← Back to context

Comment by UncleMeat

17 days ago

Bostock applies to Title 7. The reasoning is that discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity is sex discrimination, which can be applied to other laws like the FHA but this is not established federally and the Trump administration is currently in legal fights explicitly in opposition to this position. So I do not think that it is fair to say that Bostock prevents renters from being evicted based on their gender identity or sexuality.

[Here](https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/removing-gender-ideology-and-r...) is an EEOC's "literal directive" pulling back on relevant cases. If you want specific cases then [this article](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eeoc-transgender-discrimination...) references specific ongoing cases that have been dropped by the EEOC.

And I do think the ability to have consenting and private intercourse without being imprisoned is a human right. I did not expect that this would be controversial.

4 comments

UncleMeat

Reply
genewitch  17 days ago

the eeoc link doesn't mention housing or "rent." https://www.findlaw.com/lgbtq-law/housing-discrimination-pro... this says that HUD and DoJ handle those cases.

If you're talking about employment (which the EEOC appears to cover) - i've been fired for not cutting my hair short enough. I've been fired for refusing to wear a tie for a cubicle job. In the US, employment is at-will, generally. If that's what you have an issue with, then let's talk about that. Even if the issue is with hiring discrimination of any kind, i can get behind that, too.

And there's a subtle, yet perceivable difference between what you said, "sodomy laws" and your statement now about "consenting and private intercourse." i also notice you didn't mention "between adults."

I don't really want to have a side-channel discussion, here. The employment vs housing statements, you either had a typo, or it was a red herring, i am unsure. I feel like this is devolving, perhaps of my own fault, into a god of the gaps argument.

  • UncleMeat  17 days ago

    My original comment regarding the EEOC was about the impotence of Bostock in modern federal courts because the EEOC is dropping cases of Title 7 workplace discrimination brought by LGBT people. Although the US generally has at-will employment, there are certain reasons for firing people that are prohibited by law.

    The discussion of housing is separate from that and is instead a point about the fact that LGBT people do not have federal protections in this domain. I thought that my post was very clear. LGBT people do not have any federal protections in many domains (housing for example). They have protections in some domains (employment, via Bostock) and even that is backsliding because of the EEOC's changing behavior.

    Only adults can consent. The sodomy laws struck down in Lawrence were about consenting and private intercourse, both in general and in the very specific case of Mr. Lawrence.

    I am extremely uninterested in any discussion that smacks of painting gay people and their relationships as in any way related to child rape.