DOJ Says Title VII Doesn’t Protect Gays

[de officiis]

Justice Department Says Rights Law Doesn’t Protect Gays

The Justice Department has filed court papers arguing that a major federal civil rights law does not protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, taking a stand against a decision reached under President Barack Obama.

The department’s move to insert itself into a federal case in New York was an unusual example of top officials in Washington intervening in court in what is an important but essentially private dispute between a worker and his boss over gay rights issues.

“The sole question here is whether, as a matter of law, Title VII reaches sexual orientation discrimination,” the Justice Department said in a friend-of-the-court brief, citing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination in the workplace based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” “It does not, as has been settled for decades. Any efforts to amend Title VII’s scope should be directed to Congress rather than the courts.”
...
The filing came in a discrimination case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit involving Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor. In 2010, Mr. Zarda was fired by his employer, a Long Island company called Altitude Express. Before taking a female client on a tandem dive, Mr. Zarda told the woman he was gay to assuage any awkwardness that might arise from his being tightly strapped to her during the jump. The woman’s husband complained to the company, which subsequently fired Mr. Zarda. Mr. Zarda then sued Altitude Express, claiming it had violated Title VII.
...
In 2015, a lower court on Long Island first considered Mr. Zarda’s case and ruled against him, deciding, despite the E.E.O.C. ruling, that sexual orientation was not included in the civil rights law’s prohibition against discrimination based on “sex.” In April, the Second Circuit in New York upheld that court’s decision, even though it noted “a longstanding tension in Title VII case law.”

[Zlaxer]

I thought Gays could openly serve now - where is this going?

[The Conservative]

I thought Gays could openly serve now - where is this going?

They can, this is about something else, like private entities. Of course, an employee at will is still a thing, but let's forget that for now.

[Zlaxer]

Before taking a female client on a tandem dive, Mr. Zarda told the woman he was gay to assuage any awkwardness that might arise from his being tightly strapped to her during the jump. The woman’s husband complained to the company, which subsequently fired Mr. Zarda. Mr. Zarda then sued Altitude Express, claiming it had violated Title VII.

I'm sick to death of "religious" fuckwits.


Also - I still don't get where this is going with the DoD. Gays looking to sue for something?

[heydaralon]

If she had a hairy ass with a ring of hair around her turdcutter, Zarda might have popped some serious wood on that tandem dive. The musky male scent generated by that ass hair would have sent the poor guy into a frenzy.

[de officiis]

I thought Gays could openly serve now - where is this going?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employmen ... ted_States

[Zlaxer]

I thought Gays could openly serve now - where is this going?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employmen ... ted_States

I meant with respect to the DoD.....if they let Gays server openly, what's the count?

[SuburbanFarmer]

Apparently this is what we need to prioritize now? Sending the fucking DOJ into a low-level court case to play pedantic
Games, and force the Congress to waste more time on a new law to protect people from discrimination, despite the intent of the old law being crystal-fucking-clear?

I repeat, Sessions is human cancer.

[Hwen Hoshino]

Apparently this is what we need to prioritize now? Sending the fucking DOJ into a low-level court case to play pedantic
Games, and force the Congress to waste more time on a new law to protect people from discrimination, despite the intent of the old law being crystal-fucking-clear?

I repeat, Sessions is human cancer.

Why does to government play elementary school teacher in 2017? If adults don't want to be near each other don't force them.

[de officiis]

Apparently this is what we need to prioritize now? Sending the fucking DOJ into a low-level court case to play pedantic
Games, and force the Congress to waste more time on a new law to protect people from discrimination, despite the intent of the old law being crystal-fucking-clear?

I repeat, Sessions is human cancer.

The point in question isn't actually settled law yet, and if you think this is the first time the DOJ has filed an amicus brief, you're woefully mistaken.