LGBTQ+

6192 readers

4 users here now

All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.

See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC

Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Judge's order greatly expands where Biden can't enforce a new rule protecting LGBTQ+ students (apnews.com)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Enforcement of a federal rule expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students has been blocked in four states and a patchwork of places elsewhere by a federal judge in Kansas.

U.S. District Judge John Broomes suggested in his ruling Tuesday that the Biden administration must now consider whether forcing compliance remains “worth the effort.”

Broomes' decision was the third against the rule from a federal judge in less than three weeks but more sweeping than the others. It applies in Alaska, Kansas, Utah and Wyoming, which sued over the new rule. It also applies to a Stillwater, Oklahoma, middle school that has a student suing over the rule and to members of three groups backing Republican efforts nationwide to roll back LGBTQ+ rights. All of them are involved in one lawsuit.

Broomes, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, directed the three groups — Moms for Liberty, Young America’s Foundation and Female Athletes United — to file a list of schools in which their members' children are students so that their schools also do not comply with the rule. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, a Republican who argued the states' case before Broomes last month, said that could be thousands of schools.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

Apparently these judges can't read:

https://natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-holds-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-are-protected-title-vii

Even by their own facist supreme court, discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity inherently involves discrimination on the basis of sex (ie, if someone assigned woman at birth can wear a dress but someone assigned man at birth can't, if an assigned woman can kiss a man but an assigned man can't, these are both discrimination on the basis of sex). So any law that bans discrimination on the basis of sex will logically have to apply to gender indentity and sexual orientation as well. While the ruling was about title vii, there's no reason the same logic wouldn't apply to title ix as well. Let's hope the supreme court keeps the same reasoning as their previous ruling when this is inevitably appealed up.