Question: Are homosexuals a protected class under "equal protection" laws?

[armyowalgreens]

[QC]

1. No. n/t

[armyowalgreens]

3. Doesn't that pose a problem when fighting things like Prop 8 and Prop 102?

[Unvanguard]

32. Yes, but not an insurmountable one.

First, because few courts have definitively said "sexual orientation is not a suspect classification", so we could still win on that one at some later point without disturbing precedent. In California, for instance, in In re: Marriage Cases the Supreme Court ruled that sexual orientation was a suspect classification, and discrimination on the basis of it had to meet the most stringent test, "strict scrutiny."

Second, because even if sexual orientation is not considered a suspect class, statutes discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation can still be invalidated on equal protection grounds if the courts rule that they lack a "rational basis." This is how Romer v. Evans was won.

Third, because there is a constitutional right to marriage (see, for instance, Loving v. Virginia) that is being denied to same-sex couples, even aside from equal protection issues.

[Kurska]

2. Depends on the state. n/t

[MercutioATC]

8. Federally, it depends on the agency.

I know for a fact that the FAA prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Don't ask...it's a long, sordid story.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[armyowalgreens]

5. Pizza delivery?

[subcomhd]

7. and a real thing, dumbass. nt

[subcomhd]

6. no nt

[armyowalgreens]

9. So what legal argument do we have against prop 8 and prop 102?

[Sebastian Doyle]

10. ITS AGINST THE LAWS OF ALLMIGHTY GOD!!1111!!11!1!

(which seem to supercede the Constitution, according to the FreeperBirtherTeabaggers.)

[subcomhd]

13. to convince courts to recognize g&l s as a protected class nt

[iris27]

11. No - there has been a proposed bill before Congress for a while, but it

hasn't gotten anywhere. There is a bit of infighting on whether or not to include gender identity (and so also protecting trans people) in addition to sexual orientation, which has slowed things. Most versions of the bill introduced in recent years have included protection for gender identity, but some people are of the opinion that a bill without it would be more likely to pass. IMO, if a version without protection for gender identity passes, gays could still easily be targeted, as it would be pretty narrow protection, i.e. you're safe as long as you act appropriately masculine or feminine, and not swishy or butch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act

[Unvanguard]

28. That's not equal protection, that's anti-discrimination. Not the same thing.

Equal protection applies to law, e.g. the way the government treats marriage. Anti-discrimination protection applies to employment and public accomodations on the part of private business.

[Laelth]

12. No. With 99.9% certainty under Federal law. State law may vary. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Davis_X_Machina]

14. Discrete, insular, immutable....

...they ought to be.

[Divine Discontent]

15. evangelical churches refuse to say Gay when referring to us, they only say homosexual

and attack Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Trans people, when they just refer to us as HOMO-SEX-SHULLS so they can disparage and use the term in a scientific way that isn't relevant to today's modern world. My Straight friends don't tell people they're heterosexual, or say, "thanks for the offer, but I'm heterosexual". I just don't hear that being bantered about.

Thanks!

(on edit - not being at all upset, just saying what I see as a Gay person)

[armyowalgreens]

17. Both "homosexual" and "gay" have been used as slurs. So what do you suggest I use?

If I was referring to the straight community, I would have said heterosexual.

[Divine Discontent]

18. What I said to begin with. Gay or Lesbian, or GLBT.

When I monitor sermons and political speeches against Gays, they rarely say Gay or GLBT community, they call us what they want to call us, just like how the Republicans won't say Democratic Party, but Democrat Party.

[subcomhd]

20. the old euphemism treadmill. whatever is appropriate today

will be a slur tomorrow.

"Euphemisms often evolve over time into taboo words themselves, through a process described by W.V.O. Quine, and more recently dubbed the "euphemism treadmill" by Steven Pinker. (cf. Gresham's Law in economics). This is the well-known linguistic process known as pejoration.

Words originally intended as euphemisms may lose their euphemistic value, acquiring the negative connotations of their referents. In some cases, they may be used mockingly and become dysphemisms."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#The_.22euphemism_treadmill.22

[FirstLight]

16. Just took the Legal and EOE class in my HR certification program

sex/gender/sexual preference/ transgender seems to all be included as a protected class. though the laws in individual states will determine the boundaries on the specific laws...

there were a few cases we talked about...and most were judged in favor of the LGBT person...

hope that helps!

[Divine Discontent]

19. in some ways, big business has done the GLBT community a lot of good

many fortune 500 companies have stood up (at the request of their employees of course) for equal protection rights in their workplaces. HR training now fully covers all of this and I think it's great!

[subcomhd]

21. As much as it pains me to say it, you are right.

corporate America has been way ahead of the social progress curve on this one.

[Courtesy Flush]

23. I think the reason for that is

The people in those companies work side by side with gays, and see them as equals. I think the public opposition comes from people who see other groups as "them", whereas your co-workers are "us."

[JANdad]

22. Is this how you get to over 1000 posts per month?

Google is your freind...

[AngryAmish]

24. Mixing up a few things in that question

1. Under many state and local human rights statutes homosexuality is a protected class.

2. I don't the the USSC has determined that there is an equal protection argument that says homosexuals have a right to marry another person of the same sex. The old argument goes that a gay person has the same right as a straight person to marry a person of the opposite sex.

My point: a protected class is almost always a creature of statute under civil rights law while "equal protection" is a constitutional argument.

I think. It has been a long time since I learned this.

[treestar]

25. Not so far, but a case to the SCOTUS can bring the issue into play

I'm not sure whether the Court has considered that question.

To find out google SCOTUS and homosexuality and maybe the cases will come up.

[Unvanguard]

30. They have not decided it either way.

The two major cases that have come before them, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, did not require a decision: in Romer they ruled that the Colorado amendment at issue failed even a rational basis test, so no higher level of protection was necessary to invalidate it, and in Lawrence they invalidated the Texas statute on "right to privacy" grounds that have nothing to do with equal protection.

[Statistical]

26. On state level depends on the state, on federal level depends on the agency.

Basically it is a big mess.

Personally I think they are and within a generation the SCOTUS will confirm that.

[Unvanguard]

27. Depends on the state. It has not yet been decided at the federal level.

But as far as same-sex marriage bans go, recall two things: first, any discrimination, "suspect classification" or not, must at least meet rational basis scrutiny (which might alone kill marriage inequality), and second, there is the separate legal issue of the constitutional right to marry which has nothing whatsoever to do with equal protection analysis.

[Lex]

29. Federal or State?

Federal, no they are not a protected class.

In most states, no they are not a protected class.

[slackmaster]

31. They are under California laws and in some other states, but not federal

:hi: