| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
 Posted: 10/05/17 3:52 pm ::: Transgender people not protected from discrimination |
Reply  |
|
wtf is this:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JUSTICE_TRANSGENDER_PROTECTIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal civil rights law does not protect transgender people from discrimination at work, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a memo released Thursday that rescinds guidance issued under the Obama administration.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars workplace discrimination between men and women but does not extend to gender identity, Sessions said. The Justice Department will take that position in "all pending and future matters," the memo said. |
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8233
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/17 6:04 pm ::: Re: Transgender people not protected from discrimination |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| wtf is this |
If this is a serious question, then I recommend reading the DOJ memo closely and in its entirety. It's self-explanatory.
In short, the DOJ is saying that as to one specific Title VII workplace statute, in which Congress used the word "sex", the DOJ interprets that word to mean biological sex not the psychological condition currently called "gender identity" if that differs from biological sex. The memo further says the DOJ will strictly enforce all laws regarding transgender individuals where Congress has in fact covered them, and will enforce gender identity discrimination if and when Congress amends Title VII to do so.
The memo is part of a series of executive actions wherein the Trump administration is withdrawing executive actions by the Obama administration that it, and in many instances the federal courts, has determined violate Constitutional separation of powers -- that is, the making of rules by the Executive that constitutionally should only be made by the Congress. |
|
myrtle
Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 32336
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/17 8:08 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Why go out of your way to take away any protections from any person regardless of who or what they are? It just strikes me as assholish.
_________________
For there is always light,
if only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it.
- Amanda Gorman
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/17 8:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
| Why go out of your way to take away any protections from any person regardless of who or what they are? It just strikes me as assholish. |
Because they don't like them.
If this were an unconstitutional EO the courts would have thrown it out, so that is a scarecrow argument. Basically it is a way of getting what they want (because gender identity is foreign concept to them and they believe it is a mental illness) while rationalizing it as a "constitutional issue" as if they won't push the same envelope on subjects that they do care about. This allows them to act like thwir hands are clean by passing the buck to a congress that they know won't act.
Nevermind that stopping discrimination of a historically oppressed class should be everyone's responsibility to push for. If the court were to throw it out, then so be it, they would have to approach it in a different way, but barring that they should simply do the right thing for transgender Americans.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/05/17 11:34 pm ::: Re: Transgender people not protected from discrimination |
Reply |
|
| myrtle wrote: |
wtf is this:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_JUSTICE_TRANSGENDER_PROTECTIONS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
| Quote: |
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Federal civil rights law does not protect transgender people from discrimination at work, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a memo released Thursday that rescinds guidance issued under the Obama administration.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars workplace discrimination between men and women but does not extend to gender identity, Sessions said. The Justice Department will take that position in "all pending and future matters," the memo said. |
|
Just another way to restrict the rights of non"christian"whitemaleheterocentrics, done by "christian"whitemaleheterocentrics, with the bonus of undoing what the black guy did.
For Trumpanzees, it's a 2-for-1 great deal.
_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 10/06/17 12:34 am ::: Re: Transgender people not protected from discrimination |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
The memo is part of a series of executive actions wherein the Trump administration is withdrawing executive actions by the Obama administration that it, and in many instances the federal courts, has determined violate Constitutional separation of powers -- that is, the making of rules by the Executive that constitutionally should only be made by the Congress. |
Please cite the case where any Federal Court has said the Obama Justice Department interpretations of Title VII "violate Constitutional separation of powers.". Not even Sessions's memo says that. Why do you make up stuff like that?
Sessions has just made a political decision to change the position the Department of Justice will take in litigation concerning Title VII. It also is taking the position that Title VII doesn't extend to discrimination based on homosexuality. In one pending 2ND circuit case, the DOJ has filed an amicus brief opposing the EEOC which puts the Federal Govt on both sides of the case.
Sessions is no more making law than was Holder. Both were simply establishing the litigation position the Department would adopt in Title VII cases. It's not law, and it's not binding on anyone other than DOJ attorneys. That's their job. There's nothing remotely close to a "separation of powers" issue.
|
|
|
|
