Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, October 08, 2017

Why does President Donald Trump care about what gay people do in the bedroom? The question came up this week, when a lawyer for Trump's Department of Justice argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect LGBT Americans from being fired because of their sexual orientation -- a complete reversal of the government's position on such matters under previous presidents. The Justice Department argument Tuesday, before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, came in the case of Donald Zarda who claims he was fired by his company, Altitude Express, for being gay.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The agency inserted itself, even though the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had already sided with Zarda, arguing that LGBT employees are protected by Title VII of the landmark Civil Rights law.

That made the hearing odd, to say the least.

"It's a little bit awkward for us to have the federal government on both sides of the case," observed Judge Rosemary Pooler at one point in the oral arguments.

But Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan pressed on anyway, opposing the EEOC, which was still run by an Obama administration holdover when the case first reached the court.

"Employers under Title VII are permitted to consider employees' out-of-work sexual conduct," Mooppan told the judges. "There is a common sense, intuitive difference between sex and sexual orientation."

The lawyer for Zarda's side disagreed in the most basic terms.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

How many lives does Donald want to ruin? How many ya got?

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2017-10-07 10:06 PM | Reply

Well if they can be fired for exercising their First amendment rights, I would say they could be fired for anything.

Welcome to the Progressive Utopia, ain't it grand!

#2 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-10-07 11:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

"Well if they can be fired for exercising their First amendment rights"

They can fire NFL players for kneeling?

What's your deflection got to do with anything?

#3 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-10-07 11:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#3 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It's a troll, what did you expect? An honest debate?

#4 | Posted by Lohocla at 2017-10-08 12:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I dare a company to fire someone over this. It would get ugly quick.

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-10-08 12:47 AM | Reply

Say what you want about Snoofy but he debates all the time. Not a troll. LOHOCLA on the other hand????

#6 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-08 09:21 AM | Reply

Why does President Donald Trump care about what gay people do in the bedroom?

They have not been in the bedroom for about 10 years or more, if it was in the bedroom gay wouldn't be a problem.

#7 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-10-08 09:23 AM | Reply

Currently there are a lot of companies who provide health insurance will allow you if you're gay to include your partner, but if you are straight and have opposite partner but not married they won't provide the inclusion.

Go figure!

#8 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-10-08 09:30 AM | Reply

Currently, there are a lot of companies who provide health insurance will allow you if you're gay to include your partner, but if you are straight and have opposite partner but not married they won't provide the inclusion.
Go figure!

#8 | POSTED BY CRASSUS

Link?

Most companies that recognize homosexual partner relationships also recognize heterosexual partner relationships. The major change that has happened is that since gay couples can marry now, some companies are only recognizing married couples, whether gay or straight.

#9 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2017-10-08 11:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

....if it was in the bedroom gay wouldn't be a problem.

#7 | POSTED BY CRASSUS

Por favor...work on your syntax lest people think you homophobic

#10 | Posted by ABlock at 2017-10-08 11:59 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Currently, there are a lot of companies who provide health insurance will allow you if you're gay to include your partner, but if you are straight and have opposite partner but not married they won't provide the inclusion.
Go figure!"

Crassus, once again, pulls information directly from his rear end. It's utter nonsense.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2017-10-08 01:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We are regressing.

#12 | Posted by fresno500 at 2017-10-08 02:53 PM | Reply

This is the work of our beloved Vice President, Mike Pence.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2017-10-08 03:00 PM | Reply

www.cga.ct.gov

see the court decisions as examples.

#14 | Posted by Petrous at 2017-10-08 07:58 PM | Reply

Make America 1950 Again©

#15 | Posted by e1g1 at 2017-10-09 09:51 AM | Reply

..if it was in the bedroom gay wouldn't be a problem.
#7 | POSTED BY CRASSUS
Por favor...work on your syntax lest people think you homophobic

#10 | POSTED BY ABLOCK AT 2017-10-08 11:59 AM | FLAG:

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.........

#16 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-10-09 09:56 AM | Reply

Por favor...work on your syntax lest people think you homophobic

#10 | POSTED BY ABLOCK

Are you bigoted against non-native English language speakers?

#17 | Posted by nullifidian at 2017-10-09 10:04 AM | Reply

We are regressing.

#12 | POSTED BY FRESNO500 AT 2017-10-08 02:53 PM | FLAG:

#MAGA

#18 | Posted by 726 at 2017-10-09 10:11 AM | Reply

...a lawyer for Trump's Department of Justice argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect LGBT Americans from being fired because of their sexual orientation
Is this further proof that Trump is a "classic New York liberal"?

#19 | Posted by Hans at 2017-10-09 10:31 AM | Reply

I like how they try to equate someone's rights as an employee to someone's rights as a servicer. No one should be able to be fired for sexual orientation. But businesses offering a service should have the right to refuse service to anyone for religious beliefs. That way, they have to prove their beliefs prevent it. If the cake maker said "I went to church once when I was in kindergarten" then using religion as a reason is suspect. If they attend regularly and have proof they practice their religion, they should be able to refuse service to someone that goes against their beliefs.

The two issues aren't mutually inclusive.

#20 | Posted by humtake at 2017-10-10 12:13 PM | Reply

#20 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Refusing service to someone because of orientation is just bad business anyway. Money is green no matter who it comes from. That is why successful corporations don't discriminate many demographics. The more people you alienate, the less buy your product.

#21 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-10-10 01:45 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort