SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Chicago Tribune reports that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals—which sets precedent in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin—ruled
that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The plaintiff, a college teacher, said she was reprimanded for kissing her girlfriend, then was not given full-time work at the college and was dismissed. The college denied that it discriminated against her.
MP3 audio of the oral arguments is available.
additional coverage:
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
LGBT Workers in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin Gain Protection
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 56 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
There's nothing to writing. All you do is sit at a typewriter and open a vein.
-- Red Smith
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:05PM (35 children)
Government cannot lead society; government can only follow society.
If you want to force people to associate with you, then you yourself are a jerk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:16PM
Those who have authority backed by guns sometimes don't pay much attention to a festering public until it starts getting out of control.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:40PM (23 children)
Nobody is being forced to associate with anyone else. This is about discrimination in employment, housing and customer service. You do not have to associate with your employees, your bosses, your neighbors, your renters, your landlords, your customers, or your vendors. Most of these, except neighbors, are simple business transactions.
Example: Alex and Bob want to contract with Evila Hatings to bake a wedding cake. This is a simple business transaction. It does not mean that either party "associates" with the other. It certainly does not mean that either party endorses, supports or condones the views of the other. I'm sure Alex and Bob would not want to be seen as endorsing Evila's hate based hateful hating. Similarly Evila Hatings would not want to be seen as endorsing or condoning any act between two men that does not involve guns and killing.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:53PM (17 children)
'Nuff said.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:32PM (16 children)
So I am 'associated' with the person at the grocery check out aisle?
I am associated with the person who mows my lawn? With the person who puts a new roof on my house?
And moreover, I somehow can be seen to endorse all of their personal views?
I don't think so.
Maybe 'associated' is the wrong word here and was introduced to deliberately obfuscate the issue. I'll stick with the idea of endorse their personal views. Just because I shake hands with someone, conduct business with, live next door to, rent to, rent from, or otherwise engage in ordinary everyday activity with someone does not mean I endorse their political, religious or other views. And our differences in views should not be a basis on which to discriminate against people in ordinary every day casual interactions.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:21PM (14 children)
You're talking about other people's interpretations of your associations; I'm talking about one's own interpretation of one's own associations.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:10PM (13 children)
Whose interpretations of associations is irrelevant.
What matters is that people cannot discriminate in economic matters against people they hate. Especially for employment, housing and commerce.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:40PM (12 children)
Government cannot lead society; government can only follow society.
If you want to force people to associate with you, then you yourself are a jerk.
Get it, yet?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:37PM (4 children)
No. I don't 'get it'.
What I get is that people are free to hate all they want. What they cannot do is discriminate against the people they hate. But feel free to go on hating.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:43PM (3 children)
amirite, mate?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:16PM (1 child)
Keep stretching that mental layer, I will be amused when it finally snaps.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:02PM
You seem to believe the snap will occur at a point in the future rather than the past.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:47PM
"Haters gonna hate to associate!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:35PM (6 children)
I like how whenever somebody disagrees with you you just repost your exact same opening statement as if expecting that somehow settles the matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @08:55PM (5 children)
You're just too stupid to see the logical connections.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:24PM (3 children)
Government cannot lead society; government can only follow society.
If you want to force people to associate with you, then you yourself are a jerk.
No one is being forced to be friends with anyone else, but everyone IS being prevented from discriminating against people in the economic realm: "workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
I think you're too stupid to get over your own "moral" hangups and see the bigger picture. Do you think we should still have segregation? Should some hardcore feminists deny you coffee because they think you're a turd? Should people be denied job opportunities based on their skin color? How about all white males are no longer allowed to hold full time jobs? Is that fair? What level of discrimination are you saying is OK?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:42PM (2 children)
Interesting choice of words, there, particularly when defending your own moral hangups.
Segregation was bad, yes, and it was bad when either government or private parties enforced it. Should a hardcore feminist deny me coffee because she hates my white male meatbag: absolutely, as she is no one else's property and can make her own choices. Same goes for any other privately-owned enterprise, be it beverage, service, retail, food, housing, etc.
If you object to privately-owned property being subject to the owner's whims, then please inform me of a convenient time for you to meet the several people I will send your way to take up residence in your "obviously underutilized" dining room.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:18PM (1 child)
Annnd you can't see the future impact of allowing such decisions. It 100% results in discrimination and segregation, which incidentally is why we have these laws.
