"And I beheld, and heard the voice of one eagle flying through the midst of heaven,
saying with a loud voice: Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth....
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 8:13]

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

DAYS OF LOT: Appeals court: Homosexuality is a protected class like race and sex

DAYS OF LOT: Appeals court: Homosexuality is a protected class like race and sex 

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a law prohibiting discrimination based on one’s sex also applies to “sexual orientation.”
The case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., was over whether homosexuality is a protected class under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it is, going against the Trump administration’s plain reading of the law.

“We see no principled basis for recognizing a violation of Title VII for associational discrimination based on race but not on sex,” Chief Justice Robert A. Katzmann wrote.
An example of “associational discrimination” based on race would be if an employer fired a white male for marrying a black woman.
The court said the same reasoning would prohibit adverse employment decisions based on sexual orientation.
The case stems from an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finding that the 1964 anti-discrimination law covers homosexuality.
“Sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination,” the court concluded, “because sexual orientation is defined by one’s sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted.”
“This court ruling could help change the scope of gay rights in America,” Vox reported. “If the courts agree that the Civil Rights Act already bans anti-gay discrimination, they could change the national landscape once and for all.”
The ruling applies to discrimination in the workplace, housing, and schools, but does not mention public accommodations such as public bathrooms.
The ruling admits that the Supreme Court “and other circuits” assume that the 1964 law “‘means biologically male or female’ and uses the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ interchangeably.”
However, “legal doctrine evolves,” Katzmann wrote.
“Sexual orientation discrimination is ‘assuredly not the principal evil that Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII,’” the ruling admitted, but “‘statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils.’”
Despite acknowledging as a “fact” Congress didn’t consider sexual orientation discrimination in 1964, the court nevertheless concluded, “Sexual orientation is a function of sex and, by extension, sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination.”
In a curiously circular statement, the court quoted the EEOC’s finding that “Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex.” The court did not elaborate as to whether it thereby assumes the homosexual condition creates a third gender.
Katzmann claimed that “discrimination” against homosexuality is “based on gender stereotypes,” most commonly “heterosexually defined gender norms.”
Going further afield, the court related sex discrimination with forcing religious employers to have workers that violate the employers’ beliefs.
“It is no defense that an employer requires both men and women to refrain from same‐sex attraction or relationships,” Katzmann added.
Seven judges wrote opinions separate from Katzmann’s. Three judges dissented.
Homosexual activist group GLAAD called the Second Circuit ruling “a decisive victory” and “a vital step forward” against the Trump administration’s “anti-LGBTQ agenda.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice filed a “friend of the court” brief in the case, reasoning that the 1964 law did not envision today’s homosexual prominence.
Sessions wrote to the country’s federal prosecutors that on “all pending and future matters,” the DOJ will go by what Congress originally intended. It will not add unforeseen deviances when enforcing laws regarding equal treatment on the basis of “sex.”
The issue has divided the nation’s courts.
The Eleventh Circuit Court ruled that the 1964 law did not encompass homosexuals, but the Seventh Circuit Court ruled it did.
Monday’s Second Circuit ruling applies only to New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.  The Supreme Court could reverse or uphold it for the entire nation.

Pentagon Restarts Transgender Recruitment


The Pentagon has restarted military recruitment of people who say they want to switch sexes, despite orders from President Donald Trump to exclude transgender individuals from military service.

