Federal judge rules Texas employers can discriminate against LGBT-'related conduct'
Source: Houston Chronicle
An LGBT Texan can be fired from a job because of the way they dress, their pronouns or the bathroom they use, a federal judge ruled.
The ruling stemmed from a suit Texas brought in September of last year, just months after the Biden administration issued guidance showing states how to comply with federal anti-discrimination protections. A federal judge in Tennessee had already stayed the directives in 20 other states as part of a separate court case.
In a 33-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said the Biden guidance incorrectly interpreted the 2020 Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that workplace discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity is unconstitutional.....
Kacsmaryk also disagreed that gender dysphoria could qualify as a disability under federal anti-discrimination law.
That guidance issued over the summer by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission came out after Paxton issued an opinion this February finding that the care could constitute child abuse. Gov. Greg Abbott then directed the states child welfare agency to begin investigating parents of transgender children who received the care.
Read more: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Federal-judge-rules-Texas-can-discriminate-17491622.php
Lovie777
(12,274 posts)That is why I won't go to Texas.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)Jarqui
(10,126 posts)I don't know what to say anymore.
48 years ago was my first fight for gay rights ... which we won.
It is mind-blowing to me that a judge would make such a decision in 2022.
In fairness, I couldn't make it through the article.
It sickened me.
irisblue
(32,980 posts)TomDaisy
(1,874 posts)TomDaisy
(1,874 posts)Link to tweet
?s=20&t=lv3DzqXKVZj5y67asry5Nw
IcyPeas
(21,884 posts)He has been a member of the Fort Worth chapter of the Federalist Society since 2012.
The American Bar Association rated Kacsmaryk "qualified" for the nomination (a ranking below "well qualified" ) . However, Senate Democrats and a number of LGBT advocacy groups opposed his nomination due to his writings and comments on LGBT rights and women's contraceptive rights.[11][12] He has worked on religious liberty cases opposing certain LGBT protections in housing, employment and health care.[13] He has referred to homosexuality as "disordered",[14] and to being transgender as a "delusion" and a "mental disorder".[13] He opposes the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in the United States.[13][10] He opposed the legalization of premarital sex.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_J._Kacsmaryk
HUAJIAO
(2,386 posts)WHAT ???
I must be naive 'cause I didn't know pre-marital sex was still illegal somewhere. Humm.. what about post divorce sex?
vercetti2021
(10,156 posts)So my next job I can be fired if I let it slip I have a girlfriend or God forbid I let people know I'm transgender.
littlemissmartypants
(22,691 posts)EndlessWire
(6,536 posts)I just wouldn't do business in Texas. What else can you do? May the weight of their fake morality push their heads under. Someday, they may need something that a flaming gay person has, and they won't be able to get it.
So, women are second class citizens, and gays are subhuman? All this to make themselves the number one? This isn't Christianity, nor is it the Law. Pathetic whining from weak individuals stroking their own egos.
summer_in_TX
(2,739 posts)should apply. What the hell is wrong with the judge? (Yeah, I know, I know.)
The unholy alliance of Abbott, Paxton, and Dan Patrick have to go.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)"In commentary pieces in 2015 two years before his appointment Kacsmaryk referenced Catholic teachings saying homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and said sexual revolutionaries had prioritized the erotic desires of liberated adults over marriage and the unborn child." - Houston Chronicle
azureblue
(2,146 posts)Refuse to do business with, pay, serve, etc., anyone who eats pork, or has tattoos. Leviticus forbids both, so you can say "for rebellious reasons stop trampling on my rights!"