(no subject)
Mar. 7th, 2011 09:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarzOuch - there is a fed case which takes away from the argument that gay discrimination can be actionable based on gender-role-stereotypes.
Anderson v. Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 09-60744.
Summarized (about a page) at http://www.fedsmith.com/article/2366/agencies-legally-discriminate-based-sexual-orientation.html
They are allowing title VII cases that deal with gender roles, but distinguishing that not all sexual orientation discrimination meets this title VII actionable case test. So I guess being a sissy or butch is still a terminable offense, but not if based on gender? This is a pretty fine line I'm seeing. A leather bear or a lipstick femme would likely lose their case --- but wait, then there is the religion angle if they say you'll burn like westboro.
Anderson v. Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Case No. 09-60744.
Summarized (about a page) at http://www.fedsmith.com/article/2366/agencies-legally-discriminate-based-sexual-orientation.html
They are allowing title VII cases that deal with gender roles, but distinguishing that not all sexual orientation discrimination meets this title VII actionable case test. So I guess being a sissy or butch is still a terminable offense, but not if based on gender? This is a pretty fine line I'm seeing. A leather bear or a lipstick femme would likely lose their case --- but wait, then there is the religion angle if they say you'll burn like westboro.
