Existing prohibitions against discrimination 'because of sex,' already provide a civil rights umbrella wide enough to cover discrimination based on sexual orientation and transgender identity, some judges are beginning to say.
NEW YORK — A number of federal courts have begun to ask a question that has become more and more subtle over the past few years: What is the meaning of ‘sex’?
It’s a question that has in many ways evolved out of the storms of cultural change that have surrounded the country’s shifting ideas about human sexuality and gender over the past few decades. Many of these culminated in the US Supreme Court’s landmark 5-to-4 decision in 2015, in which a bare majority declared same-sex marriage a constitutional right.
On the one hand, the high court’s epoch-changing decision that legalized same-sex marriage created the kind of situation that inevitably arises out of rapid cultural change. Today, neither the federal government nor some 28 states offer any explicit civil rights protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (LGBTQ), either in the workplace or any other arena of daily life.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
5 comments:
When Liberals outlaw the idea of different sexes women's rights go out the window.
Bill Clinton already tried to answer that question under oath, and famously came up with the answer "it depends on what your definition of the word IS is".
Wow, we still don't know this answer?
These people are pathetic losers who need to retire and be irrelevant.
Again, what a crazy world we live in . . .
Judges are now unsure of the meaning of a very basic word
What is exactly a "Judge"?
Post a Comment