Thankfully "geniuses" such as yourself are stuck complaining about it while most everyone else thinks "Yay society is getting less horrible!"
Does this meet your troll quota for the day? Or will you continue like a gleeful fat little kid getting more cookies?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:43PM
So, your rebuttal is "people are too stupid to govern themselves, so I want someone I like to rule over them"? Otherwise your retort looks like a baseless assertion.
The story deals with a matter germane to the USA, and thus the concept of "I exclusively own the body I inhabit and all derivative works thereof" may be foreign to you. Its shorthand reference is the word freedom. Honoring freedom is hard. Doing anything correctly is hard. It's so much easier if you can just treat other people as chattel property, but I for one am firmly against slavery.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:53PM
And your just too logical to see the stupid connections! Naayaaa, nyaaaa!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:24PM
So I am 'associated' with the person at the grocery check out aisle?
Not really. You may be associating with the grocery store's owner (assuming for simplicity it's a sole proprietorship), and they're definitely associating with the person they hired to run the register.
I am associated with the person who mows my lawn? With the person who puts a new roof on my house?
Probably. Maybe. (Assuming those are both independent contractors, rather them employees of a larger lawn-care/roofing firm.)
And moreover, I somehow can be seen to endorse all of their personal views?
Sure, I suppose you can be, since anyone can see anything any way they like... but what the FUCK does that have to do with association?
Maybe 'associated' is the wrong word here and was introduced to deliberately obfuscate the issue.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's the wrong word. It's a term that's been used in legal thought for a long time (particularly in the term "freedom of association"), and it's not gonna change now just because you don't like it.
Now does it apply to single transactions (like the grocery store in your example)? Maybe not; that's more likely to be listed as "freedom of contract" than "freedom of association"; the two are of course related and overlapping; there's some disagreement exactly how much overlap or where the edges are. Day labor? Right on the edge. Long term employment? Definitely association.
I'll stick with the idea of endorse their personal views
Which is an idea you brought into the discussion, and has little to do with freedom of association, so, sure, stick with it.
But I don't get it... if you don't want to talk about freedom of association, why in the world did you reply to our local libertrollian's post about association? Surely you could have started your own thread to talk about people endorsing each others' personal views?
(Score: 1) by Scrutinizer on Thursday April 06 2017, @08:29PM (4 children)
Your claims could only be true if government owned the businesses conducting the transactions. Granted, this is actually the case in all countries I'm aware of sans the USA - and US governments do make defacto claims of ownership over all private businesses through such "laws" as referenced in the story.
Associating can be as simple as being in the general proximity of another person. Speaking in general as a free self-owning USian, I cannot force you to move yourself away from me, but I do have the authority to move myself away from you. What would my status be if I were not free to remove my own self from your presence for any reason at all?
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:00PM (3 children)
I happen to think the civil rights act is the right thing. I don't have to hang out with people I don't like. But I can't deny them employment or housing. But some people seem to think it is okay to deny employment or housing to people they don't like. The people who think this probably have never been on the wrong end of the discrimination before. I haven't been, but I can empathize with those who have.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 1) by Scrutinizer on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:03PM (2 children)
Let's break your response down to its fundamentals:
The Civil Rights Acts [wikipedia.org] (of which there were several) are excellent insofar as they apply to government agents and offices only. Laws point guns at people, and advocating for laws is advocating for pointing guns at people. (Pointing guns CAN be a good thing, as robbers and murderers might otherwise run riot.) You are therefore advocating the use of force to compel individuals to associate or serve others non-consensually. Correct me if I'm wrong, but then you must also show how your support for law/force is somehow in harmony with the USA's principle that involuntary servitude is illegal [wikipedia.org].
Who owns your business? Who owns your real estate? If you are the owner, then by definition, you can make your own property subject to any whim - visitors have two choices: comply or get out. Incidentally, if enough potential visitors decide to "get out" or never visit in the first place, you as a private entity unsupported by government largess will run out of resources and go out of business. Such action is the proper tool for free, self-repecting humans to deal with bigoted business-owners, versus threatening them with deadly force.
