@Demon:
Nope, not even close.
The furthest back case in here was 1989 but that wasn't fully about LGBT people, the 1998 One and 2002 ones were however. That's nearly 20 years of legal precident set which existed far before Obama was ever even a senator.
Obama didn't create this interpretation, the courts did. Which is their job.
Yes, but discrimination is determined based on stereotypes and gender as a social construct.
Without gender being a social construct, most discrimination as we know it would be moot. I have never ever in my entire life heard of a company for example, refusing to hire someone and citing "No Vaginas in this company" So phyiscal or biological sex is NOT the basis of this.
Refusing to hire a woman and saying it's "Because a woman is not supposed to work, a woman is supposed to be a homemaker" is refusing to hire a woman because she does not fit into the socially traditional role for her gender.
It was not a stretch to simply apply the same logic and say you can't fire someone "Because a man is not supposed to like men, a man is supposed to like women".
To Quote Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Rightmost judges in modern history: [same-sex harassment] was assuredly not the principal evil Congress was concerned with when it enacted Title VII . . .statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil [they were passed to combat] to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed. Title VII prohibits 'discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex.' [This] . . . must extend to [sex-based] discrimination of any kind that meets the statutory requirements."
It is the court's job to interpret the laws, especially the Supreme Court.
Did I said the problem started with Obama? Nope, I didn't!
The problem is if social construct is even a thing! So There is that, before going further with your sentence.
Nope, the discrimination wouldn't be moot. Saying Vaginas or saying other thing doesn't change anything. In fact sex of a person is not just defined by the reproductive organ!
So it being social or physically is not just about, calling directly Vagina or saying Women.
So gender is social constructed, or gender has traditional roles attached to them? They aren't the same thing.
I get what you're saying, but I don't understand how that has anything to do with Orientation vs Physical debate. You talked of Sexuality problem, who a person likes. Sex problem, what gender belongs. But that isn't, at least not directly, a conversation about gender being a Social construct.
Dos saying Title VII isn't about Social Construct means that there going to be discrimination against Transsexuals?
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Foolio:
This is the part where I just roll my eyes and hope you grow up one day. You know you're backed into a corner when your argument reduces to the semantics of a word. In a language in which you're clearly not fluent. Just like you're trying to talk about American healthcare and military without knowing anything about it.
Lol, like demography is a word that only exist in the English language. You're funny, I give you that.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Monkey:
One would pretty much have to be living under a rock in Portugal to still be arguing sober rationalism regarding Trump policy in July 2017.
I don't know the rules in this Forum, but given the nature of the insult I would guess it could get you Banned. It also shows how low you are when you have to use the nationality of a person to try getting a point.