I give you:
Now, make no mistake: The decision yesterday in Vandy Beth Glenn’s case was indeed a very good one. Of course…
Sewell R. Brumby appeals from an adverse summary judgment in favor of Vandiver Elizabeth Glenn on her complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
…given that scope of the case, I fail to see how it could possibly reach any question of interpretion of the statutory sex discrimination law of Maryland – which is in the Fourth Circuit, not the Eleventh – regarding covering trans people.
And, of course, the decision didn’t.
The decision – which, I will again state, is indeed good but (1) unless affirmed by an actual opinion (as opposed to a cert. denial) by the U.S. Supreme Court is only mandatory authority in Alabama, Georgia and Florida, and (2) is as irrelevant to the operation of Maryland state statutory anti-discrimination law as Schwenk v. Hartford, et. al. are – insofar as its delineation of a federal constitutional sex discrimination standard is as relevant the vast majority of employment situations as the constitution was to the vast majority of employment situations regarding racial discrimination prior to enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and will be if the Koch-sucking Randian corporatists get their way and repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964): not at all. The constitution does not control private employment and states will still have their own interpretations of “sex” just as they will have their own interpretations of “sexual orientation” even if Congess was to ever enact a St. Barney-HRC definition of it.
Existing gender identity anti-discrimination lawsunconstitutional?
Some people have mainlined enough kool-aid that they will use anything – however imaginary – as an excuse to beatify their