News and Events => People news => Topic started by: Angelic on August 31, 2018, 08:23:11 AM Return to Full Version
Title: Aimee Stevens thread (employment discrimination)
Post by: Angelic on August 31, 2018, 08:23:11 AM
Post by: Angelic on August 31, 2018, 08:23:11 AM
I couldn't find the Aimee Stevens thread, only the news article here:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/harris-funeral-homes-lawsuit/index.html
Title VII states no discrimination:
"on the basis of his(or her) religion, sex"
Thus, Aimee Stevens is being discriminated based on their birth sex as male. If born males are not allowed to wear women's clothes, it is discrimination.
Also, transsexualism is a kind of spirituality, which is similar to a religion.
Also, they were fired for not obeying Christian dogma, which is a violation of Title VII.
So Title VII has been protecting trans-rights since 1964, you just never had a hotshot lawyer like me before to use it properly.
"(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or"
However, this is the problem. It can be argued that since it is a Christian business, having a trans-woman will reduce their popularity in Christian circles, and thus affect their business negatively. So they could argue this clause.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/29/politics/harris-funeral-homes-lawsuit/index.html
Title VII states no discrimination:
"on the basis of his(or her) religion, sex"
Thus, Aimee Stevens is being discriminated based on their birth sex as male. If born males are not allowed to wear women's clothes, it is discrimination.
Also, transsexualism is a kind of spirituality, which is similar to a religion.
Also, they were fired for not obeying Christian dogma, which is a violation of Title VII.
So Title VII has been protecting trans-rights since 1964, you just never had a hotshot lawyer like me before to use it properly.
"(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or"
However, this is the problem. It can be argued that since it is a Christian business, having a trans-woman will reduce their popularity in Christian circles, and thus affect their business negatively. So they could argue this clause.