straight is gender-nonconforming, period.”

Court Rules Gay Employees Not Protected Under Civil Rights Law

Sexual orientation is not race and civil rights is about race. But what does the reader think he meant by that last part?

 

[heil hitler]

In a setback for gay rights

How come it is never presented as "In a big win for normal people".
The entire apparatus is geared toward ANYTHING anti-White or anti-straight errrrgo...Normal!
This is great news.

 

[bodecea]

In a setback for gay rights advocates hoping for an expansion of workplace discrimination protections, a federal appeals court in Atlanta has ruled that employers aren’t prohibited from discriminating against employees because of sexual orientation.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled 2-1 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on a variety of factors, doesn’t protect against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“This is not the end of the road for us and certainly not for Jameka,” attorney Greg Nevins said in an emailed statement. “There is no way to draw a line between sexual orientation discrimination and discrimination based on gender nonconformity because not being straight is gender-nonconforming, period.”

Court Rules Gay Employees Not Protected Under Civil Rights Law

Sexual orientation is not race and civil rights is about race. But what does the reader think he meant by that last part?

Civil rights is not just about race...it's about equal rights.....or are you going to say that civil rights doesn't apply based on gender, religion, handicap, age, or national origin?

 

[Rob37]

This particular statute has never protected gays because they are not part of the "protected class" identified in the statute.

 

[The Original Tree]

Homosexuality is a choice and a privilege to make that choice in the USA.
You cannot be discriminated against because of your genitalia, but you can be discriminated against because of your behavior and lifestyle.
You could not for instance force a church to hire a gay person. You can also not stop them from hiring a gay person. They have choice.

Meanwhile over in LibPhuckistan, they throw you off of a building for that choice.
So I am always amazed why Lefty allies with Islam so much.

 

[frigidweirdo]

In a setback for gay rights advocates hoping for an expansion of workplace discrimination protections, a federal appeals court in Atlanta has ruled that employers aren’t prohibited from discriminating against employees because of sexual orientation.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled 2-1 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on a variety of factors, doesn’t protect against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“This is not the end of the road for us and certainly not for Jameka,” attorney Greg Nevins said in an emailed statement. “There is no way to draw a line between sexual orientation discrimination and discrimination based on gender nonconformity because not being straight is gender-nonconforming, period.”

Court Rules Gay Employees Not Protected Under Civil Rights Law

Sexual orientation is not race and civil rights is about race. But what does the reader think he meant by that last part?

Civil Rights are, surely, about Civil Rights. Where does the word "race" come into "Civil"?

civil - definition of civil in English | Oxford Dictionaries

"Relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters."

Not race

" occurring between citizens of the same country."

Not race

"Relating to private relations between members of a community; noncriminal."

Not race

" Relating to civil law."

Not race....

 

[frigidweirdo]

Homosexuality is a choice and a privilege to make that choice in the USA.
You cannot be discriminated against because of your genitalia, but you can be discriminated against because of your behavior and lifestyle.
You could not for instance force a church to hire a gay person. You can also not stop them from hiring a gay person. They have choice.

Meanwhile over in LibPhuckistan, they throw you off of a building for that choice.
So I am always amazed why Lefty allies with Islam so much.

A) It's not a choice.
B) Behavior is one thing, but how you are is something else.

Not all gay people go out onto the streets and dance almost naked you know.

 

[heil hitler]

In a setback for gay rights advocates hoping for an expansion of workplace discrimination protections, a federal appeals court in Atlanta has ruled that employers aren’t prohibited from discriminating against employees because of sexual orientation.

A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled 2-1 that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on a variety of factors, doesn’t protect against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation.

“This is not the end of the road for us and certainly not for Jameka,” attorney Greg Nevins said in an emailed statement. “There is no way to draw a line between sexual orientation discrimination and discrimination based on gender nonconformity because not being straight is gender-nonconforming, period.”

Court Rules Gay Employees Not Protected Under Civil Rights Law

Sexual orientation is not race and civil rights is about race. But what does the reader think he meant by that last part?

Civil rights is not just about race...it's about equal rights.....or are you going to say that civil rights doesn't apply based on gender, religion, handicap, age, or national origin?

The slippery slope created through faggotry was recognized by this court and I believe rightly so. Once precedence is set on grounds as amorphous as sexual preference then what are those limits? Nothing against GRIDS queers personally but the court decided correctly here.

 

[TNHarley]

LGBT is only protected by state statutes.
Besides, I think the Federal governments civil rights law is already discriminatory enough!

 

[TNHarley]

A) It's not a choice.
.

I don't see how you think you get to decide that?

 

[Rustic]

I'm sick of gays and transgender's trying to get special rights…

 

[bodecea]

d

In a setback for gay rights

How come it is never presented as "In a big win for normal people".
The entire apparatus is geared toward ANYTHING anti-White or anti-straight errrrgo...Normal!
This is great news.

So....blacks or women aren't "normal people"?

 

[bodecea]

I'm sick of gays and transgender's trying to get special rights…

What "special rights" would that be?

 

[Trinnity]

Civil rights is not just about race...it's about equal rights.....or are you going to say that civil rights doesn't apply based on gender, religion, handicap, age, or national origin?

That depends.

We have a separate law; the ADA, for disabilities, so that's obviously not.
We have the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, so that's not either.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act covers religion and national origin.

Gay rights is not currently accepted as a civil right. Someday it may be, but now it's not.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Hmm, Cultsmasher & Trinnity, sittin' in a thread....

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Well that ruling is a kick in the chops for LGBT

 

[Trinnity]

So....blacks or women aren't "normal people"?

I don't care if someone is gay, but it's not normal. Trying to force the majority of people to believe it is, won't work. People haven't given up common sense.

 

[Trinnity]

Hmm, Cultsmasher & Trinnity, sittin' in a thread....

I've banned Cultsmasher and some 30+ socks from my forum. He's not welcome there. Everybody knows I hate nazi types.

Can you address the topic?

 

[mdk]

Yes and it is the correct ruling as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't include sexuality as a protected class at the federal level.

 

[heil hitler]

d

In a setback for gay rights

How come it is never presented as "In a big win for normal people".
The entire apparatus is geared toward ANYTHING anti-White or anti-straight errrrgo...Normal!
This is great news.

So....blacks or women aren't "normal people"?

Blacks and women have positively identifiable characteristics. Visual, genetic and blood tests allow us to positively ID them as such. This ability to positively ID a group permits us (society) to establish a firm delineation between them. Now, I have my own arguments against this but that is another topic.
However, with regard to the gay community. Until we have something that can positively ID this group. A marker, a physical characteristic (Brain structure, hormone, hormone precursor)...something. Then the precedent would be set which would open the gate for ANY number of abuses. What would be the limit? Positive, afirmative, delineation...the sodomites do not have this.