Appeals Court Rules ‘Sexual Orientation’ Applies as Sex Discrimination Under Civil Rights Act

Photo Credit: George Hodan

CHICAGO — A federal appeals court has ruled that “sexual orientation” can fall under the interpretation of sex discrimination in the federal Civil Rights Act, a decision that the dissenting judges found to be a stretch.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded 8-3 on Tuesday that while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967—which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex or national origin”—does not include the term “sexual orientation,” the existing inclusion of “sex” can apply because the discrimination surrounds a person’s actions not being normative for their sex.

“The logic of the Supreme Court’s decisions, as well as the common-sense reality that it is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex, persuade us that the time has come to overrule our previous cases,” the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals wrote.

“We [therefore] hold only that a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination for Title VII purposes,” it concluded.

The case centered around part-time Ivy Tech Community College professor Kimberly Hively, who suspected when her teaching contract was not renewed in 2014 that the decision was made based on the fact that she is a lesbian. She had also applied to teach full-time at the school, but was not accepted.

Hively sued the college, alleging a violation of civil rights law, but Ivy Tech filed for dismissal of the suit in denying the claim that her lesbian lifestyle had anything to do with the matter. However, it also noted that sexuality is not protected under Title VII. A district court sided with the school and dismissed Hively’s legal challenge.

The former professor then appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which upheld the lower court’s ruling, but only because it felt it was bound by precedent.

  • Connect with Christian News

“In light of the importance of the issue, and recognizing the power of the full court to overrule earlier decisions and to bring our law into conformity with the Supreme Court’s teachings,” the Seventh Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc—or before the full court.

The full court then concluded this week that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination could indeed be interpreted as applying to homosexuality, as it compared a woman being rejected because of her sex to being fired for not adhering to the relational norms for a woman.

“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,” Chief Judge Diane Wood wrote for the court.

“Hively’s claim is no different from the claims brought by women who were rejected for jobs in traditionally male workplaces, such as fire departments, construction, and policing. The employers in those cases were policing the boundaries of what jobs or behaviors they found acceptable for a woman (or in some cases, for a man),” she said.

However, Judges Diane Sykes, William Bauer and Michael Kanne strongly disagreed.

“Today the court jettisons the prevailing interpretation and installs the polar opposite. Suddenly sexual-orientation discrimination is sex discrimination and thus is actionable under Title VII. What justification is offered for this radical change in a well-established, uniform interpretation of an important—indeed, transformational—statute?” Sykes wrote for the dissent.

“To a fluent speaker of the English language—then and now—the ordinary meaning of the word ‘sex’ does not fairly include the concept of ‘sexual orientation,'” she outlined. “The two terms are never used interchangeably, and the latter is not subsumed within the former; there is no overlap in meaning. …  Classifying people by sexual
orientation is different than classifying them by sex.”

The judges noted that sex and “sexual orientation” are always written as two separate concepts in discrimination law, including federal law.

“[T]he Supreme Court has never deployed an abstract version of the comparative method of proof to illuminate the original meaning or scope of Title VII, nor has it even hinted that such an abstraction is a proper interpretive tool,” Sykes stated. “For good reason. Ordinary people do not use abstract thought experiments to ascribe meaning to texts.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/ David Cary Hart

    The simple fact is that no one needs to discriminate based on sexual orientation. In any even there is now diversity of opinion because the 11th circuit ruled just the opposite so SCOTUS here it comes. There is a very strong possibility that a ruling would be similar to Obergefell which presupposes that Gorsuch is in the minority replacing Scalia.

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    Can there be anymore stark evidence that judges simply are not following the Law and interpreting the Law but rather making Law?

  • The General

    Next stop, pedophilia. Like they said, “Love is never wrong.” Old Jerry Sandusky may live long enough to be released from prison and honored as a martyr. This has always been the goal of this “LGBT community.”

    • This style 10/6

      The old red herring! Pedophilia is a crime where an adult assaults a child. No right thinking country will put up with that.

      • Croquet_Player

        We were also told that marriage equality would instantly threaten every straight marriage, and people would want to marry their pets. I have yet to see any of that, and it’s been a few years now.

        • This style 10/6

          I’m still hanging on to my wife. If she takes off you never know, maybe the dog!

          • Chris

            Thank goodness I put down my coffee before I read your post. 🙂

          • Croquet_Player

            I love my little French bulldog (got him when he was eight weeks old and he could barely trundle around, and a dear little fellow he is) but yeah, this lady is sticking with her long-term beloved gentleman! (Honestly. The utterly absurd notions people come up with.)

        • Royce E. Van Blaricome

          Best come outta your cave. It is happening. Why must I keep informing you people of a little thing called Google. And it’s actually on “news” sites. Not some “Right-Wing whacko fundie” site.

          • Croquet_Player

            Do you not understand that Google is like a phone book or a map? You can look up everything, anywhere. It is simply a tool. It is up to the searcher to determine if the site they have arrived at is credible, trustworthy, etc. You keep citing Google as a “source”. It is not a “source”. It’s a tool to find sources. It’s like you’re saying “Library!” every time someone asks you to back up your statements. It’s completely absurd. I understand that this site doesn’t offer the option to provide links (and that’s a shame) but you must provide your own sources to back up your statements. Say “Google this”, and then give some sort of definition, the names of authors, whatever. Just stop saying “Google!” like you just found out about it yesterday. “I have a friend, and I can prove it. Phone book!” Honestly, it’s too ridiculous. Yes, we all know about Google. I’m from San Francisco, we were all using it by 1995. Catch up. Please.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I’m not the one with an understanding problem here. Now go waste your time on Google!

          • Croquet_Player

            Yet another ad hominem remark. The refuge of those with no argument.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            LOL!! Do you even know the definition of “ad hominem”? LOL

            That would be what Jesus would call a Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket.

          • Rachelthemillenial

            Looks like “james blue” got herself another sock puppet.

      • Amos Moses

        “where an adult assaults a child.”

        so then children are given the right to consent …… and Ms. Clinton was in favor of that …… so not too far off …………

        • This style 10/6

          A child is considered not to be able to consent. The Clinton thing sounds like a lie.

          • Amos Moses

            “The state should no longer be allowed to assume the rationality of regulations based upon age and should at least be required to justify its actions on the basis of modern legislative and administrative findings.” ~ Hillary Rodham, The Harvard Education Review, 1973, “Children Under the Law”

          • This style 10/6

            I don’t see that suggests lowering tne age of consent.

            You seem to be in favour of pedophilia.

          • Amos Moses

            “should no longer be allowed to assume the rationality of regulations based upon age ”

            ANY REGULATION ….. that would include CONSENT ……..

          • This style 10/6

            It does not suggest lowering the age of consent.

          • Amos Moses

            it suggests that the state has no business setting ANY standard ……. ok ….. not suggests …… IT SAYS IT OUTRIGHT ……………. “should no longer be allowed to assume” ……….

          • This style 10/6

            Rubbish!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So “assuming” is a synonym of “setting a standard?”

            If I declared “the state shouldn’t be allowed to assume anybody is guilty and incarcerate them” you would read that as “the state shouldn’t be allowed to incarcerate anybody?”

          • james blue

            What is your position on when a minor should have a legal say in anything?

          • james blue

            Hmm, silent on this one…….

          • Amos Moses

            you seem to be ……….

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh? Is a 13yo a “child” or “adult”?

            Additionally, you guys are the ones who are always touting “the law says, the law says!!” Todd Nickerson has a natural urge and sexual attraction that he certainly didn’t ask for and definitely didn’t choose. Did God intend for him to act on it? He is a self-proclaimed pedophile that has urges towards children. Most states have the “Age of Consent” set at 16yo & some as young as 13. So a 50-some year old man “falls in love’ with a 16yo or 13yo and they “consent” to be married. So if you are gonna tout “it’s the law” and “it’s legal” then you are telling us they SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY

            Monica Mares and Caleb Peterson who have a natural urge and sexual attraction towards one another that they didn’t choose should be allowed to marry. Did God intend for them to act on it? THEY ARE MOTHER & SON!!

            Norman MacArthur and Bill Novak spent 15 years as father and son in the eyes of the law. The couple, together for more than 50 years married in Pennsylvania. They’re both legal adults now and therefore able to give “adult consent”. Thanks for telling us all you think that’s just hunky dory too.

            Many of those who populate our prisons are those who have a natural urge and impulse towards aggression that they didn’t choose. Did God intend for them to act on it? Or should we respect that feeling as their “truest truth?” Or is it appropriate to suggest that their urge, no matter how natural, must be morally tamed?

          • This style 10/6

            I don’t know any of the cases you mention and don’t see how they are relevant. States set an age of consent, usually 16. An adult having sex with someone under age commits a crime.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, I mentioned some by name. So obviously you don’t wanna know either. No surprise there. You didn’t answer the questions. No surprise there. You don’t see how it’s relevant? No surprise there either.

            Typical troll.

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

          • This style 10/6

            Why should I know about them as I don’t live in the US.

            I guess I am a troll if you say so.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Because of a little thing called the internet and the fact that I mentioned them by name. A simple Google search could’ve told you all you needed to know.

            And no, you’re not a troll because I say so. You’re a troll because you show yourself as one.

          • This style 10/6

            I have no interest in those people or in any of your opinions.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Not surprising. That would be typical of a Troll. Only interested in doing what a Troll does. Fits perfectly with:

            In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.

            From Psychology Today: “Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response.”

            Thanks for your honesty and admitting it.

      • bowie1

        It used to be that way for homosexuals did it not?

        • This style 10/6

          Yes, we used to throw men in jail for loving another man. That barbarity has gone.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Liar. Nobody ever got thrown in jail for loving another man. STOP the blatant dishonest. It may have happened for the ACT of Sodomy but most certainly not for “loving” someone. Sheesh!

          • This style 10/6

            Love usually leads to sex and men were jailed for it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Oh? I sure hope you don’t love your parents and children.

          • This style 10/6

            You can never resist demonstrating how silly you are.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!!!! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ TROLL ALERT!!!!!!!!

            Oh, that was helpful and substantive.

          • Judy Zwyghuizen

            The Law’s should never bend or be Changed to Please sick minded individual’s It should alway’s remain the Same !

          • This style 10/6

            Just as well you are not on the supreme court. If the law didn’t change we’d still be hanging people for stealing sheep.

          • Croquet_Player

            Although we may wish to consider some laws about the reckless and wanton use of apostrophes and capitalization. 😉

          • This style 10/6

            I was being nice but he does fling those apostrophes around doesn’t he!

          • Croquet_Player

            I think it’s a “she”, but yeah, wow.

          • Chris

            Old les

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, have you flogged any runaway slaves lately?

        • Croquet_Player

          Yes. It did. These are and were adults who wanted consensual adult relationships. Where, I ask you, is the sudden clamor for the age of consent to be lowered? Nowhere. Where, I might also ask you, is the clamor for adult men to stop their predatory behavior on underage girls? The vast amount of predatory behavior is by adult males on minor females. Let’s talk about that.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Liar. These adults are NOT wanting “consensual adult relationships”. STOP the blatant dishonest. What they want is to engage is a perverted, immoral sexual BEHAVIOR. Sheesh!

            Another lie. See suggestion about on coming outta your cave and Google.

            “Where, I might also ask you, is the clamor for adult men to stop their predatory behavior on underage girls?”

            Answer: In every state with statutory rape laws. In every Bible-believing Christian church. In most, if not all, sermons about the horrors of Islam and historical facts on Mohammed. And other places.

            “The vast amount of predatory behavior is by adult males on minor females.”

            Prove it.

          • Croquet_Player

            “Prove it.” As you insisted that I do, when I asked for reliable data from you, “Google it.”

            Unlike, you, I’m happy to provide sources. But only after you “Google”.

            The vast amount of sexual crime upon minors is by adult males on underage girls. That is a fact. Go Google, then come back and tell us all what you found. Go Google.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Welcome to the National Center for Victims of Crime – Child Sexual Abuse Statistics – The prevalence of child sexual abuse is difficult to determine because it is often not reported; experts agree that the incidence is far greater than what is reported to authorities. CSA is also not uniformly defined, so statistics may vary.”