If you cannot subject your possessions to your will... then you're really not the owner, are you? This very question is quite critical for every "American home owner" to examine closely, not to mention the typical small-business "owner". A society built on fraud is not expected to last long.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday April 07 2017, @04:57AM (1 child)
If you cannot subject your possessions to your will... then you're really not the owner, are you? This very question is quite critical for every "American home owner" to examine closely, not to mention the typical small-business "owner".
Of course you're not really the owner. The land was taken from someone else, currently you are using it and eventually someone else will take it. That's the history of most land. In between it may be passed on by other means but any which way, ownership is a temporary state, usually dependent on following certain rules to avoid having it taken from you. Don't believe me, try not paying your taxes.
Similar with businesses, you're allowed to operate a business as long as you follow certain rules. Try starting a business selling drugs without a bunch of paperwork and you are likely to get locked up and forced into involuntary servitude. One of the rules for a public serving business is to serve everyone in a non-discriminatory manner.
A society built on fraud is not expected to last long.
Most societies are built on fraud, often mixed with violence. Assuming you're American, consider how the land was violently taken from the previous owners and how much fraud was used in the treaty making when it was traded for.
(Score: 1) by Scrutinizer on Friday April 07 2017, @05:37AM
Agreed, in the defacto sense. This is why I point these things out using simple ugly language, as the vast majority of people within the USA seem to have never given any thought to it and are taken aback by the concept that, in practice, they don't own anything and as such they effectively live under naked criminal rule. The fact that fraud and force have been used through the overwhelmingly vast majority of human history is no excuse for tolerating it in one's own society in the here and now.
Considering the sheer number of US people who at least claim to abhor fraud and coercion, in conjunction with the sheer number of small arms they collectively possess, these are powerful truths that are best revealed at every opportunity.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:43PM (9 children)
Government cannot lead society; government can only follow society.
Society? No.
Commerce? YES.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:52PM (6 children)
Human interaction is human interaction.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:53PM (5 children)
Murder is also human interaction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:00PM (4 children)
I'm confused as to how you think you've bolstered your position or weakened mine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:26PM
truth is lies
black is white
see, i can do it too
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:52PM (2 children)
Most people are OK with the government making the human interaction of murder illegal (e.g. regulating it).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @08:59PM (1 child)
Doesn't make it right.
Also, you'll notice that murder is still rampant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:27PM
Dear lord you just advocated against society punishing murder... my guess is you're just a total troll, my guess is Der Buzzard posting as AC with a specific set of catch phrases. Your arguments / counter arguments are too dumb to not be trolling while also able to construct proper sentences.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @08:33PM (1 child)
The resounding success of the USA's decades-long "War on Drugs" calls the veracity of your claims into question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @12:32AM
There are such good points all over the place; people refuse to see the world for what it is.
The most entrenched religion of them all is Statism.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Magic Oddball on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:05PM (16 children)
The article states that:
Eight judges on the Chicago appellate court agreed that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In this case, Title VII is prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex — the idea presumably being that the college can't discriminate because the individuals kissing were both female, not male and female.
If the judges did specify "sexual orientation" in their ruling, particularly if they did it in a way that relied on the connected biological aspect of sex & orientation, then there's a strong chance that future judges won't feel that ruling can be stretched to include gender identity. In any event, it won't be settled until somebody takes the issue through the court system, which effectively means that the protection doesn't automatically extend beyond orientation.
(Then again, after seeing a bunch of seemingly-educated people (including "Bizarro" author Piraro) describing transgender individuals as "non-heterosexuals" in anti-discrimination rants the other day [bizarro.com], well, who the fuck knows.)
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:12PM (14 children)
NOBODY gets to kiss in public. It's rude to be doing that, anyway; not everybody wants to be a party to your messy sensuality.
(Score: 4, Funny) by LoRdTAW on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:25PM (2 children)
I'm sorry no one loves you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:40PM (1 child)
You're a shining example of the value of the moderation system on SN.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:06PM
Awww the puritan feels pucked on. Let's coddle his widdle feewings everyone!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:45PM (9 children)
And just yesterday we were hearing about how the right is the "freedom of expression" party.
