What the government does for anyone it must do for everyone or it must do for no one. That’s what equal treatment under the law is. That’s how laws against unfair discrimination, for instance, discrimination based on inherent traits like ethnicity, must apply across the board, no matter what foot that shoe is on.
On Wednesday, the United States Supreme Court seemed to be leaning into a favorable ruling for an Ohio woman who claimed to have been the subject of sex discrimination from her employer – because she is straight.
The Supreme Court seemed likely Wednesday to side with an Ohio woman who claims she suffered sex discrimination from her employer because she is straight.
The outcome of the case could remove an additional requirement that some courts apply when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.
It is belaboring the obvious that any “extra requirement” in a discrimination case is, in and of itself, an unfair and unreasonable act of discrimination.
Justice Kavanaugh, in one statement, also belabored the obvious.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh stated a way of resolving the case, that seemed to enjoy broad support among his colleagues.
“Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether you are gay or straight, is prohibited. The rules are the same whichever way it goes,” Kavanaugh said.
The justices heard arguments in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.
This is the idea of principles vs. principals. If a thing, such as unfair discrimination is wrong, then it is wrong in every case. Job discrimination in the case of sexual orientation is wrong whether the person discriminating or the person being discriminated against is gay, straight, or anything else, if you can keep track of all the new sexual orientations that seem to be cropping up these days.
That’s equal treatment under the law, a founding principle of the republic.
Ames contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.
It’s early yet, but indications are that the Supreme Court may rule in Ames’ favor, although there are the usual suspects who, we suspect, will keep it from being unanimous, which in a sane world, it would be. But there was one infamous performance by a Supreme Court nominee, who now sits on that Court, who when asked to define a woman, evaded by saying “I’m not a biologist.”
See Related: Disney Slapped With Another Massive Civil Rights Lawsuit Over Racist Discrimination
Federal Judge Slams Department of Education’s Bizarre Interpretation of Title IX and Transgenderism
The Trump administration, in taking steps to reign in DEI stupidity, is coming at this from another angle.
President Donald Trump has ordered an end to DEI policies in the federal government and has sought to end government support for DEI programs elsewhere. Some of the new administration’s anti-DEI initiatives have been temporarily blocked in federal court.
If we are going to have laws against arbitrary discrimination, then they must apply equally, to everyone, regardless of race, religion, sexual preference, anything. It’s ridiculous that this obvious principle has to be fought out to the Supreme Court level, but here we are; if the Court finds in favor of the plaintiff, this will shake up the grievance industry of discrimination claims for a good long while.
