I mistyped. I am used to communicating with people who are not confused about what the word “woman” means without stating their genetic makeup. So I meant XX, showing that a beard means nothing wrt either sex or gender. But I wrote XY by mistake.
But I still ruined your little gotcha riddle.
merickson
Did you miss my answer to your post?
JWK
So you’re discriminating against me based on my penis?
They don’t cut off the penis, they reconstruct it into a vagina canal and clitoris.
That’s strange since I’m not confused by the word woman and your articles were clearly about women. You ■■■■■■ up your snark, but thats okay.
You didn’t and it wasn’t a riddle. You just side tracked the conversation and probably upset the OP since they didn’t want us talking about things that aren’t part of the legal aspects of the case. The point is that you need to know someone’s sex to determine if they are gay or straight and therefore the court ruling was the correct one.
emasculate… no matter how you slice it.
Nice pun.
Well, I see there appears to be no interest in actually sticking to the legal aspects of the opinion, and determining under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”?
Under the Syllabus, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, we find:
“Title VII makes it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
I actually thought it would be interesting, with all the brilliant minds in this forum, to review the legal aspects of the case [majority opinion and dissenting opinions] and try to ferret out the legitimacy of the Court’s holding.
In such cases, [where the people’s activities, within the States are limited by our federal government] I was taught to begin with our federal Constitution, and establish the delegation of power under which Congress has acted to create an unlawful activity. Keep in mind our federal Constitution created the Congress of the United States, but also delegated defined and limited powers under which Congress may lawfully act.
So, under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”?
JWK
You’ve been a part of these forums long enough to know that had a snowball’s chance in hell.
Is your contention that the CRA of 64 is unconstitutional?
I made no “contention” either way. I actually thought it would be interesting, with all the brilliant minds in this forum, to review the legal aspects of the case [majority opinion and dissenting opinions] and try to ferret out the legitimacy of the Court’s holding.
In such cases, [where the people’s activities, within the States are limited by our federal government] I was taught to begin with our federal Constitution, and establish the delegation of power under which Congress has acted to create an unlawful activity. Keep in mind our federal Constitution created the Congress of the United States, but also delegated defined and limited powers under which Congress may lawfully act.
So, under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”?
Is this not a good starting place?
JWK
Do you consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to be constitutional or unconstitutional?
Paraphrasing something johnwk said: “An income tax is not a ‘tax on income’ allowed by the Sixteenth Amendment.”.
He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.
At this point in time I have no definitive opinion and why I asked the question:
Under what wording in our federal Constitution is Congress authorized to make it “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual . . . because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”?
JWK
I’m simply answering your question my friend. 
In regard to your supporting a statute forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, under what delegation of power, found in our Constitution, would Congress be acting under?
Aside from that, I find it disappointing that so many would use the force of government to interfere with the people’s inalienable right to mutually agree in their contracts and associations. Under what thinking justifies you wanting to forbid a homosexual business owner from only hiring other homosexuals, or a lesbian business owner from only hiring or doing business with other lesbians?
Why not allow people being free to make their own choices and have the market place do its magic?
JWK
Joe Biden wants elderly American citizens, who paid into Medicare all their lives, to surrender their healthcare to millions of illegal entrants who have invaded America’s borders.
