unofan
Well-known member
I genuinely do not understand. The Act includes ~20 statements along the lines of "It shall be unlawful to discriminate in X activity on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." This is clearly not talking about sex acts/practices ("What? I have to hire that guy even though he was having sex during the interview?") - these categories are all about personal *identity*. You can't discriminate against someone on the basis of their racial identity, their religious identity, or, logically, their sexual identity. I don't know how you could possibly argue that sexual orientation is not part of someone's sexual identity, i.e. who they are sexually.
Because 'sex' in this context has been synonymous with gender since it was enacted. You're right that it has nothing to do with the bedroom activities. That's kinda my point.
Someone says: "I identify as a pansexual womyn" - I would say it explicitly protects on the basis of being a womyn. I don't necessarily think it protects on the basis of being pansexual.
The Court may disagree and say it does, and I'd be fine with that since it's the morally correct outcome. I'd rather the Feds make it moot by just adding sexual orientation to the statute.
Last edited: