Excellent piece. In-depth and spirited. I'll be referencing it when I call the Senate Judiciary this week. I don't believe they've voted yet. Thank you!
Good catch. Typos is my middle name (Callie Typos Burt).
Sexual orientation isn't broadly covered by the CRA of 1964. The Bostock ruling was explicitly narrow--that people could not be fired for being gay or transgender.
From a consequentialist perspective, I would say Bostock was a good ruling, but I am not a consequentialist. That is, I don't think people should be fired for being LGB or T if their jobs have nothing to do with their sexual orientation or sex, but I don't think discrimination against transgender people is prohibited under existing 'sex' protections under Civil Rights Law. Why I think new protections are needed, but not in the form where gender self-ID = sex. Cheers.
Excellent piece. In-depth and spirited. I'll be referencing it when I call the Senate Judiciary this week. I don't believe they've voted yet. Thank you!
Great article
Albeit it the canadian bill is *C-16*
Small typo
Also, Sexual Orientation protections are more or less completely covered by CRA of 1964
SCOTUS made this determination in June of last year in the ruling regarding transgender funeral home dress code case
It was a ruling amounting to legislating from the bench but at least there some good that came out of it
Thanks for reading :)
Good catch. Typos is my middle name (Callie Typos Burt).
Sexual orientation isn't broadly covered by the CRA of 1964. The Bostock ruling was explicitly narrow--that people could not be fired for being gay or transgender.
I've written about that ruling here: https://womansplaceuk.org/2021/02/07/bidens-executive-order/
From a consequentialist perspective, I would say Bostock was a good ruling, but I am not a consequentialist. That is, I don't think people should be fired for being LGB or T if their jobs have nothing to do with their sexual orientation or sex, but I don't think discrimination against transgender people is prohibited under existing 'sex' protections under Civil Rights Law. Why I think new protections are needed, but not in the form where gender self-ID = sex. Cheers.