The “comprehensive national solution” of the Equal Opportunities Act

The 1964 Civil Rights Act banning racial and gender discrimination was introduced through a single short paragraph that set out its purpose. In 23 paragraphs of “Findings” and one paragraph of “Purpose” – a total of more than 2,500 words – the Gender Equality Act, which has already been passed by Parliament, contains a long and detailed agenda for enforcement and regulation.

The results and the purpose would have the force of law. Such legal provisions are routinely referred to when interpreting laws, especially those based on new laws. For example, in Sutton v United Air Lines (1999), when the Supreme Court interpreted the Disabled Americans Act, the Supreme Court’s “determination” of the number of Americans with disabilities was a “critical” factor in its decision.

The Bill of Rights and all federal civil rights laws are negated. They do not guarantee positive individual, social, or political outcomes. The Equal Opportunities Act would fundamentally change this history and practice. Indeed, the positive and objective results that it specifically seeks to achieve would dwarf the old versions of federal civil rights laws. In his own words, the goal is “an explicit and comprehensive national solution”. This solution would affect all Americans on a daily and personal basis, particularly in the areas of health, employment, and education.

The word “gender” appears in several places in federal law, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but has never been defined by law. Up until the last few years, it has not occurred to anyone that it needs to be defined. When changing Title VII to include “sexual orientation” in the sense of “gender”, the majority opinion of Gorsuch / Roberts (et al.) In Bostock v Clayton County last year was the first federal definition of “gender”. The Equal Opportunities Act goes beyond this far-reaching decision and would add several new concepts to the federal code. The law would amend federal law in 39 different places with the phrase “gender (including sexual orientation and gender identity)”. Sex would now mean “sex stereotype”. . . Pregnancy, childbirth, or a related illness. . . sexual orientation or gender identity. . . Sex characteristics, including intersex characteristics. “The legal text defines“ sexual orientation ”as“ homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality ”. The law states that “gender identity” means a person’s gender identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender characteristic, regardless of the particular gender of the person at birth. “The text does not define“ intersex ”or“ bisexual ”.

The results and purpose go on. In 25 different places in the results, those who are discriminated against are referred to as “LGBTQ”, meaning “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer”. Queer is not defined in either the results or the proposed text of the law itself. There are two outcomes regarding “non-binary” people, but the term is not defined. Although not included in the actual legal text, “transgender” is mentioned seven times in the results, but never defined.

Basic coverage of “public accommodation” under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is currently limited by law to hotels, restaurants, and theaters. However, the ill-defined sexual concepts of the Equal Opportunities Act would apply to 23 newly named objects, such as a “salon”. . . Funeral home. . . Service or care center. . . Food service. . . [and] Health care. “

Americans interact and spend most of the day at work. How can someone, especially an employer, know how to adhere to these new concepts that have never been set out in federal law before? And how far is it known among Americans in general what “strange” is. . . intersex. . . bisexual ”and even“ transgender ”mean specific and personal? For example, there seem to be different types and stages of transgender transitions. And the word “queer” used to be a nickname. Now it should be a nationwide protected category. The Equal Opportunities Act would essentially abolish a fundamental legal principle in a democracy, that is: “[e]It is believed that a large number of citizens are familiar with the law, ”the Georgia Supreme Court confirmed against Public Resource last year.

Activist political representatives would be tasked with defining, redefining and overseeing some of the most basic aspects of social life.

The Equal Opportunities Act elaborates its overall task in its findings and purposes. The stated purpose of the law is not only to “expand” “remedial measures” based on all of the features covered, but also “create” that aggregate and list the results in detail. People are victims of discrimination based on “others’ perceptions or beliefs about their sexual orientation”. Discrimination can have “more than one basis” or “a combination or intersection of several protected characteristics”. Discrimination includes “harassment” and can be both “unfair” and “unequal”.

In a formal legislative compliment to the mega-corporations that promoted this agenda, one of the results praised them for taking “proactive steps” in “promoting” it [of] positive and respectful cultures. “The clear implication is, of course, that from now on every person, every company and every institution not only has to refrain from discrimination, but also has to proactively create the appropriate“ culture ”. This is necessary to correct “negative social and economic outcomes”. The aim is “national progress” and the correction of “persistent, widespread and ubiquitous discrimination by private and state actors”.

“Perceptions” about LGBTQ individuals would be monitored: “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation includes discrimination based on a person’s actual or perceived romantic, emotional, physical, or sexual attraction to other people, or the lack thereof based on gender.” “Gender-specific stereotypes” and “assumed” identity – as well as “mannerisms” and “culture”.

It would be up to several executive departments of the Biden Administration to enact regulations on the new gender definitions in the law and to establish definitions of the new concepts that are not defined in the law. Activist political representatives would be tasked with defining, redefining and overseeing some of the most basic aspects of social life.

Title VII prohibits not only willful discrimination, but also discrimination based on “mixed effects”, an employment practice that has a disproportionate impact on a particular group. When the Supreme Court in Ward’s Cove v Atonio (1989) largely eliminated the use of “disparate impact” (a concept invented by a previous court in Griggs v. Duke Power) [1971]) Congress responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1991, writing different implications for the law on discrimination in the workplace. The law now stipulates that an employer must prove that the respective employment practice is “job-related and professional” in order to defend himself against a lawsuit based on different effects. . . and in line with business need. “

The Equal Opportunities Act would expand this doctrine to areas that have never been considered, and even make beliefs, perceptions, and attributions about LGBTQ people workable. This expansion to the realm of thought, along with the newly defined and as yet undefined categories of the law, reflects the belief held in President Biden’s Executive Order on Gender Identity from Day One that “overlapping forms of discrimination” are everywhere, everywhere must be exterminated with exactly this type of “comprehensive, national solution”.

Comments are closed.