Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

[St. Clown]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Pretty sure that gender and sexual orientation are both federally protected. But political affiliation is not. Which brings up my basic issue with discrimination laws: it is OK to discriminate against some, but not others. Or put another way, The Republican baker cannot discriminate against the coffee-shop-owner-bride because she is a lesbian, but the lesbian coffee shop owner can discriminate against the Republican baker. Legal and fair are two completely different things.

From wiki:

In United States federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

• Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
• Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission includes discrimination based on gender presentation and sexual orientation as protected beneath the class of 'sex'[2]
  
• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
• Disability status – Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
• Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Individual states can and do create other protected classes, which are protected under that state's law.

[Handyman]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Pretty sure that gender and sexual orientation are both federally protected. But political affiliation is not. Which brings up my basic issue with discrimination laws: it is OK to discriminate against some, but not others. Or put another way, The Republican baker cannot discriminate against the coffee-shop-owner-bride because she is a lesbian, but the lesbian coffee shop owner can discriminate against the Republican baker. Legal and fair are two completely different things.

So you dont see a massive difference between something you choose like political affiliation and something you are born into like sexual orientation? Really?

[St. Clown]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

So you dont see a massive difference between something you choose like political affiliation and something you are born into like sexual orientation? Really?

And yet reports of studies (FWIW) are out there stating that your conservative vs. liberal biases may actually lie in your genes.

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

In reality, it happens today. Proof? Pulse in Orlando had it's identity (gay bar); that's not a place I'd ever walk into. Not my thing. To each their own. Que sera, sera.

But the gay bar will take your money, no problem. Because half the Member staff on the Hill are gay (especially the Republicans -- man, if those voters only knew...), Dr. Mrs. and I have tons of gay friends so I've been to gay bars in DC (my advice: do not go to the second floor at Ziegfeld’s; there are things that I can never unsee) and probably half the clientele are straight women doing bachelorette parties or just looking to drink where they won't be bothered by bros. Trust me: your straight money is good there. Also, that's not sour cream.

There's a difference between "I hate Korean food; I'm not going in there" and "the Korean bouncer threw me out into a pile of kimchi. Well, better than eating it."

[unofan]

Pretty sure that gender and sexual orientation are both federally protected. But political affiliation is not. Which brings up my basic issue with discrimination laws: it is OK to discriminate against some, but not others. Or put another way, The Republican baker cannot discriminate against the coffee-shop-owner-bride because she is a lesbian, but the lesbian coffee shop owner can discriminate against the Republican baker. Legal and fair are two completely different things.

Gender yes; sexual orientation, kinda. It's not explicitly protected, but the EEOC interprets sexual orientation as a form of gender based discrimination. That hasn't been definitively ruled on by the courts, yet, so an actual statute would be nice to eliminate all doubt.

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Gender yes; sexual orientation, kinda. It's not explicitly protected, but the EEOC interprets sexual orientation as a form of gender based discrimination. That hasn't been definitively ruled on by the courts, yet, so an actual statute would be nice to eliminate all doubt.

I would assume this comes after Hillary breaks the tie.

[unofan]

I would assume this comes after Hillary breaks the tie.

Eh, you can only stretch definitions so far before they become absurd. It'd be much simpler to just add it explicitly by statute like many states have done.

I'm not sure even a liberal SCOTUS would automatically interpret "gender" to include sexual orientation. Thankfully I didn't need to worry about it in Iowa when I practiced in that area, but I'm not sure I'd go that far if I were a judge.

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Eh, you can only stretch definitions so far before they become absurd. It'd be much simpler to just add it explicitly by statute like many states have done.

I'm not sure even a liberal SCOTUS would automatically interpret "gender" to include sexual orientation. Thankfully I didn't need to worry about it in Iowa when I practiced in that area, but I'm not sure I'd go that far if I were a judge.

No, I mean the definitive SCOTUS ruling on gender identity being protected comes after we have 5-4 (Kennedy might actually make it 6-3).

One thing I assume Hillary will not fail on are nominees who respect women's and, more broadly, gender issues. She seems to genuinely care about those.

[Slap Shot]

They arent allowed to "throw the book at them" in most cases (sentencing guidelines and all so I would say in reality the answer to that is no. They probably want to but unless they have priors they can only punish so much...

They could give max allowed when otherwise they might go more lenient were it someone else based upon the case was my line of thinking.

[unofan]

No, I mean the definitive SCOTUS ruling on gender identity being protected comes after we have 5-4 (Kennedy might actually make it 6-3).

One thing I assume Hillary will not fail on are nominees who respect women's and, more broadly, gender issues. She seems to genuinely care about those.

Constitutionally, sexual orientation is protected. The gay marriage case settled that. But that only means the government cannot discriminate.

All discrimination cases related to private entities such as employers, private schools, restaurants, etc. are statutory, not Constitutional.

The Constitution doesn't forbid racial discrimination in hiring by private companies, the Civil Rights Act does.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

But the gay bar will take your money, no problem.

Again, that's their call.

[Kepler]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Constitutionally, sexual orientation is protected. The gay marriage case settled that. But that only means the government cannot discriminate.

All discrimination cases related to private entities such as employers, private schools, restaurants, etc. are statutory, not Constitutional.

The Constitution doesn't forbid racial discrimination in hiring by private companies, the Civil Rights Act does.

So school is Roe v Wade but the Woolworth lunch counter is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

OK, got it. Thanks.

So just pass a Civil Rights Act of 2017 once we know we have a Court that doesn't look for precedent in Leviticus.

[joecct]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

So school is Roe v Wade but the Woolworth lunch counter is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

OK, got it. Thanks.

So just pass a Civil Rights Act of 2017 once we know we have a Court that doesn't look for precedent in Leviticus.

Depends - the court right now is 4 Catholic and 4 Jewish. Protestants need not apply.

[busterman62]

Re: Nice Planet XII: It's Cruel to be Kind!

Depends - the court right now is 4 Catholic and 4 Jewish. Protestants need not apply.

It's discrimination!!

[unofan]

Depends - the court right now is 4 Catholic and 4 Jewish. Protestants need not apply.

5-3, but same difference. Breyer, Ginsberg, and Kagan are Jewish.