BASS BARN banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
.
Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, ignored the rules of statutory construction by ignoring the distinction between "sexual orientation discrimination" and "sex discrimination"___ the latter being the intended object of protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while protection for the former was considered for protection on various occasions, but never agreed upon and written into law.


As pointed out in Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent "For several decades, Congress has considered numerous bills to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. But as noted above, although Congress has come close, it has not yet shouldered a bill over the legislative finish line."



Kavanaugh continues with emphasizing the distinction between sexual orientation and a firing because of sex discrimination.

As to common parlance, few in 1964 (or today) would describe a firing because of sexual orientation as a firing because of sex. As commonly understood, sexual orientation discrimination is distinct from, and not a form of, sex discrimination. The majority opinion acknowledges the common understanding, noting that the plaintiffs here probably did not tell their friends that they were fired because of their sex. Ante, at 16. That observation is clearly correct. In common parlance, Bostock and Zarda were fired because they were gay, not because they were men.


Contrary to the majority opinion’s approach today, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that common parlance matters in assessing the ordinary meaning of a statute, because courts heed how “most people” “would have understood” the text of a statute when enacted.”


The fact is, Justice Gorsuch attempts in his written opinion, with unusual and extraordinary effort, to articulate, or to be more accurate invent, the idea that there is no distinction between "sexual orientation discrimination" and "sex discrimination" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

While sex discrimination, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, obviously refers to biological distinctions of an individual identified at birth, sexual orientation refers to an individual’s mental yearning or belief that their physical attributes do not align with their emotional sexual proclivities. And it is this distinction that has been considered for protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but without success.


So, instead of Gorsuch and the majority accepting the distinction between sexual orientation and sex discrimination, and following time honored rules for interpreting statutory law requiring the meaning of “sex”, a biological attribute intended to have protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Gorsuch and the Majority resort to the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language being applied to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and pretend there is no distinction between sexual orientation, a mental or emotional state, and sex discrimination which refers to a biological distinction under Title VII.


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."


But, the fact is, words or terms used in legislation must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption!

Unfortunately, Gorsuch and the Majority, in applying the Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language, and doing for the Legislature what it has refused to do or was unwilling to do, has likewise usurped legislative power which borders on judicial tyranny as described by Madison:

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47



JWK


As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness. __Supreme Court Justice William Douglas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Law can be funny sometimes
Huh?

JWK

Our country is infested with a Fifth Column movement at MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC., and their countless Yellow Journalists, who work hand in hand with the Democrat Party socialist/communist leadership to paralyze and destroy our free market, free enterprise system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,320 Posts
Huh?

JWK

Our country is infested with a Fifth Column movement at MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC., and their countless Yellow Journalists, who work hand in hand with the Democrat Party socialist/communist leadership to paralyze and destroy our free market, free enterprise system.

You realize your attempting to have a conversation with an idiot right? This makes you like him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Oh snap!!! Forgot a word “interpreting” law can be funny sometimes ..... my bad
Gorsuch’s opinion is based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, i,e, that part which makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The first question which comes to my mind is, under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Perhaps you can shed some light on this fundamental question.

JWK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,033 Posts
Gorsuch’s opinion is based upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, i,e, that part which makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The first question which comes to my mind is, under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Perhaps you can shed some light on this fundamental question.

JWK
So did the justice “interpret” law ,incorrectly ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
.

So did the justice “interpret” law ,incorrectly ?

I noticed you did not answer the question in my post which you quoted.



Under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,033 Posts
.


I noticed you did not answer the question in my post which you quoted.



Under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national

Sorry I admit I cannot answer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76,204 Posts
Why should a Catholic school have to hire an LGBTQ and listen to them spew their BS? How is this good?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,017 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Well, I see there appears to be no interest in actually sticking to the legal aspects of the opinion, and determining under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”?

Underthe Syllabus, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, we find:

“Title VII makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual .. . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

I actually thought it would be interesting, with all the brilliant minds in this forum, to review the legal aspects of the case [majority opinion and dissenting opinions] and try to ferret out the legitimacy of the Court’s holding.

In such cases, [where the people’s activities, within the States are limited by our federal government] I was taught to begin with our federal Constitution, and establish the delegation of power under which Congress has acted to create an unlawful activity. Keep in mind our federal Constitution created the Congress of the United States, but also delegated defined and limited powers under which Congress may lawfully act.

So,under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . .for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”?

JWK
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top