The Walmart Case That Could Expand Gay Rights at Work - Bloomberg Business

While some may see this as a case of gold-digging, the reality of it is it is not and has important implications.  The main premise, discrimination based on sexual orientation is discrimination based on gender.  Under Title VII, the EEOC has determined the reason for treating people differently is gender; it is based on the sex of the spouse.

As the article also notes it Walmart's "public persona" at risk as well, "If the company continues defending its old policy, that could carry significant reputational risks. Walmart boasts a 90 percent rating on the Corporate Equality Index compiled by the LGBT nonprofit Human Rights Campaign and last year drew friendly media attention for joining LGBT activists in opposing a religious liberty bill in its home state of Arkansas that would have shielded businesses that discriminated against LGBT customers. Walmart didn’t move to dismiss the Cote case after it was filed in July; efforts to settle the dispute through the EEOC before Cote sued were unsuccessful."

Is anti-gay discrimination a form of sex discrimination? Walmart Stores, the biggest private employer in the U.S., is the target of a lawsuit that might soon provide an answer to that question.

Walmart didn’t extend spousal health benefits to employees in same-sex marriages until January 2014, even in states where same-sex marriage was legal. Before then, when workers such as Jackie Cote applied for coverage for their same-sex spouses, Walmart rejected their requests, as it has maintained it had the right to do. While the Supreme Court last year ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn’t mention sexual orientation.

The act does provide protection on the basis of sex, and that’s a premise of the lawsuit Cote filed last summer on behalf of herself and a class of plaintiffs that lawyers now estimate to be 1,200 current and former Walmart employees. Cote, who has worked at Walmart since 1999, married Diana Smithson in Massachusetts in 2004. In 2012, Smithson, a breast cancer survivor, was diagnosed with stage 3 ovarian cancer. Within two years, without Walmart insurance to cover Smithson’s treatment, the couple racked up more than $150,000 in medical bills. “I thought that they would really have no choice because I was legally married in the state of Massachusetts,” Cote says.

Seeking compensation for the benefits that were denied and out-of-pocket medical expenses, the suit alleges that Walmart’s stance was unlawful because it’s a form of sex discrimination. “The sex of her spouse is the reason for treating people differently—isn’t that discrimination based on sex?” asks attorney Gary Buseck, legal director for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, one of the advocacy groups representing Cote.

The case, among a recent wave of lawsuits over the past several years to grapple with this question, is headed to mediation on Feb. 22; if a settlement isn’t reached, it’s scheduled for trial in federal court in Massachusetts in November. Legal experts, civil rights advocates specializing in anti-gay and gender-identity bias, and employment lawyers who defend large companies say whatever the outcome, the case against Walmart could help set a precedent by expanding the definition of sex discrimination. That might lead other employers to reconsider the risks of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The argument that sexual-orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination can apply to other types of workplace bias as well, such as employees alleging they were fired or denied promotions for being gay.

The Walmart Case That Could Expand Gay Rights at Work - Bloomberg Business

Christian Baker Ordered to Bake Cakes for Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ Files Appeal | Christian News Network

Remember this post where Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera were gloating about what Hobby Lobby was really about? Well it appears that Jack Phillips or should I say Alliance Defending Freedom is ready to argue that state laws do not apply to Christians when Christians disagree with said state law, "[i]n May, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld Spencer’s ruling, stating that Phillips violated the state’s civil rights law."

It is just this issue that Barry Lynne of Americans United for Separation of Church and State was concerned about in regards to the Hobby Lobby case. Lynn stated that the primary concern is contraceptive coverage under the ACA; but the agenda of the Religious Right is the right to opt out of ANY federal or state law(s) they do not like because of actual or alleged violation of THEIR religious principles.

As with Elane Photography (also represented by ADF), Phillips is going to argue that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's ruling violates his First Amendment rights by compelling him to engage in "speech" he doesn't believe in. This is the tactic ADF hopes to use, a "conservative social agenda in terms of protecting religious freedom instead of enforcing “family values — a subtle but profound shift in the culture war that deliberately moves the religious right from offense to defense for the first time in decades."

With that said, all the legal mumbo jumbo aside, Phillips and the ADF are still blatantly asking to be allowed to break a law because they are special. They are asking for a special privilege because they are religionists. Even if one where to take religion out of it, they are still wanting to break the law.

"The anti-gay, anti-freedom to marry crowd, having largely lost the argument on gay people and on marriage, are resorting to a distraction argument that is aimed at tearing a hole in the longstanding protections we have in this country against public accommodation discrimination,” said Evan Wolfson, head of the pro-LGBT rights group Freedom to Marry. “Their quarrel is not really just with marriage, it’s with the whole idea of non-discrimination law that we’ve fought hard for over decades through many difficult chapters of American history.”

