There isn't any Federal Civil Rights Law prohibiting discrimination against gays in public accommodation, workplace, etc..., Google it and prove me wrong with the US Code. Meanwhile I'm headed up to the local Kosher deli and demanding that they serve me a Bacon Cheeseburger, since I'm Christian and don't keep Kosher.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act includes discrimination against gay or lesbian persons.
.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989): the Supreme Court held that Title VII was not limited to discrimination on the basis of one’s biological status as a man or a woman but instead prohibits the “entire spectrum” of discrimination on the basis of sex, including discrimination on the basis of gender stereotypes. In Price Waterhouse, plaintiff Ann Hopkins was denied a partnership at an accounting firm because she was deemed to be insufficiently “feminine.” Id. at 234–35. To improve her chances for partnership, Hopkins was told she should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.” Id. at 235. The employer argued that Title VII did not prohibit discrimination based on gender stereotypes. The Supreme Court disagreed. “As for the legal relevance of sex stereotyping, we are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group, for ‘in forbidding employers to discriminate against individuals because of their sex, Congress intended to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women resulting from sex stereotypes.’”
.
Oncale v. Sundowner, 523 U.S. 75 (1998): The Supreme Court removed another barrier when it held that a plaintiff could state a Title VII claim where sexual harassment was perpetrated by a person of the same sex.
.
Heller v. Columbia Edgewater Country Club, 195 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Or. 2002): The district court denied summary judgment for an employer in a Title VII suit brought by a lesbian employee. The plaintiff presented evidence that throughout her employment, her female supervisor made disparaging and harassing comments based on gender stereotypes, including: “Oh, I thought you were a man”, “Do you wear the **** in the relationship?” and, “I thought you wore the pants.” In ruling in favor of the employee, the court relied upon a recent Ninth Circuit case— Nicholas v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001)—abrogating its earlier decision in DeSantis and holding that a male employee is entitled to redress under Title VII if he can prove that he was discriminated against for failing to comport with stereotypical notions of how men should appear and behave. Similarly, a concurring opinion in the en banc decision Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2002), revived a Title VII claim brought by a gay male plaintiff who had presented evidence that his former coworkers taunted him by calling him feminine names and endearments, and ridiculed him for walking in a feminine manner.
.
The meaning of every law in America is based on the court's interpretation of that law as applied to a given situation.
