The LGBT agenda won a major victory this week after the Second US Appeals Court, which covers Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, ruled that laws against homosexuality are not permitted because they violate Title VII of the Civil Rights act, effectively making homosexuality a legally protected class alongside race and gender “discrimination”:
A federal appeals court ruled Monday that a law prohibiting discrimination based on one’s sex also applies to “sexual orientation.”
The case, Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., was over whether homosexuality is a protected class under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled it is, going against the Trump administration’s plain reading of the law.
“We see no principled basis for recognizing a violation of Title VII for associational discrimination based on race but not on sex,” Chief Justice Robert A. Katzmann wrote.
An example of “associational discrimination” based on race would be if an employer fired a white male for marrying a black woman.
The court said the same reasoning would prohibit adverse employment decisions based on sexual orientation.
The case stems from an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) finding that the 1964 anti-discrimination law covers homosexuality.
“Sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination,” the court concluded, “because sexual orientation is defined by one’s sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted.”
“This court ruling could help change the scope of gay rights in America,” Vox reported. “If the courts agree that the Civil Rights Act already bans anti-gay discrimination, they could change the national landscape once and for all.”
The ruling applies to discrimination in the workplace, housing, and schools, but does not mention public accommodations such as public bathrooms.
The ruling admits that the Supreme Court “and other circuits” assume that the 1964 law “‘means biologically male or female’ and uses the terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ interchangeably.”
However, “legal doctrine evolves,” Katzmann wrote.
“Sexual orientation discrimination is ‘assuredly not the principal evil that Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII,’” the ruling admitted, but “‘statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils.’”
Despite acknowledging as a “fact” Congress didn’t consider sexual orientation discrimination in 1964, the court nevertheless concluded, “Sexual orientation is a function of sex and, by extension, sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination.”
In a curiously circular statement, the court quoted the EEOC’s finding that “Sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee’s sex.” The court did not elaborate as to whether it thereby assumes the homosexual condition creates a third gender.
Katzmann claimed that “discrimination” against homosexuality is “based on gender stereotypes,” most commonly “heterosexually defined gender norms.”
Going further afield, the court related sex discrimination with forcing religious employers to have workers that violate the employers’ beliefs.
“It is no defense that an employer requires both men and women to refrain from same‐sex attraction or relationships,” Katzmann added.
Seven judges wrote opinions separate from Katzmann’s. Three judges dissented.
Homosexual activist group GLAAD called the Second Circuit ruling “a decisive victory” and “a vital step forward” against the Trump administration’s “anti-LGBTQ agenda.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice filed a “friend of the court” brief in the case, reasoning that the 1964 law did not envision today’s homosexual prominence.
Sessions wrote to the country’s federal prosecutors that on “all pending and future matters,” the DOJ will go by what Congress originally intended. It will not add unforeseen deviances when enforcing laws regarding equal treatment on the basis of “sex.”
The issue has divided the nation’s courts.
The Eleventh Circuit Court ruled that the 1964 law did not encompass homosexuals, but the Seventh Circuit Court ruled it did.
Monday’s Second Circuit ruling applies only to New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. The Supreme Court could reverse or uphold it for the entire nation. (source)
Whether this case goes up to the Supreme Court or not is irrelevant at this point because this case has established what the sodomites have wanted, which is a legal precedent they can use to bully people into bending over to their agenda. The fact that they appealed the decision to the extent they have taken it means that in time, they will force the issue of homosexuality as a protected class to be brought to the Supreme Court.
This does not come as a surprise. A Gallup Poll in June 2017 found that support for homosexuality has increased dramatically over the last 15 years, support for sodomy has increased from 35% to 62%, and opposition has declined from 57% to 32%. Generation X and the Millenial support for sodomy stands at 65% and 74% respectively, with the Boomers at 56% and the Silent Generation at 41%. Religion does not matter either, for with the exception of White Evangelicals and Black Protestants at 35% and 44% respectively (having increased from 30% and 13%), Catholics and Mainline Protestants are almost tied at 67% and 68%, with non-religious people at 85%.
Homosexuality is everywhere and despite being a fragment of the population, they have been given control over society and in turn are revealing the tyrannical nature of their agency. There is nothing “gay” about homosexuality, because the great majority are miserable people who, defining themselves by their lusts, are perpetually given over to be slaves to the disorders of their passions, as St. Paul says in Romans 1.
The implications for this on society are going to be profound, especially for smaller employers, because now LGBT will be given not just “protection”, but preference in hiring decisions.
We know that the LGBT movement does not like Christians and Christianity. Will this force Christians to “support” an immoral agenda if they want to stay employed?
We know that the LGBT movement promotes pedophilia. What impact will this have on men who have families?
We know that the LGBT movement is part of a trend towards the repaganization- a-la ancient world style- of society. Since the corporate world greatly influences the rest of society and social interactions in America, how will this further the rise of the LGBT?
Because this is not the end- this is just the beginning. If anybody thinks that America resembles sodom and gomorrah yet- and it most likely does even worse than in the ancient world- one must remember the end goal is the inversion of what Constantine did, which is the legalization of Christianity.
The Catholic Church recently had the ancient Coliseum lit with red light to remember the Christian martyrs throughout the world. This is more accurate than one might imagine even today, for if the LGBT movement is allowed to continue, it will not just be the spread of homosexuality and the legalization of all forms of perversity that will inevitably follow, but the Coliseum will be reopened for shows just at they were in the times of the Emperors with Christians invited not for the entertainment, but AS the entertainment.