Government lawyers lose to lawless court

Civil Rights Act Protects Gay Workers, Appeals Court Rules

A federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled on Monday that federal civil rights law bars employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation.

The case, which stemmed from the 2010 dismissal of a Long Island sky-diving instructor, was a setback for the Trump Justice Department, whose lawyers found themselves in the unusual position of arguing against government lawyers from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The E.E.O.C. had argued that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars workplace discrimination based on “race, color, religion, sex or national origin,” protected gay employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

But the Trump Justice Department took the position that the law did not reach sexual orientation, and said the E.E.O.C. was “not speaking for the United States.”

The Justice Department lawyers were right.

The court disagreed.

Per the Times report, the court's reasoning was the following gibberish.

“Sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination because sexual orientation is defined by one’s sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted, making it impossible for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without taking sex into account.”

Ballocks.

The quoted portion of the Act clearly prohibits discrimination on the basis of one's sex, not one's sex life.

And not one's "gender," that imaginary thing that sexual radicals claim does not always mirror whether you have male or female sexual parts.

For the sake of an agenda with which I am wholly sympathetic, these liberal judges have failed in their republican duty to fairly and honestly construe the law, a practise that brings contempt and scorn on the courts and the ideas that they stand for the rule of law and the constitution, and that obedience to them is obedience to the rule of law and the constitution.

Thus they feed the flames of Trumpism and Trumpist authoritarianism, and encourage the already only too popular idea that if the courts can trample the rule of law and the constitution in service to their agenda then so can he in service to his.