_____'s DOJ Argues That It's Legal To Fire Employees For Being Gay

We’ve seen the _____ Administration come for Mexicans, we’ve seen them come for Muslims, we’ve seen then come for women’s rights, and we wondered when they might come for us; the answer is, now.

In arguments before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last week lawyers for the _____ administration argued that discrimination against gay workers is legal.

Yes, it’s true; the Department of Justice [DOJ] and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] are facing off against each other in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., a case concerning a man fired from his job because he is gay.

This is the case: Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor was fired for being gay in 2010. As part of his job, Zarda had to tether himself tightly to a female client for a tandem jump, and when she told him she felt uncomfortable, he confided in her that he was gay.’

The school fired Zarda after the client’s boyfriend complained. Zarda died several years ago in a skydiving accident, and his partner Bill Moore is pursuing the case.

The en banc hearing—meaning the case will be heard by the full 2nd Circuit court—is a rare thing, but is also a strong indication of the case’s significance. The court is set to reconsider a 17-year-old legal precedent stating that employment discrimination based on sexual orientation is not prohibited under federal law.

Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan argued that judges must interpret laws based on lawmakers’ “intent” and he says Congress didn’t have the LGBT community in mind when it crafted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so firing someone because they’re gay is just fine. And, you know, because being gay is a sin, Mooppan compared the situation  to an employer firing a worker for having an affair or being promiscuous; Mooppan believes that, under federal law, employers are free to “regulate employees’ off-the-job sexual behavior,” meaning they could discriminate against employees for adultery, promiscuity or sexual orientation.

Doesn’t it seem rather clear cut? I mean, from what we all know, cheating on your spouse, or being sexually promiscuous are choices, being gay is not And don’t get me started on your boss firing you because you cheated on your spouse; since when does an employer have a right to fire someone for their, ahem, extracurricular activities, if they don’t impede on job performance, or if they aren’t cheating with a fellow employee? I mean, if it’s going to be legal to fire adulterers or promiscuous men and women, get ready for a boom in unemployed Americans.

Still, even though anti-gay activists may have taken control of the DOJ, they seem unlikely to persuade the court that America’s gay employees don’t deserve civil rights. But just think of that: the _____ Administration is arguing that gay people can be fired just for being gay ... it’s like being fired because you have blue eyes, or brown skin ... you’re going to be fired for being yourself.

Earlier this year, an appeals court in Chicago ruled that Title VII prohibited discrimination against LGBT people in a case that involved a lesbian teacher from Indiana, and several weeks before that, a panel of judges in Atlanta came to the opposite conclusion regarding Title VII.

Clearly, the LGBT community is still not equal under the law, when the same rules can be twisted to say you can’t be fired, or you can be fired, for being gay.

The march goes on ... sigh.