the civil rights act prohibits discriminating on the basis of sex. so you can't be fired if you are female. the liberals of the court and two conservatives, said that 'sex' is vague enough in the statute to include transexuals too, since they are defined based on 'sex'. and, the text of the law says you can't discriminate "because of sex", so the that wing of the court also said the rest of the LGBTQ gang, including gays, are also protected, i guess cause they have sex with who they choose. with all this said, the rest of the conservatives said that the court should have stuck with 'ordinary meaning' in interpreting the statute, not literal meaning. that's a compelling point, cause ordinary people write and read laws, and perhaps that should be the basis of interpretation. a policy point in favor of the progressives is that the law could have been more specific, and since most people think it's wrong to discriminate against gays, maybe we should afford them some protection too, give them the benefit of the doubt. i know conservatives are willing to look at original meaning when the text is not clear.... so is the text not clear here? you could argue it is, or it isn't, and your policy preferences will surely color your choice.
what do you think and why?
