Political Pandering Or Just Plain Ignorant

[Bryce]

Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department, in bringing suit against North Carolina because of their "Bathroom Law" citing violation of Title VII of the Civil rights act, are either ignorant of case law or just plain pandering to a particular part of their base.

You would think people at Justice can look up case law as easily as I can.

Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority

If transsexuals are to receive legal protection apart from their status as male or female, however, such protection must come from Congress and not the courts.   See Ulane v. E. Airlines, 742 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir.1984) (“f the term ‘sex’ as it is used in Title VII is to mean more than biological male or biological female, the new definition must come from Congress.”).

SPEARMAN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Congress intended the term “sex” to mean “biological male or biological female,” and not one's sexuality or sexual orientation.   See id. at 1087.   Therefore, harassment based solely upon a person's sexual preference or orientation (and not on one's sex) is not an unlawful employment practice under Title VII.  Id. at 1085;  see also Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp. and Health Care Center, Inc., 224 F.3d 701, 704 (7th Cir.2000)

[Deleted User 8570]

Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department, in bringing suit against North Carolina because of their "Bathroom Law" citing violation of Title VII of the Civil rights act, are either ignorant of case law or just plain pandering to a particular part of their base.

You would think people at Justice can look up case law as easily as I can.

Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority

If transsexuals are to receive legal protection apart from their status as male or female, however, such protection must come from Congress and not the courts.   See Ulane v. E. Airlines, 742 F.2d 1081, 1087 (7th Cir.1984) (“f the term ‘sex’ as it is used in Title VII is to mean more than biological male or biological female, the new definition must come from Congress.”).

SPEARMAN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Congress intended the term “sex” to mean “biological male or biological female,” and not one's sexuality or sexual orientation.   See id. at 1087.   Therefore, harassment based solely upon a person's sexual preference or orientation (and not on one's sex) is not an unlawful employment practice under Title VII.  Id. at 1085;  see also Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp. and Health Care Center, Inc., 224 F.3d 701, 704 (7th Cir.2000)

What if they win?

[Bryce]

If case law and provisions established by the COTUS are followed, they can't. Wouldn't be the first time a judge got creative to fit a "cause" though.

[JackAttack FM]

I'm interested to know when the U.S. Justice Department and the ACLU merged.

[Deleted User 8570]

If case law and provisions established by the COTUS are followed, they can't. Wouldn't be the first time a judge got creative to fit a "cause" though.

But judges get creative for both sides... Citizens United characterized corporations as people and their money as speech... In what reality in the constitution do you find anything on that subject? It's a little silly to go the "left wing activist judges" route. It all depends on what circuit you get to hear it.

[Bryce]

Corporations are made up of both employees and stockholders. People both. Money spent on campaign ads is indeed speech.

In the majority opinion, the Justices sided with principles of a limited government. The plaintiff couldn't show a compelling interest.

"No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

[Bryce]

I'm interested to know when the U.S. Justice Department and the ACLU merged.

Great observation!

8

[Deleted User 8570]

Corporations are made up of both employees and stockholders. People both. Money spent on campaign ads is indeed speech.

In the majority opinion, the Justices sided with principles of a limited government. The plaintiff couldn't show a compelling interest.

"No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.”

The problem is that it's not equal or reasonable...

[Turkeytop]

Corporations are made up of both employees and stockholders. People both. Money spent on campaign ads is indeed speech.

Corporations are made up of employees? In which universe is that? The political views of employers are generally at odds with those of its employees.

[zzand]

So according to the DOJ the civil rights of people are being infringed upon. What about the civil rights of those who don't want to share a bathroom with someone of the opposite sex? Don't their rights matter?

[Deleted User 8570]

So according to the DOJ the civil rights of people are being infringed upon. What about the civil rights of those who don't want to share a bathroom with someone of the opposite sex? Don't their rights matter?

Here's one:
What about someone who feels they are the opposite sex and wants to rape someone of the same sex who they view as opposite due to their sexuality... There are no clear cut answers here... It's some multiple shade of grey...

[TC Talks]

Replace transgender with Black or Gay and you'll soon realize that like in the past it's people who can't deal with change who are throwing most of the fits. The first reaction is to threaten harm to women and children. It's almost cliche it's so text book. Fortunately, not many people buy it, that's why the NC Governor had to play tricks to get the bill passed.

[Bryce]

Replace transgender with Black or Gay and you'll soon realize that like in the past it's people who can't deal with change who are throwing most of the fits. The first reaction is to threaten harm to women and children. It's almost cliche it's so text book. Fortunately, not many people buy it, that's why the NC Governor had to play tricks to get the bill passed.

OK, so just throw established case law and the Constitution aside to get the outcome you want. I know that's the mindset of the liberal, but this country wasn't founded to work that way.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does NOT protect the rights of people based upon how they feel at a particular moment. Who and what they identify as. If Congress wants to act and include transgendered folks and include a guideline on just what constitutes "transgendered", then let it be so. As of right now, the guidelines as to who is and isn't are pretty loose. Does a guy with a wig on count? Are cross-dressers that enjoy dressing up and acting like a woman, but have taken no medical steps to change their biological sex included in this? How about the people that are half-way through the procedure of a complete sex change but still have a working penis?

To compare this to the civil rights struggle that black folk went through in this country is an insult to them and the people that worked so hard to right that particular injustice. The left should be ashamed and I hope people that were front and center for that movement speak up.

You know, for years I heard the lament from the left that, "Government should stay out of the bedroom." Now they seem intent to have it get into the bathroom.

[zzand]

Makes sense Bryce. Since most politicians are shitheads the bathroom would be a place of comfort for them.

[Matt]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/po ... w-bna&_r=0