End Times and Current Events
March 29, 2024, 10:01:16 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome To End Times and Current Events.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal

Shoutbox
March 27, 2024, 12:55:24 pm Mark says: Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked  When Hamas spokesman Abu Ubaida began a speech marking the 100th day of the war in Gaza, one confounding yet eye-opening proclamation escaped the headlines. Listing the motives for the Palestinian militant group's Oct. 7 massacre in Israel, he accused Jews of "bringing red cows" to the Holy Land.
December 31, 2022, 10:08:58 am NilsFor1611 says: blessings
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
View Shout History
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 15   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Will Be Illegal When Sodomy is Legal  (Read 30803 times)
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #300 on: December 19, 2015, 11:51:20 am »

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/12/sexual-orientation-discrimination-pepperdine-basketball-players-000014
A new window for gay rights just opened
How a California ruling could force an issue Congress has been avoiding

By Richard Primus
12/18/15 02:45 PM EST

What’s the next frontier in discrimination law? For more than 40 years it’s been illegal across the country to discriminate on the basis of race and sex—and for almost as long, advocates have been trying to add one more category: sexual orientation.

Congress has consistently balked at adding protections for gays and lesbians, and the Supreme Court has never officially moved from its longstanding position that it’s acceptable to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation so long as the government shows a “rational basis” for its actions. (This year’s same-sex marriage decision was narrowly a ruling on people’s right to marry, not about discrimination per se.)
But two basketball players at Pepperdine, and a court in California, have just changed the rules.

The players, Haley Videckis and Layana White, say that their coach and other university staff suspected them of being in a lesbian relationship and systematically harassed them on that basis. According to Videckis and White, the coach on several occasions interrogated each of them about their sexual habits and told them that lesbianism would not be tolerated on the team; they also say he manipulated team rules to prevent the two of them from being able to play.

When they sued, they relied on Title IX, the section of the Civil Rights Act that guarantees women can’t be treated differently in colleges (technically, at any institution receiving federal funds) because of their sex. Title IX doesn’t mention sexual orientation, but Videckis and White argued that that doesn’t matter: discrimination against them on the basis of sexual orientation is really sex discrimination, and therefore prohibited.

Why? Here’s the thinking: If either of them had been a man, their coach would have had no trouble at all with the fact they were dating women. He only minded when women dated women. And punishing a woman for doing something that it would be acceptable for a man to do is sex discrimination, plain and simple.

On Tuesday, the federal district court in Los Angeles endorsed this theory, agreeing that their coach’s behavior would constitute sex discrimination and that Videckis and White could sue on these grounds, and the case can now proceed. Indeed, the court embraced the larger theory that all sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination.

This marks the second time this year that theory has been upheld. The first was by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in July, when adjudicating a federal air traffic controller’s claim that he was denied a promotion for being gay. The controller wanted to sue under Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination in employment, and the EEOC ruled that he could, because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex.

It’s not a stretch to say these decisions—and the Pepperdine case in particular—signal a departure in antidiscrimination law, one whose implications are immediate and far reaching. It would make every remaining instance of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as hard to defend as garden-variety “no girls allowed” discrimination—without the need for a single legislature to approve a single bill not already on the books.
Not everyone in the gay-rights world will cheer this development. Indeed, many leading gay-rights advocates dislike this strategy—so much so that in the suits that led to the Supreme Court’s gay-marriage ruling, they deliberately refused to pursue it. For many of the people involved, same-sex marriage was an issue about gay and lesbian identity as such. They wanted to win in a way that would vindicate and recognize the particular identities of gays and lesbians, not one that would smooth out the complex terrain of the LGBTQ world into just another manifestation of a familiar dynamic between men and women.

But now that the sex-discrimination theory of gay rights has been deployed successfully, we can expect a cascade of similar rulings as a new approach to sexual-orientation discrimination is consolidated. In every area of life where sex discrimination is illegal but no statute specifically protects gays and lesbians, plaintiffs will begin walking into court and arguing that the existing laws against sex discrimination are enough. The same theory would have attracted quizzical stares from most judges a few years ago, but now it’s easy to foresee a future in which that claim will regularly prevail.

Will it hit the Supreme Court? Eventually, it probably will, most likely in a case arising under some federal antidiscrimination statute, perhaps even Title IX, whose text specifies sex but not sexual orientation. In principle, the Court might turn back the sex-discrimination theory at that point by saying that Congress didn’t intend to ban discrimination against gays and lesbians when it passed sex-discrimination laws in the 1960s and 70s. And as a historical matter, that’s surely true. But it is at least as likely that the 21st-century Court will bow to the logic of the sex-discrimination argument and say that regardless of how Congress originally imagined those laws would apply, there’s no getting around the fact that they also outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

There would then be one potential move left in the game: Congress could amend the antidiscrimination statutes to clarify that federal prohibitions on sex discrimination specifically don’t apply to sexual orientation. But passing that measure through a 21st-century Congress would be no easier than passing overt protection for gays and lesbians has been so far. So once the courts come fully on board to the sex-discrimination theory, which is likely to happen quickly, the issue will as a practical matter be settled.

After trying and failing for decades to get Congress to add sexual orientation to the list of protected characteristics in federal antidiscrimination statutes, gay-rights advocates may now be told that they don’t need to win that battle after all.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 12 13 ... 15   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy