Walt is posting this to give you the link to the 36-page amicus (= friend of the court) brief filed on 26 July by the United States Department of Justice (DoJ) in Zarda and Moore v. Altitude Express Inc. and Maynard, a case being argued in the United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit).
The case is about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The issue to be decided is whether the statute's prohibitions on employment discrimination because of "sex" (= gender or "gender orientation") include discrimination because of sexual orientation. The DoJ contends, in its brief, that such discrimination is not -- repeat, not -- prohibited.
The heads of argument in the DoJ brief sum up the government's position:
I. Title VII'S bar against discrimination because of sex is not violated unless men and women are treated unequally
II. Discrimination because of sexual orientation is not discrimination because of sex under Title VII
A. Until recently, the Courts Of Appeals and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had uniformly held that sexual orientation discrimination is not prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII
B. Congress has repeatedly ratified the settled understanding that Title VII does not bar sexual orientation discrimination.
III. The theories advanced by the EEOC and the Seventh Circuit lack merit, let alone sufficient merite to overcome Congress's ratification of the contrary interpretation
A. "But for" the employee's sex
B. Per se sex stereotyping
C. Associational discrimination
And here is the DoJ's conclusion: "This Court should reaffirm its precedent holding that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation." Click on the link above to read the whole brief. Walt would be pleased if an American (or other) lawyer would let us know when and how the court rules.
Showing posts with label gender discrimination. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gender discrimination. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
In what way is Canada like India?
Forgetting (if possible) about the darkening complexion of "greater" Toronto and "greater" Vancouver, the answer is that sex-selective abortions are widely practised in both countries by parents who wish to have only boy babies. In other words, female fetuses are killed by the 1000s... in both countries... every year.
Although Canada has had no specific law against abortion since 1988, many couples of the Hindu persuasion prefer to cross the border to have their girl babies killed at "prenatal clinics" like Koala Labs or the Washington Center for Reproductive Health.
Like Planned Parenthood, the WCRH purports to be about family planning. For a while, they ran ads in Indo-Canadian newspapers headlined "Create the family you want: boy or girl". But the unstated sub-text was, and still is: If our technique doesn't work and it turns out you're going to have a girl, we'll kill it for you. No problem.
In "Indo-Canadian doctor decries abortion of female babies", Walt referred to a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which checked the male:female ratio of 767,000 Ontario births, compared with the mother's country of origin. For the first-borns, the ratio was normal: 105 boys to 100 girls. The ratio was the same for second births for mothers born in Canada. But for mothers born in India the ratio was 110:100. And for South Korea, 120:100! So it's not just the Indians.
For third births, the ratio, for Indo-Canadian mothers was even higher, 136:100. How could this be? Dr. Prabhar Jha, of the University of Bombay [Toronto, surely! Ed.] said it wasn't necessarily sex-selective abortion that was the cause of the abnormality. Possibly, he said, more women who are expecting a son immigrate to Canada!
The main author of the study, Dr. Joel Ray, admits it doesn't show why ratios are distorted, only that they are so. But data from censuses in both Canada and India show the same (or even greater) discrepancies in the sex ratios of second or third children in Indian and other Asian communities.
Which prompts Jonathan Kay, writing in Canada's National Post, to call for the drafting of a new law regulating, if not prohibiting abortions. Sex-selective abortions, he says, are seen in India and even China as crimes against humanity -- at least in theory. Why should Canada take a more permissive view? Click here to read "How shocking new sex-selection data could finally lead us to a Canadian abortion law".
Although Canada has had no specific law against abortion since 1988, many couples of the Hindu persuasion prefer to cross the border to have their girl babies killed at "prenatal clinics" like Koala Labs or the Washington Center for Reproductive Health.
Like Planned Parenthood, the WCRH purports to be about family planning. For a while, they ran ads in Indo-Canadian newspapers headlined "Create the family you want: boy or girl". But the unstated sub-text was, and still is: If our technique doesn't work and it turns out you're going to have a girl, we'll kill it for you. No problem.
In "Indo-Canadian doctor decries abortion of female babies", Walt referred to a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, which checked the male:female ratio of 767,000 Ontario births, compared with the mother's country of origin. For the first-borns, the ratio was normal: 105 boys to 100 girls. The ratio was the same for second births for mothers born in Canada. But for mothers born in India the ratio was 110:100. And for South Korea, 120:100! So it's not just the Indians.
For third births, the ratio, for Indo-Canadian mothers was even higher, 136:100. How could this be? Dr. Prabhar Jha, of the University of Bombay [Toronto, surely! Ed.] said it wasn't necessarily sex-selective abortion that was the cause of the abnormality. Possibly, he said, more women who are expecting a son immigrate to Canada!
The main author of the study, Dr. Joel Ray, admits it doesn't show why ratios are distorted, only that they are so. But data from censuses in both Canada and India show the same (or even greater) discrepancies in the sex ratios of second or third children in Indian and other Asian communities.
Which prompts Jonathan Kay, writing in Canada's National Post, to call for the drafting of a new law regulating, if not prohibiting abortions. Sex-selective abortions, he says, are seen in India and even China as crimes against humanity -- at least in theory. Why should Canada take a more permissive view? Click here to read "How shocking new sex-selection data could finally lead us to a Canadian abortion law".
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
How gay is "gay enough"?
Sometimes it takes the news a while to get to Walt. The Wells Fargo rider just brought the November 29th issue of the San Francisco Chronicle. The headline
"'Not gay enough' softball players settle suit" caught my eye.
Pictured here (courtesy of the National Center for Lesbian Rights) is the D2 softball team, which plays in the San Francisco Gay Softball League. (Of course I'm not making this up. It's San Francisco!) In 2008 D2 finished in second place in the Gay Softball World Series. But then came the challenge.
Seems the league rules allow a maximum of two heterosexuals (or metrosexuals or whatever it is) per team. But, the Atlanta Mudcats complained, D2 had three players who were not sufficiently light in the loafers. The three countered that they were actually bisexual -- capable of batting left or right, so to speak.
There followed a hearing in front of a panel of 25 LGBT types from the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance (not making that up either) who asked some very intrusive and embarrassing questions.
LaRon Charles, who was D2's manager, and whose Facebook profile says he's married to, errr, a woman, was asked whether he could say he was bisexual. When he replied in the affirmative, he was told, "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series."
The Alliance ultimately determined that the three men were "non-gay" and that D2 had broken the rules. This being America, the decision was followed by a lawsuit, which was finally settled late last year.
The settlement came a week after U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled that the group had the right under the First Amendment to limit the number of heterosexuals who could play on a team to two. The judge also found that there had been no discimination against the bis.
However, the NAGAAA will kiss and make up. They will pay D2 an undisclosed sum and will give back their second-place 2008 championship trophy.
Warms the cockles of your heart, doesn't it? If your cockles get too warm, rub them with ice.
"'Not gay enough' softball players settle suit" caught my eye.
Pictured here (courtesy of the National Center for Lesbian Rights) is the D2 softball team, which plays in the San Francisco Gay Softball League. (Of course I'm not making this up. It's San Francisco!) In 2008 D2 finished in second place in the Gay Softball World Series. But then came the challenge.
Seems the league rules allow a maximum of two heterosexuals (or metrosexuals or whatever it is) per team. But, the Atlanta Mudcats complained, D2 had three players who were not sufficiently light in the loafers. The three countered that they were actually bisexual -- capable of batting left or right, so to speak.
There followed a hearing in front of a panel of 25 LGBT types from the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance (not making that up either) who asked some very intrusive and embarrassing questions.
LaRon Charles, who was D2's manager, and whose Facebook profile says he's married to, errr, a woman, was asked whether he could say he was bisexual. When he replied in the affirmative, he was told, "This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series."
The Alliance ultimately determined that the three men were "non-gay" and that D2 had broken the rules. This being America, the decision was followed by a lawsuit, which was finally settled late last year.
The settlement came a week after U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled that the group had the right under the First Amendment to limit the number of heterosexuals who could play on a team to two. The judge also found that there had been no discimination against the bis.
However, the NAGAAA will kiss and make up. They will pay D2 an undisclosed sum and will give back their second-place 2008 championship trophy.
Warms the cockles of your heart, doesn't it? If your cockles get too warm, rub them with ice.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Mr. H's right to be against gay rights
The push to force the LGBT agenda -- gay rights -- down the throats of the straight majority [Block that metaphor! Ed.] intensifies every day. It has become politically incorrect to dare even to question the idea that gays and wannabe-gays deserve to have their "rights" protected by the law, just like other put-upon minorities.
In Canada, last month, a super-PC bill sponsored by a pinkish MP, was passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate. Bill C-389 would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect the rights of transgender or transsexual citizens. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” or “gender expression” in the workplace or elsewhere, and would amend the Criminal Code so that crimes committed against people because they are transgender or transsexual would be treated as hate crime.
Because it is a private member’s bill, C-389 should have had little chance of clearing the House of Commons. But On February 10th, MPs from all parties, in a display of united hypocrisy rare even for Canada, rallied behind the legislation, which passed by the narrow vote of 143 to 135. The bill is now before the Senate, where it will likely die when the government falls on Friday. (Lifetime pct: .973)
Which brings us to Joe Hvilivitsky, a member of the Niagara Falls (Canada) Review's Community Editorial Board. Mr. H. (as he shall hereinafter be known) had the temerity to suggest in his column that the "bathroom bill", as he called it, should not pass. He also argued that the MPs' vote in favour did not reflect the wishes of the majority of Canadians. Here's the most telling bit of his article.
As is so often the case when we attempt to create rights to accommodate the needs of a few, it is accomplished at the expense of the majority. In this case, we're saying that the rights of a minuscule number of disordered people trump those of females whose dignity and modesty could be compromised by being forced to share space with a "woman" still in possession of male equipment.
Mr. H. was referring to the fact that if the Human Rights Act were amended as C-389 proposes, it would be against the law to deny a transgendered or otherwise not-originally-female person access to ladies' restrooms. To Mr. H. (as to Walt) this is unthinkable, but LGBT activists hail C-389 as "a great victory for the trans community," citing discrimination faced by "trans men and trans women" [not "trannies" any more? Ed.] in jobs, housing and "just being out in a social setting."
Well, you should have seen the outcry against Mr. H. If you click on the link to the article, you'll find just one comment supporting his argument. By contrast, there are five hissy fits from Friends of Fudgepackers accusing Mr. H. of "fear-mongering" and "inducing hysteria".
Since when was it forbidden to speak out in opposition to the current moral disorder? This question was posed this week at the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the delegate of the Holy See.
Archbishop Tomasi argued that respect for fundamental human rights should not be used as a pretext for forcing public acceptance of homosexual activity.
The prelate condemned “all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviours.” But he also urged the UN to recognize a “disturbing trend” toward intolerance of those who express moral opposition to homosexual behavior. Like Mr. H.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," said the archbishop. Those who voice opposition to homosexual acts can be stigmatized, harassed, and even prosecuted, he added. "These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances."
Archbishop Tomasi insisted on a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. “A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings,” he said. “But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors.”
For a more complete report on the archbishop's address, click here to read "Vatican addresses UN debate on sexual orientation", from Vatican Radio.
In Canada, last month, a super-PC bill sponsored by a pinkish MP, was passed by the House of Commons and sent to the Senate. Bill C-389 would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect the rights of transgender or transsexual citizens. It would prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” or “gender expression” in the workplace or elsewhere, and would amend the Criminal Code so that crimes committed against people because they are transgender or transsexual would be treated as hate crime.
Because it is a private member’s bill, C-389 should have had little chance of clearing the House of Commons. But On February 10th, MPs from all parties, in a display of united hypocrisy rare even for Canada, rallied behind the legislation, which passed by the narrow vote of 143 to 135. The bill is now before the Senate, where it will likely die when the government falls on Friday. (Lifetime pct: .973)
Which brings us to Joe Hvilivitsky, a member of the Niagara Falls (Canada) Review's Community Editorial Board. Mr. H. (as he shall hereinafter be known) had the temerity to suggest in his column that the "bathroom bill", as he called it, should not pass. He also argued that the MPs' vote in favour did not reflect the wishes of the majority of Canadians. Here's the most telling bit of his article.
As is so often the case when we attempt to create rights to accommodate the needs of a few, it is accomplished at the expense of the majority. In this case, we're saying that the rights of a minuscule number of disordered people trump those of females whose dignity and modesty could be compromised by being forced to share space with a "woman" still in possession of male equipment.
Mr. H. was referring to the fact that if the Human Rights Act were amended as C-389 proposes, it would be against the law to deny a transgendered or otherwise not-originally-female person access to ladies' restrooms. To Mr. H. (as to Walt) this is unthinkable, but LGBT activists hail C-389 as "a great victory for the trans community," citing discrimination faced by "trans men and trans women" [not "trannies" any more? Ed.] in jobs, housing and "just being out in a social setting."
Well, you should have seen the outcry against Mr. H. If you click on the link to the article, you'll find just one comment supporting his argument. By contrast, there are five hissy fits from Friends of Fudgepackers accusing Mr. H. of "fear-mongering" and "inducing hysteria".
Since when was it forbidden to speak out in opposition to the current moral disorder? This question was posed this week at the 16th session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the delegate of the Holy See.
Archbishop Tomasi argued that respect for fundamental human rights should not be used as a pretext for forcing public acceptance of homosexual activity.
The prelate condemned “all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviours.” But he also urged the UN to recognize a “disturbing trend” toward intolerance of those who express moral opposition to homosexual behavior. Like Mr. H.
"People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex," said the archbishop. Those who voice opposition to homosexual acts can be stigmatized, harassed, and even prosecuted, he added. "These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances."
Archbishop Tomasi insisted on a distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual activity. “A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person’s feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings,” he said. “But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors.”
For a more complete report on the archbishop's address, click here to read "Vatican addresses UN debate on sexual orientation", from Vatican Radio.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Indian murders wife for refusing to kill baby girl
Catholic Culture reports (without giving a source) that in Karnataka state, southern India, a young mother who gave birth to a second girl child was murdered by her husband. Assuming the truth of the report -- and Catholic Culture is usually quite reliable -- this is just another example of the ancient against female children found not just in India but the majority of Third World cultures.
This prejudice is so deeply rooted in Indian society that thousands of newborn girls are abandoned -- left to die -- by their parents every year. Just today the body of a newborn girl was found floating in a plastic bag in a suburb of Bangalore, the capital of the Karnataka state.
That's what happens, all to often, to the girl children who are born. Because of the same gender prejudice, the Indian government has reported that more than 10 million girls are now "missing" because of sex-selection abortions. Although sex-selection abortion is illegal, unrestricted access to abortion makes it easy for parents to disguise their motivation for the procedure.
This unconscionable practice is also known in Indian communities in the U.S.A., Canada and Europe. Wherever abortion is freely available, there are always those who will use it to avoid having "unwanted" children, no matter the reasons for not wanting them.
This prejudice is so deeply rooted in Indian society that thousands of newborn girls are abandoned -- left to die -- by their parents every year. Just today the body of a newborn girl was found floating in a plastic bag in a suburb of Bangalore, the capital of the Karnataka state.
That's what happens, all to often, to the girl children who are born. Because of the same gender prejudice, the Indian government has reported that more than 10 million girls are now "missing" because of sex-selection abortions. Although sex-selection abortion is illegal, unrestricted access to abortion makes it easy for parents to disguise their motivation for the procedure.
This unconscionable practice is also known in Indian communities in the U.S.A., Canada and Europe. Wherever abortion is freely available, there are always those who will use it to avoid having "unwanted" children, no matter the reasons for not wanting them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)