1964 Civil Rights Act Expanded to Include LGBT Applicants

The LGBT lobby has yet another notch in its belt. The 1964 Civil Rights Act has now been interpreted to protect LGBT workers from discrimination:

In the past, courts have ruled that Title VII does not cover discrimination based on sexual orientation because it’s not explicitly mentioned in the law, but the EEOC’s ruling disputes that reasoning. “Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex,” the EEOC concluded. The committee argued that if an employer discriminated against a lesbian for displaying a photo of her wife, but not a straight man for showing a photo of his wife, that amounts to sex discrimination.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts hinted at similar reasoning earlier this year when considering the same-sex marriage case, even though he ultimately dissented on the court’s June 26 ruling in support of gay marriage. “If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t,” Roberts argued in April. “And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

That argument is pretty full of holes though. There are many things I am not allowed to do as a man. I’m not supposed to visit a women’s bathroom for instance. I’m pretty sure I’m not allowed in the WNBA. I can’t give birth to a baby. It’s all a crying shame.

At the very heart of Civil Rights legislation is an attempt to create a change in the mindset of the culture. Its usefulness toward such ends is dubious. Consider that, at this point, legislation doesn’t protect women and black people as much as public opinion does. If a business were to regularly deny service or employment to women or black people, that business would be publically lambasted. And its revenue would suffer. And it would change its tack.

It is likely the case that, even in 1964, public opinion was already moving against racism and sexism. Otherwise how do you explain how the Act got passed in the first place? This recent redefinition is no different. It’s obvious that public opinion is marching in line with the homosexual agenda. Laws didn’t create that. That was a cultural victory first.

It may seem completely out of step with our progressive, politically correct society, but I think that these kinds of intrusive laws should not be made at all, whether they “protect” people based on skin color, sex, or sexual orientation. I think businesses should be able to hire anyone they want, and refuse to hire anyone they want. Does that make me a fan of racism, sexism, or homophobism (whatever that is)? No. I’m a fan of voluntary societal arrangements. Like I said, these laws didn’t change anything in the heart of the culture. Why would you want to be an employee of someone who wouldn’t have hired you if the law didn’t require him to? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Leave a Reply