I guess, much like the dreaded SJWs, that only applies to expression you agree with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:56PM (7 children)
The point is that all the school has to do is argue that is has a policy against public displays of affection; there is no particular discrimination.
Anyway, what could your point possibly be? Surely, you are not arguing that freedom of expression extends to, say, sex in the open streets.
Where should the line be drawn? Certainly not by government! This is yet another reason why such colleges should be "private" institutions.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:14PM (6 children)
The line has already been drawn. Public decency laws already cover that. If your college wishes to further restrict legal freedoms then they can probably do that (if they are careful).
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:46PM (5 children)
s/t
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:28PM (4 children)
No, pointing out that laws already exist to cover sex in public is not irrelevant. It's not a copout. It's not a straw man. It perfectly answers your question of "Where should the line be drawn?". The line has already been drawn.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:01PM (3 children)
Next time, try to keep the entire context of the discussion in your head when you reply.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:44PM (1 child)
Next time don't read the articles, summaries, or anything else that might lead you to comment on this site. Your posts always start of a bit stupid or bigoted, and then you can't handle when people have good points against yours. If you don't care about the discussion and only want a soap box why don't you try youtube comments?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @12:37PM
Keep trying.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday April 07 2017, @01:31PM
That's actually not easy to do. Reply doesn't give you anything but very comment you are replying to. I often have to manually go to the article comments, find the start of the comment chain, and read through again. Especially for replies that are a day or two after my last comment. Though i know you were shooting for an insult, i am not insulted about this one.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1) by Scrutinizer on Thursday April 06 2017, @08:36PM
Without defending "the right", I wish to express my freedom by playing airhorn solos inside your bedroom at three o'clock in the morning. Being that you seem to be a proponent of tolerance, I'm sure I'll find you most accommodating...
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday April 07 2017, @07:08PM
I don't know how you managed +2 Disagree but well done in any case.
Also I must be pretty dense or inattentive but I actually don't notice this stuff. Last time I heard anyone care about PDA or even really address it was jr high. But I see this was a college. With adults in it. ermuhgerd
The next day, Hively said, an administrator reprimanded her for "sucking face" and chastised her unprofessional behavior.
'Following this, the administration concluded that she was in fact not a "hot lesbian" and was "liek totally necking it with the platypus".'
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday April 06 2017, @10:27PM
In the story submission, I ought to have written that the quote was the Chicago Tribune's words, not the court's. The court's Web site doesn't work properly for me, so I didn't find a link to the opinion.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/ [uscourts.gov]
Lambda Legal, which did the legal work for the plaintiff, has a long quote from the opinion.
http://www.lambdalegal.org/blog/20170404_court-rules-employers-cant-discriminate-against-gay-employees [lambdalegal.org]
So does Findlaw:
Viewed through the lens of the gender non-conformity line of cases, Hively represents the ultimate case of failure to conform to the female stereotype (at least as understood in a place such as modern America, which views heterosexuality as the norm and other forms of sexuality as exceptional): she is not heterosexual.
-- http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2017/04/federal-court-civil-rights-act-protects-gay-lesbian-workers-from-discrimination.html [findlaw.com]
Besides physical changes to the body such as growing a beard or having a penis constructed, a transgender person perceived as female might ask to be referred to with male pronouns, take a male name, or dress as a man (and analogously for people perceived as male). You see that the court did mention sexual orientation, but it's parenthetical to the main idea of "failure to conform to the female stereotype." That transgender people would be covered is an assumption, though. It's one that was made in some of the reports and I thought it a good one so I made it in the headline. Certainly transgender people "fail" to match gender stereotypes. That's actually a definition of "transgender":
2. noting or relating to a person who does not conform to societal gender norms or roles.
-- http://www.dictionary.com/browse/transgender [dictionary.com]
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:30PM
I assume this also protects S workers.
kissing her girlfriend
MP3 audio of the oral
Hello...
arguments is available.
Aw.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:01PM (1 child)
> she was reprimanded for kissing her girlfriend
"I'm sorry to hear about your previous employer. Here is a teaching offer with a 30% raise at our college... Why? We know our customers well. We expect your class will be full... Yes, even if you teach Ancient Sumerian Flower Arrangements, trust us."
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 07 2017, @12:49AM
As usual, the problem is with quality rather than quantity [chicagotribune.com].