The Metropolitan School District of Martinsville, Indiana, had asked the Supreme Court to conclude that it is not required to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choosing.
At issue was whether either the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which says that the laws apply equally to everyone, or Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education, protects transgender students in that context.
The court’s decision not to intervene means that litigation in lower courts nationwide will continue, with judges reaching differing conclusions. The Supreme Court is likely to weigh in on the issue at some point.
It isn’t illegal discrimination to keep males out of the female bathroom.
It appears you don’t really understand the court case or the words sex or gender.
Discriminate doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means to pick. As long as you don’t do it on a protected class, it’s legal. Sex is a protected class. Gender identify is not.
They are letting it worth through the lower courts before making a statement. Typically, they wait for the lower courts and appellate courts to make decisions before reviewing the cases.
I think now you are starting to see the issue. Slowly, but I think you are getting there. VII uses the term sex. Gender is not used in the document even once.
Are you starting to understand the issue? You can’t say the two wards are different and then say they mean the same thing.
When the Civil Rights Act was passed, we used the words the same but also being gay was illegal.
I suspect SCOTUS will punt this back to congress and tell them to create a law.
I have shared what I wanted to share. I think scotus needs to clarify.
Why even bring SCOTUS in at all, though?
From the article.
Only SCOTUS can clarify.
Which part is unclear? Within the given context what about the 14th amendment and Title IX conflicts?
You can not discriminate on the basis of sex, AND apply that equally to everyone, so what’s the problem?
Gender and sex are not the same thing. Sounds like you agree with Indiana that biological men should use the male bathrooms since their sex is male.
I said not discriminate, and to not discriminate equally, so you must be jumping through mad hoops to get to that conclusion.
It isn’t illegal discrimination to keep males out of the female bathroom. It appears you don’t really understand the court case or the words sex or gender. Discriminate doesn’t mean what you think it means. It means to pick. As long as you don’t do it on a protected class, it’s legal. Sex is a protected class. Gender identify is not.
According to the DOL, gender identity is a protected class though, that brings up Title VII.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oasam/centers-offices/civil-rights-center/internal/policies/gender-identity
Doesn’t really matter what you say anyway since SCOTUS already declined to weigh in.
They are letting it worth through the lower courts before making a statement. Typically, they wait for the lower courts and appellate courts to make decisions before reviewing the cases.
I think now you are starting to see the issue. Slowly, but I think you are getting there. VII uses the term sex. Gender is not used in the document even once.
Are you starting to understand the issue? You can’t say the two wards are different and then say they mean the same thing.
When the Civil Rights Act was passed, we used the words the same but also being gay was illegal.
I suspect SCOTUS will punt this back to congress and tell them to create a law.