Comments on: Denver Post OP-ED: Transgender Case http://coloradoindependent.com/634/denver-post-op-ed-transgender-case-government-backed-blackmail News you can't get anywhere else Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:58:35 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: becca00 http://coloradoindependent.com/634/denver-post-op-ed-transgender-case-government-backed-blackmail/comment-page-1#comment-9599 becca00 Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:32:44 +0000 http://www.coloradoindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=634#comment-9599 <strong>Extra-constitutional protection??</strong> The constitution provides equal protection based on "sex," as does federal employment discrimination law. To say that discrimination because one is transgendered is not "because of sex," is akin to stating that discrimination against a Christian convert is not "because of religion."<p><br>Both are absurd conslusions to draw in regard to how to apply the law. If we want to add "height" as a protected class, then so be it--let the legislature act. But don't conclude that transgendered people aren't discriminated because of sex (or because of their lack of conformity to sexual stereotypes) is an unconstitutional interpretation of the law.</p> Extra-constitutional protection?? The constitution provides equal protection based on “sex,” as does federal employment discrimination law. To say that discrimination because one is transgendered is not “because of sex,” is akin to stating that discrimination against a Christian convert is not “because of religion.”

Both are absurd conslusions to draw in regard to how to apply the law. If we want to add “height” as a protected class, then so be it–let the legislature act. But don't conclude that transgendered people aren't discriminated because of sex (or because of their lack of conformity to sexual stereotypes) is an unconstitutional interpretation of the law.

]]> By: becca00 http://coloradoindependent.com/634/denver-post-op-ed-transgender-case-government-backed-blackmail/comment-page-1#comment-880 becca00 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.coloradoindependent.com.php5-9.websitetestlink.com/?p=634#comment-880 <strong>Extra-constitutional protection??</strong> The constitution provides equal protection based on "sex," as does federal employment discrimination law. To say that discrimination because one is transgendered is not "because of sex," is akin to stating that discrimination against a Christian convert is not "because of religion."<p> Both are absurd conslusions to draw in regard to how to apply the law. If we want to add "height" as a protected class, then so be it--let the legislature act. But don't conclude that transgendered people aren't discriminated because of sex (or because of their lack of conformity to sexual stereotypes) is an unconstitutional interpretation of the law. Extra-constitutional protection?? The constitution provides equal protection based on “sex,” as does federal employment discrimination law. To say that discrimination because one is transgendered is not “because of sex,” is akin to stating that discrimination against a Christian convert is not “because of religion.”

Both are absurd conslusions to draw in regard to how to apply the law. If we want to add “height” as a protected class, then so be it–let the legislature act. But don’t conclude that transgendered people aren’t discriminated because of sex (or because of their lack of conformity to sexual stereotypes) is an unconstitutional interpretation of the law.

]]>