Comments on: Discrimination law roundup

By: New on LGBT issues and the law: religious tax exemptions, Title VII coverage | Overlawyered

Fri, 11 Oct 2019 20:34:08 +0000

[…] debate.” Earlier on Bostock, Altitude Express, and Harris Funeral Home here, here, here, and here, and more from Dale Carpenter and Scott […]

By: No name guy

No name guy — Tue, 08 Oct 2019 13:05:55 +0000

In reply to Parkhorse. See the Lock Picking Lawyer on you tube for all things lock related. Especially on his TSA locks.

By: Parkhorse

Parkhorse — Tue, 08 Oct 2019 11:41:52 +0000

In reply to John Fembup. And then: enact a law that requires locksmiths to make locks that don’t keep people out. The TSA luggage locks are already a functional example, especially as the master keys have been leaked.

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Tue, 08 Oct 2019 02:32:44 +0000

Minneapolis enacts a law that requires landlords to use “inclusive screening criteria”.

And then: enact a law that requires hardware stores to use screens that let flies in.

And then: enact a law that requires locksmiths to make locks that don’t keep people out.

And then, why not ask the federal government to enact a law that requires Homeland Security to let anyone cross our borders, any time?

Wait. What?

By: MattS

MattS — Mon, 07 Oct 2019 22:23:32 +0000

In reply to Dave.

“This is an ongoing process, and those who believe in a Living Constitution are OK with it.”

At least until the wind starts blowing in the other direction.

By: cc

cc — Mon, 07 Oct 2019 19:38:55 +0000

On the landlord law: Landlords can incur huge liabilities. Not only might a deadbeat stop paying rent for months, but they can trash the place, costing thousands. But worse, the landlord will be held liable if the tenant rapes or stabs another tenant. This risk will cause many landlords to exit the market. duh.

On the sexual orientation supreme court case, the problem is that creating this new protected class assumes knowledge that employers do not have. It also supports bad behavior by trans persons with no rights to the employer.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 07 Oct 2019 15:57:31 +0000

I think that Congress clearly did not intend the law to cover sexual orientation and gender identity (because it is clearly not in there)…however, the courts tend to rewrite laws to suit themselves, and by then the politicians see which way the wind is blowing, and do not “clarify.”

This is an ongoing process, and those who believe in a Living Constitution are OK with it.

By: gasman

gasman — Mon, 07 Oct 2019 13:46:39 +0000

“…will hear cases over whether Title VII ban on sex discrimination extends to sexual orientation and gender identity.”

Does congress ever legislate a clarifying law, something along the lines of ‘with respect to title VII, the term sex discrimination does/does not include sexual orientation.’ ?

Unless of course ambiguity was and is the intent of congress, and they wish the courts to do their heavy lifting for them.