            Oops. Guess it’s not a fact after. See how that works? Touche

          • Croquet_Player

            Let’s take your own trusted source which you quote from, the National Center for Victims of Crime – Child Sexual Abuse Statistics. Direct quotes from the site you selected:

            – Offenders are overwhelmingly male, ranging from adolescents to the elderly.

            – Some perpetrators are female. It is estimated that women are the abusers in about 14% of cases reported among boys and 6% of cases reported among girls.

            So clearly, as they said, from the source you yourself cited, “Offenders are overwhelmingly male”.

            Also from your preferred site:

            – 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys is a victim of child sexual abuse.

            Weird how you managed to overlook all those stats. Why would you do that, I wonder?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nice try. Is lying all you can do? Partial quotes selectively pulled out to substantiate your case are evidence of your continued dishonesty.

            I refer you back to my quote which is ABOVE all those you cited.

            You’re about as clear as mud. But hey, we both cited the same source so folks can go there themselves, if they really wanna waste their time, and see how you twisted what is said there.

            Or they could just consider the source that said it here.

          • Croquet_Player

            I strongly encourage all to go to that site. The site that you yourself chose. Then they will see who is lying or not. Who is cherry-picking quotes or not. Who is pointing out the grim realities of the true horrors of child abuse, and who is desperately trying to obfuscate and deflect. (One begins to wonder why). I have no need of insults and deprecation. My argument rests on the merits of the facts and evidence alone. I need no cloak, for I am honest.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Yup. Me too! And yup, we will. LOL Oh yeah, you just keep telling yourself that.

            IF you WERE “honest” you would have told folks that you cited quotes from other institutions/organizations and they were NOT from National Center for Victims of Crime AS MY QUOTE WAS!!!

            It’s all there for anyone to see. And YOU are the one obfuscating because YOU are the one that made a claim and then wouldn’t back it up and then twisted what the source that I brought said.

            Honest? Ha! LOL

          • Croquet_Player

            My quotes were copied directly from the site you yourself selected. Who’s the liar? Not me.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nice try. The site will show anyone who goes there your lie.

            Here, let me show you what you did and how it works. Maybe you’ll see then.

            “My quotes were copied. Who’s the liar? me”

            Now, those are your words. Copied directly. See how that works? Get the picture? Ready to admit what you did now?

          • Croquet_Player

            Oh, wait, I forgot, you don’t accept scientific sources as “proof”. You’ll hem and haw, and bluster for a while, and then start endlessly quoting scripture. I simply can’t be bothered. Look it up. Anyone else can look it up too, and find out who’s really lying about predation upon children.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You have me confused with someone else. I certainly never said any such thing. But hey, thanks for proving you’re a Liar.

            That quoting Scripture really gets to you though don’t it? Whattaya expect on a CHRISTIAN page. There’s LOTS more where that came from. Hmmm, let’s see, what would be a nice appropriate bit of Truth and Light to shine on this post of yours?

            There are six things which the LORD hates,
            Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
            17 Haughty eyes, a LYING TONGUE,
            And hands that shed innocent blood,
            18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
            Feet that run rapidly to evil,
            19 A FALSE WITNESS WHO UTTERS LIES,
            And one who [fn]spreads strife among brothers. (Prov. 6:16-19)

          • Croquet_Player

            I have data to back up every single thing I say. I have no need to resort to name-calling, hyperbole, or misrepresentation. I simply report the facts, with supporting evidence. The truth will out.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
            (Rom 3:10-18)

            You just engaged in misrepresentation in the quotes you pulled out from that cite. Anyone can go see that for themselves. But YES, the Truth will win out.

          • Chris

            Porn to back up.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        I’ve been waiting for a comment like this!! I suggest you Google “American Psychiatric Association States: It Is ‘Natural, And Normal To Be AROUSED By Children’ ”

        I am constantly hearing the LGBTQABCXYZ folks continually tout the APA as “experts” when it comes to Homosexuals and Gender Confused (“Transgender”) as “normal”. So remember that when you reference the APA again.

        it wasn’t all that long ago that they denied right here on this site that Homosexuals target kids, the literature that’s been around since the ’70’s, the current undercover videos, etc.

        Well, given this new revelation from the APA and some university professors, now will they be preaching it’s “normal”? If not now, whattaya wanna bet not before long?

