@FRCdc is trying to claim that the evidence of human sexual fluidity means that sexual orientation is mutable (changeable) and that therefore sexual orientation isn't a protected class under civil rights law.
US jurisprudence (how case law interprets statutes) has created a system of criteria that are required in order to decide if a law that targets a specific group of people is LEGAL.
2⃣ Is the group politically powerless?
3⃣ Is the group's defining characteristic unchangeable?
4⃣ Does this defining characteristic still permit the group from contributing meaningfully to society?
Well, they're using nonmonosexual people. Bisexual people. Fluid people.
Here's a great one: DYK that for a long time, it was totally ok and not at all sex discrimination under federal law if a boss sexually harassed people of "BOTH" sexes? Because it /couldn't/ be on the basis of sex!!
NOW, THIS MAY BE TRUE. But Olson and the American Foundation for Equal Rights made is LEGALLY RELEVANT.
(page 167) afer.org/wp-content/upl…
So we look around. What do we have to counter that claim?
But the Supreme Court still hasn't REALLY stated unequivocally that sexual orientation is a suspect class that deserves FULL strict scrutiny under Equal Protection.
If I can rent an apartment with my current partner, but not with my nb beax, THAT IS DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX.
I refuse to be used as a wedge by the Right. I am a member of the LGBT community and not only do I deserve protections, I am a living example of their legality.