Entering the commercial marketplace means having to abide by its rules against discrimination. In other words, you can not offer a "limited menu" based on your preference(s). If you open a business, ALL services must be available to ALL consumers. It falls under the general purview of the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Adam Serwer, in his piece cited above, sums up quite well the precedent opened by the Hobby Lobby case and the agenda behind it, "Cases like these aren’t just about legal precedents, they’re about shaping how society decides which freedom it wants to protect with the force of the law—the right not to be discriminated against, or the right of individual entities to decide whom they want to serve and how."

Christian Baker Ordered to Bake Cakes for Same-Sex ‘Weddings’ Files Appeal | Christian News Network

WATCH: Congressman Tells Black Constituent He's Not Sure The Civil Rights Act Is Constitutional | ThinkProgress

Last week, former presidents and dignitaries celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, which bans many forms of employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters, among other things. This week, a Republican congressman declared that he’s not sure if the Civil Rights Act is even constitutional.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), a freshman congressman aligned with the Tea Party, held a town hall Monday evening in Gainesville where he fielded a wide range of questions from constituents. One such voter was Melvin Flournoy, a 57-year-old African American from Gainesville, who asked Yoho whether he believes the Civil Rights Act is constitutional.

The easy answer in this case — “yes” — has the benefit of also being correct. But Yoho found the question surprisingly difficult.

“Is it constitutional, the Civil Rights Act?” Yoho repeated before giving his reply: “I wish I could answer that 100 percent.” The Florida Republican then went on to strongly imply it may be unconstitutional: “I know a lot of things that were passed are not constitutional, but I know it’s the law of the land.”

WATCH: Congressman Tells Black Constituent He's Not Sure The Civil Rights Act Is Constitutional | ThinkProgress

Walgreens Fires Pharmacist for Refusing to Compromise His Beliefs by Selling 'Plan B'

"Dr. Hall, a Baptist, entertains profound religious and moral objections to dispensing abortifacients, or abortion-inducing drugs, such as Plan B. For six years, Walgreens respected Hall’s religious beliefs and gave him only favorable reviews for his work performance. But in August 2013, Walgreens did an about-face and tried to force Hall to dispense Plan B in violation of his beliefs. When Hall indicated his intent to continue following the internal procedures that accommodated his beliefs, Walgreens fired him."

KEY WORD: Dispensing. What this article glosses over, Plan B is now sold OTC (over-the-counter) there is no dispensing necessary.

“Dr. Hall’s right to live according to his religious beliefs, including in his workplace, is protected both under the Federal Civil Rights Act and the Tennessee State Constitution,” says Crain. “Americans have the right to live according to their sincerely held religious beliefs and not be forced to participate in actions that they deeply and sincerely believe are morally wrong.”

Isn't lying, also morally wrong?  Plan B is not an abortifacient. Plan B is not in the same category as RU-486. Plan B is a high dose progesterone that may prevent or delay ovulation, or it may interfere with fertilization. It is dependent on where an individual (utilizing the medication) is time wise within their cycle.

There is only one drug approved to induce abortion, and that is RU-486 (mifepristone), which is not on the FDA's list of approved contraception (for obvious reasons) and therefore NOT covered by the ACA (think Hobby Lobby). The IUD, Plan B and Ella (a new drug) are on the list of contraceptives and have been studied (and still are being studied) extensively, to state they are abortifacients is IMHO a boldfaced lie. This is pharmacy 101 plain and simple.

One question I would like to ask Mr Hall: Would he dispense methotrexate? It is an anti-cancer drug that can also be used as an abortifacient.

What this article leaves out in their reporting: "A factor in Hall's firing apparently was also his action in personally purchasing and disposing of the store's first shipment of 6 boxes of the over-the-counter version as a way to prevent its being available."

From a legal standpoint, one thought comes to mind. The fact the Hall purchased the boxes prior to disposal does not, in my mind, mitigate the fact that he willfully and intentionally undermined his employer's business. One must mind their Ps-and-Qs in regards to company policy and image; causing a product shortage, not a good thing. Simply put, employees of a store do not get to dictate what the store carries in stock.

But what I really think happened, he bought and disposed of the OTC version just to spite his employer because HE was removed from the sale process. HE lost his means to MAKE A STAND. He lost his ability to judge others, he became impotent (hmm,,,wonder if he had issues with selling Viagra). Hall only acted when he couldn't make HIS stance clear to his audience.

Just how far should an employer have to go to accommodate an employee? Should Catholic employees be exempt from ringing up condoms? What about Viagra for the unmarried? Should Muslims be excused from selling mouthwash and cough syrup because they contain alcohol? Should Jews be allowed to refuse to handle any pork product?

Walgreens Fires Pharmacist for Refusing to Compromise His Beliefs by Selling 'Plan B'