        • This style 10/6

          It sounds like a sound bet to me. There is no way society wiĺl accept that adults sexually assaulting children is anything but wrong. You seem to be paranoid on the subject.

          What you don’t get is that sexuality is not carved in stone and some people have a hard time deciding what they are. A tiny minority but surely we can accept them as our fellows.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Wrong again. Not only will they but they do and have.

            Besides, on what basis do you claim that adults having sex with children is wrong?

            That said, thank you for showing everyone that you support every perversion under the sun and that the Gov’t should not discriminate against Andromimetophilia, Anthropophagolagnia, Autoandrophilia, Autogynephilia, Autonepiophilia, Autopedophilia, Autoplushophilia, Chronophilia, Coprophilia, Ephebophilia, Exhibitionists, Gerontophilia, Gynandromorphophilia, Gynemimetophilia, Hebephilia, Infantophilia, Necrophilia, Pederasty, Pedophilia, Peodeiktophilia, Pedovestism, Piquerism, Raptophilia, Scoptophilia, Stigmatophilia, Toucherism, Transvestophilia, Troilism, Urolagnia, Urophagia, Zoophilia, and a whole bunch more!

            No doubt Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgeway, and a host of others wish you had been in control of the Gov’t while they were around. As well as Todd Nickerson, Monica Mares and Caleb Peterson, and Norman MacArthur and Bill Novak.

            Oh get it perfect well, clear as crystal, that sexuality is not carved in stone. What you don’t get is that one is normal and the rest are perverted.

          • This style 10/6

            Source please.

            If you don’t know that assaulting children is wrong I hope someone is watching you.

            I’ve seen your silly list before.

            I don’t understand your penultimate paragraph.

            You evidently hate people of a different sexuality than you. What gives you the right to decide on what is perverse, you don’t even know that assaulting children is wrong.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Google. History books. Etc. Don’t be so lazy. You made a claim. Back it up or don’t make the claim.

            You didn’t answer the question. Guess it’s easier just to fall back on ad hominem. Probably is it’s easily seen thru.

            Thanks for admitting that you saw the list and therefore KNOW it is true.

            Sorry you don’t understand.

            No, I don’t evidently hate people with a different sexuality. You evidently possess a faux omniscience that isn’t doing you well.

            What gives me the right to decide what’s perverse? Not “what” but “Who”. Christ does.

            The last part of your final sentence is a bold-faced lie. So I’ll just consider the source. Lies come from Liars. Never said any such thing. Not even remotely close to it.

            But alas, I guess it’s just easier to hurl ad hominem and personal attacks on another rather than have to deal with the fact you have NO bases for claiming something.

          • This style 10/6

            The claim is yours: “Not only will they but they do and have.” Referring to governments accepting adults assaulting children.

            “Besides, on what basis do you claim that adults having sex with children is wrong?” Your words, implying that you don’t know why it is wrong.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Nope. I never “implied” any such thing. I simply asked a question. I know full well why it is wrong. So, are you gonna answer the question?

      • Tonya Elise

        the Pedophiles are NOT TRANS-gender people. They are Not LGBT mostly .

        • This style 10/6

          I did not say they were. Most pedophiles are heterosexual because most people are heterosexual.

      • Balerion

        Doesn’t seem to be any shortage of that filth in this country’s churches, by the way.

    • Tonya Elise

      Ultimately everyone needs and deserves love and be who they are in their Gender or who they love. ***
      ***Trans-gender people are not the
      perverts and pedophiles like 80% of the unintelligent population thinks. There
      are more than 90% of so-called Heterosexual people baby rapist and adult rapist in the world than
      Trans-gender people. Trans-gender people are not all about sexual relationships
      with whom ever like the LGB. Acceptance of Gender NOT whom you have sex with are
      two and completely different things.
      They just want to use the restroom wash their hands
      and walk out.The True trans-gender want only 1 thing and that is to pee , then leave A.S.A.P.
      . The only thing Trans-ladies might to in the ladies room is to urinate and hand up, check
      makeup. and MAYBE look at the ladies shoes , clothing, make up and listen to the way the
      talk. THAT’S IT !! and NOT for rape of ANYONE Child or adult females. …

