OlgaBesnard/Shutterstock.

com

NEWS HOMOSEXUALITY
Wed Apr 5, 2017 - 6:22 pm EST

Huge LGBT victory: Federal court rules gay rights are civil
rights, discrimination is illegal
CHICAGO,Illinois,April5,2017(LifeSiteNews)AfederalappealscourtruledTuesdaythatTitleVIIofthe1964CivilRightsAct,whichbansdiscriminationon
thebasisofrace,color,religion,sex,andnationalorigin,alsocovershomosexuality.

TheU.S.CourtofAppealsforthe7thCircuit,whichhandlescasesinIndiana,Illinois,andWisconsin,decided83thatdiscriminationonthebasisof"sex"also
meansdiscriminationonthebasisof"sexualorientation."

TherulingissignificantbecauseitrecognizesspecialprotectionsforLGBTQstatusinexistinglaw,makinggayactivistsattemptstocreateLGBTQanti
discriminationlawsunnecessary.

Progressiveshailedtheruling.Voxcalledit"thebiggestprogayrightslegaldecisionsincetheSupremeCourtruledinfavorofmarriageequality."LambdaLegal,
whichhandledthecase,said,Thisdecisionisgamechanger."

"Itsthefirstfederalappealscourtdecisiontorulethatantigaydiscriminationisbannedunderexistingfederallaw,"Vox'sDavidMcNewreported."What
activistswanttodoisexpandtheexistingcivilrightsprotectionstoalsoprotectLGBTQpeople."

ScottShackfordofReason.comsaid,"Suddenly,withoutpassinganynewlaws,wehaveanewprotectedclassunderfederallaw."

Indeed,ifthedecisionisallowedtostand,itwouldessentiallyaddLGBTQprotectionstoexistinglaws.Discriminationonthebasisof"sexualorientation"an
undefinedphrasethatcouldpotentiallybeexpandedtomeananynumberofsexualpreferencescountsasdiscriminationonthebasisofbeingmaleorfemale.

"Thisissomethingthatwillrolloutcoasttocoast,wethink,"predictedattorneyGregNevinsofLambdaLegal,thenationslargestprogaybankofattorneys.

Initsruling,theappellatecourtexplained,Itwouldrequireconsiderablecalisthenicstoremovethesexfromsexualorientation.Theefforttodosohasledto
confusingandcontradictoryresults.

OpponentssaytheCivilRightsActof1964meant"gender,"asinmaleandfemale,whenitoutlaweddiscriminationbasedon"sex,"anddidnotspeaktoany
variantsexualpractice.Theyarguethatthecourtreferenced"confusingandcontradictoryresults"havecomewithmorerecentcourtdecisionsinfusing
transgenderissuesintothelaw.

Theimplicationsareindeedfarreachingforthisinterpretationoftheword"sex"inAmericanlaw.

Thefactthathistoricallythewordwasusedbylegislatorsandlegallyunderstoodbyjusticestorefertomaleandfemaleisnotdisputed.Butwithmorethan50
separategenderidentitiesnowbeinginfusedintoAmericanbusinessandeducation,gayactivistssaythat"whattheoriginallawsauthorsbelievedorintendedis
irrelevant."
Thecourtadmittedthatitsdecisionwasbasednotontheintentofthe1964CivilRightsActbutonrecentU.S.SupremeCourtdecisions.

"Inthiscase,wehavebeenaskedtotakeafreshlookatourpositioninlightofdevelopmentsattheSupremeCourtextendingovertwodecades,"decisionauthor
JudgeDianeWoodexplained."Wehavedoneso,andweconcludetodaythatdiscriminationonthebasisofsexualorientationisaformofsexdiscrimination."

ThecasefocusedonTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsAct,whichdealswithworkplacediscrimination.ButmanycourtshaveruledthatTitleIX,whichdealswith
schools,shouldbeinterpretedthesameway.

Inotherwords,ifupheldbytheSupremeCourt,thedecisionwouldcreateexplicitprotectionsforhomosexualsinemployment,housing,andeducation,
regardlessofabusinessowners,landlord's,orschoolssincerelyheldbeliefs.

ThespecificcaseinvolvesalesbiansuingIvyTechCommunityCollegeinIndianabecauseshewasnothiredbytheschool.PlaintiffKimberlyHivelyarguedher
casebasedontheTitleVIIsectionofthe1964CivilRightsAct.But"sexualorientation"isnotinTitleVIIandsolowercourtsallruledagainsther.Nowthe7th
CircuitCourtofAppeals,infullsession,ruledinherfavor,allowinghercasetogoforward.

Injustifyingtheruling,JudgeWoodacknowledged,"Formanyyears,thecourtsofappealsofthiscountryunderstoodtheprohibitionagainstsexdiscrimination
toexcludediscriminationonthebasisofaperson'ssexualorientation."ThisessentiallyadmitsthatTitleVIIdoesnot,infact,includewhatwenowcall"sexual
orientation."

ButWoodthensaystheissueisunresolvedbecauseofanabsenceofaSupremeCourtdecisiononthematter."TheSupremeCourt,however,hasneverspoken
tothatquestion,"Woodwrote.

Threejudgesdissented,includingJudgeDianeSykes,whoexplainedthatthedecisionnotonlyhasnobasisinthe1964civilrightslawbutgoesagainstlegal
precedentastohowthatlawhasalwaysbeeninterpreted.

"Whatjustificationisofferedforthisradicalchangeinawellestablished,uniforminterpretationofanimportantindeed,transformationalstatute?"Judge
Sykesasked."MycolleaguestakenoteoftheSupremeCourt's'absencefromthedebate.'"

"Whatdebate?Thereisnodebate,"JusticeSykespointedout."OurlongstandinginterpretationofTitleVIIisnotanoutlier.Fromthestatute'sinceptiontothe
presentday,theappellatecourtshaveunanimouslyandrepeatedlyreadthestatutethesameway,asmycolleaguesmustanddoacknowledge."

CNNreportedthatthecaseseemscertaintogototheSupremeCourt.

"FederalantidiscriminationlawswerealwaysgoingtobethenextbattlegroundaftertheSupremeCourt'sgaymarriagedecision,"saidCNNlegalanalystSteve
Vladeck."Theselawsareevenmoreimportantbecausetheyalsoapplytoprivatepartiessuchasemployers."