Discrimination In Texas

Most of us today cannot say we’ve experience the horror of war. I infact have never. I’m ignorant to the subject, while others can say they’ve stared death in the face. We fought for slave rights, for equal rights, and allowed people to immigrate here believing America was a peaceful place. I infact am honored to be an American. I have rights, I do not serve under a dictator, but most countries aren't as lucky as I. Unfortunately, tragedy is the only magnet that pulls us together. We have not learned from the sacrifices of our own sons and daughters. It is my hope that America can move on from its childish antics and turn away from all the violence.

Grimm argues that Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the law that bars sex discrimination in the nation’s schools, prohibits discrimination based on his gender identity. Grimm’s case is the first case devoted entirely to transgender rights the justices have agreed to hear – meaning there are few clues to how they might rule. But there are many cases posing similar questions about federal law and gender identity waiting in the wings. In one such lawsuit, a Michigan corporation has asserted the right to discriminate against a transgender employee based on the company owner’s religious

According to the article “Gender Identity Discrimination” (n.d), this occurs in the place of work when a company or its management makes a distinction in opposition to a worker exclusively because of their sexual characteristics or distinctiveness. This can include ceasing employment for a transgender staff member after the company/employer discovers the employee's gender distinctiveness or intended plan for conversion. This can also consist of rejecting a transgender employee’s admittance to the bathroom amenities at work that are accessible to other staff members. This may also include necessitating a transgender individual use the bathroom that is not constant with the person’s gender individuality or appearance. Also included in this form of discrimination is harassment or refusing to investigate claims of persecution by coworkers and management. As well as, any other unconstructive employment exploitation directly related to the employee’s gender presentation. Is should be noted that at right now , this category of discrimination is not illegal under federal law , however, there is governmental endeavors in the works to pass federal laws to make it unequivocally

Lawrence v. Texas: The Justification for the Decision and its Significance for the LGBTQ+ Community

The history of LGBTQIA+ rights in the United States is long and complicated. The identities within the LGBTQIA+ community that are accepted have shifted over the years as the majority of the population comes to understand some identities to be commonplace and struggles to understand others. However, the gaining of rights and acceptance by the LGBTQIA+ community has nearly always been tied to legal recognition. Lawrence v. Texas questions whether or not a Texas statute that bans homosexual sodomy is constitutional. Although LGBTQIA+ rights issues are controversial, the statute that convicted John Lawrence and Tyson Garner for having private, consensual gay sex as well as the means of conviction are clearly unconstitutional on several grounds,

Virginia case opened the door to a new civil rights movement. This time, it is about the rights of the LGBT community. Only in recent years has homosexuality become acceptable in the public eye. Regardless of the laws stating we cannot discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation, homosexual individuals are still treated as second class citizens. Gay men and women were denied the right to marry whom they loved. Couples had to fight for their love one state at a time until finally, on June 26th, 2015, the United States supreme court ruled that discriminating against same sex marriages was unconstitutional and “states must recognize same sex unions” (Chappell 2015).

Title VII of the Civils Rights Act of 1964 is a U.S. federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. Title V11 applies to private and public universities, local, state and federal governments, labor organizations and employment agencies. Today, the conversation surrounding discrimination has increasingly been based on race and gender and has emerged as an issues that many employers are trying to address in workforce development. Unfortunately, there are other groups that have similar attention or protection under U.S. laws and if so, they are still facing discrimination. LGBT employees are a group that has received minimal attention when it

The addition of sexual orientation has gone before Congress many times but it has yet to be included as a protected class. There is so much controversy surrounding gay marriage right now that I believe it is only a matter of time before employment discrimination because of sexual orientation will be the reason for the Title VII will be amended once again. The most recent additions to this law have been discriminating based upon pregnancy, sex stereotyping, and sexual harassment. Title VII states that an employer can’t refuse to hire a woman based upon the fact that she is currently pregnant or because of any pregnancy-related conditions. To be safe and to avoid any litigation in the future, an employer should never ask an individual about their marital status or a woman if she is pregnant.

Title VII states that an employee cannot be treated differently because of sex unless sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). When used as a defense, bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) allows an organization to hire and employ individuals on the basis of the qualifications reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. This paper will discuss the necessary steps employers must take in order to justify using sex as a discriminator when hiring employees and review some known cases where BFOQ was used as a defense.

America, in 2015, is a dystopia for many. Our country has begun to throw away the very values and principles its foundation was built on. Yet, some fail to see the problem and still claim this is the land of the free, home of the brave. How can it be the land of the free when African Americans are shot down in the streets by police every day, with little to no consequences for the killers? When incarceration rates in the US are higher than that of any other country, and minor drug offenders can serve sentences of up to 20 years? We spend more on funding prisons and the military, than we do on improving education. In Maryland, the state government passed a bill to fund juvenile prisons, worth millions of dollars, but did not pass one to fund

The Civil Rights Movement from the mid 1950’s to late 1960’s fought for equal rights of People of color in this nation. That movement was successful in pushing for an end to racial segregation and discrimination in the country. Decades later, a new movement is beginning to gain traction in the fights against excess police brutality against People of Color. “Since the acquittal of Trayvon Martin's killer in 2013 and the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, the phrase "black lives matter" has become a rallying cry for a new chapter in the long black freedom struggle” ( Cooper 2017). The movement has been growing since and more and more after every new case of a person of color being killed by police enforcement. Contemporary anti-racist social movements like Black Lives Matter have had a definitive impact in changing the way people of color are treated, by creating the very important conversation of police brutality against people of color. In order to keep the movement growing, it have has to keep expanding its message of excessive police violence and push for policies that would create better training for law enforcement.

Muñoz, S. T., & Kalteux, D. M. (2016). LGBT, the EEOC, and the Meaning of "Sex". Florida Bar Journal, 90(3), 43-48.

Civil Rights are types of laws that embrace common situations that affect individual’s lives, such as employment, voting, housing, education and public accommodations and facilities. These laws exist as a matter of creating policies that promote opportunities for all persons and equality without regard of gender, race, disabilities, religion or national origin. This legal phenomenon might happen by various reasons: lack of equality in the society, prejudice against minorities, or existence of previous laws that support the oppressed.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed-we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” This was a quote by Martin Luther King Jr. He believed in the idea of equality for all men, in a world where a black man and a white man can walk together side by side, a world without segregation, jobs and equal pay for the people. Martin Luther led one of the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of the United States. As a civil right activist, he stood for equal rights for all people and he led a great march of over two hundred and fifty thousand civil right supporters for quality and the end of racism in the United States. His speech “I have a dream” paved the way in setting a decisive moment for the American civil rights movement in the country.

Religious conservative groups heavily involved in politics voice disapproval for passing nondiscrimination laws protecting. LGBT people. The argument often introduced in LGBT violates the religious accommodation requirement of Title VII (Kapln, 2006; Vu, 2004). There are some jurisdictions that provide protection against discrimination. President William Clinton issued Executive Order 13087, amending Executive Order 11478, that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in federal employment. It states, “It is policy of the government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin handicap, age,