      __ You bring in the Bible and talk about Homosexuals OK that is a sin . Trans-people are Not
      the same as that. John 14:6 King James Version (KJV)
      6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
      the Father, but by me.
      *** Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free,
      nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.***__
      I AM CREATED BY GOD > I am trans-gender and i am still a Christian.
      Judge not lest ye be judged. The Trans-gender people have been around
      since before Jesus was on earth. John 3:16 i am saved. Your Judgement
      on my is a Sin. Let those without sin cast the first stone ! _
      Matthew 7:1-3King James Version (KJV)
      7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
      2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
      and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
      3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye,
      but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
      __

      ____So, we can now put people in Jail in two ways one for urinating behind a tree
      or behind a dumpster in am alley way or can be put in jail for urinating as a
      female because you are a female Trans-lady. To go to Jail for having to pee , WOW !!
      . Trans-people are happy when someone sees them in the gender ID but, would rather
      not be seen as a freak or a Criminal (rapist, pedophile).Trans-people are just
      the NEW bigotry. The old one was “colored” restrooms before the late 1960s.
      Modern world now hate what they do not understand and there is all the
      Unintelligent people in the world. Trans-people have been around all throughout
      time. American Indians and the ancient Greek revered the Trans-people as a higher
      place in society and given honors,respect, and treated well my the people.
      Put trans-women in the mens room and THEY are one ones the get RAPED by so-call
      Hetersexual men or killed, beat up and left on the floor. Where is the Protection there. ___

  • Lexical Cannibal

    Maybe it’s just because the article isn’t representing the dissenting judges very well, but their argument seems pretty rhetorically weak and foot-stampy. No one in that conversation is arguing that sex and sexual orientation are the same thing. Rather, the legal argument appears to be that when people discriminate based on orientation, the discriminee’s sex acts as a function of that discrimination and so the former could be considered categorically subordinate to the latter, e.g. someone may not choose to discriminate against a man in a relationship with a woman, but then may turn around and discriminate against a woman in a relationship with a woman; it is not the act that changed (being in a relationship with a woman), but the sex of the person doing the act.

    It’s a fascinating take on the argument and I’m honestly a little shocked I’ve never seen it before. Successful as it was, it will be interesting to see what happens when this argument inevitably makes it to SCOTUS.

  • Croquet_Player

    Also, the virulently anti-LGBT Mississippi bill HB-1523 was thoroughly routed today. (Edit: whoops, in July 2016.)

  • Jason Todd

    These judges actually extended the use of the word “sex” to include behavior? Really? The amount of stupid here is simply breathtaking.

    • This style 10/6

      How do you manage sex without some form of behaviour; by phone!

      • Jason Todd

        Non-sequitur.

        • This style 10/6

          Your usual way of wriggling off the hook.

          • Jason Todd

            No, it’s my way of pointing out silly comments that have nothing to do with anything I said or the article itself.

      • Amos Moses

        Strawman …………

    • james blue

      So If you didn’t want to serve a woman you could refuse on the basis that she is heterosexual?

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Genders(sexes) and races(skin colors) are God’s creation, but sex orientations are sins except for one man and one woman in marriage. The West is wrong in treating what is natural and what is sinful together. In such a society, living out morality and teaching morality would be a crime and children will get hurt the most. The West should never have equated Christianity with anything else. The evil only led to the hatred against the truth AND morality.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Secularism aims peaceful co-existence with evil (homosexuality, Satanism, etc) and that purpose itself produces only the reign of evil because humanity is sinful. This is the reason the Eastern spirituality is only demonic in its core, and when the Post-christian West adopts it, the effects are deadly to everyone on earth. Slavery will never end at this rate. People can have only brief breaks by power-clashes therefore no peace. American Christians must never give up the hard-earned freedom, no matter what happens on earth, for the sake of God’s name and of all children’s life. Jesus alone brings salvation and freedom and peace to everyone. May His Kingdom come.

  • http://www.gmail.com/ David van Heerden

    Is nobody just a jerk and a wierdo anymore? All these people were just born so full of themselves that they legal protection. Since they are so entitled to special treatment, why don’t we just pay them a pension for existing, and throw them out of court?

    • William of Glynn

      Discriminating against someone on the basis of sexual orientation is special treatment.