Officials announced Monday, February 26, that they had signed a recruitment contract on February 23 with an unidentified person who claims to have the “gender identity” of an opposite-sex person.
The recruitment comes after four lower courts, and two appeals courts, have declared their opposition to Comand-in-chief Donald Trump’s order barring recruitment of people who want to live as members of the opposite sex.
Trump issued his order to block the transgender-recruitment policy created by Pentagon officials working for former President Barack Obama. Those officials, led by personnel chief Anthony Kurta, has earlier endorsed the transgender ideology, which says the government must change the nation’s laws to aid people who claim to have an opposite-sex “gender identity.” In practice, the ideology means that women must stay silent when men who claim to be female use their bathrooms and showers, join their sports leagues or demand to be treated as women, even without any surgery.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis kept Kurta on the payroll after Trump’s election, and let him write up the report on the transgender issue that had been requested by Trump in July. Officials have kept the Kurta report secret, despite its delivery to Trump on February 23, but leaks to Fox News and the Washington Post say that Mattis wants to keep recruiting people who say they are transgender.
Fox News also reported that Mattis does not want to “go against” the court rulings.
But Trump’s lawyers are appealing the court decisions to the appeals-court judges.
Those appeals will likely lose because Obama appointed many progressive judges who favor the transgender ideology.
However, the issue will get to the Supreme Court, allowing Trump’s deputies to argue that the judges are improperly trying to take control of the military from the nation’s President and Commander-in-Chief.
It is not clear if Trump’s deputies will ask the Supreme Court to also formally reject the identity-trumps-biology legal claims made by pro-transgender lawyers and judges in lawsuits related to schools, universities, sports clubs and civic associations around the nation.
The transgender ideology is deeply unpopular, especially among women and parents. In practice, the transgender ideology requires women to silently accept men who “identify” as female in women’s bathrooms, showers, and sports clubs. It also requires parents to stand aside when their children decide to begin a lifetime of risky and self-sterilizing medical treatments to help them pretend they are members of the opposite sex.
Obama admitted after the 2016 election that his transgender push helped Trump, who opposed the policy during the 2016 election.
There are clearly, though, failures on our part to give people in rural areas or in exurban areas, a sense day-to-day that we’re fighting for them or connected to them.
Some of it is the prism through which they’re seeing the political debate take place. They may know less about the work that my administration did on trying to promote collective bargaining or overtime rules. But they know a lot about the controversy around transgender bathrooms because it’s more controversial, it attracts more attention.
If Trump accepts’s Mattis’s pro-transgender policy, he will not be able to use the emotional, turnout-boosting issue in 2018 or 2020 — even as transgender activists push judges to impose pro-transgender policies in schools around the country.
The core claim of the transgender ideology is that the government must help the very small percentage of people who claim have feelings of opposite-sex “gender identity.” The help would change laws to allow people — including children and teenagers – to switch their legal sex, back and forth, regardless of their biology or other Americans’ sexual privacy.
This ideology is more ambitious than many state laws, which do allow adults to change their legal sex after undergoing medical treatment.
Transgender activists also expect the government to suppress public and civic opposition to their gender-beats-biology claim by creating “transgender rights” and enforcing “hate crimes” legislation. This suppression is intended to force Americans to give up their evolved social and civic rules which help males and females compete and prosper in a two-sex society of equal, different and complementary men and women, girls and boys.
Despite the huge expense, conflict, and damage to young people, the gender ideology is rapidly gaining power, aided by huge donations from wealthy individuals and medical companies. In Ohio, for example, in February, a judge forced parents of a teenage girl to give up custody so she can begin a lifetime of drug treatments and surgery that will allow her to appear as a male. Also, officials in New York and various universities have threatened to penalize people who do not refer to men as if they are women, and several judges have declared that Pentagon officials must accept recruits who want to change their sex.
Activists who support the transgender ideology claim that 0.35 percent of Americans are transgender. But a study of the 2010 Census reported that only 1-in-2,300 adult Americans had changed their name from one sex to the other.
The progressive push to bend Americans’ attitudes and their male-and-female civic society around the idea of “gender” has already attacked and cracked many of the popular social rules which help Americans manage the cooperation and competition among and between complementary, different and equal men and women.
These pro-gender claims have an impact on different-sex bathrooms, shelters for battered womensports leagues for girlshiking groups for boysK-12 curriculauniversity speech codesreligious freedomsfree speech, the social status of womenparents’ rights in childrearing, practices to help teenagers, women’s expectations of beautyculture and civic societyscientific researchprison safetycivic ceremoniesschool rules, men’s sense of masculinitylaw enforcement, and children’s sexual privacy.