3 ms·

But is sexual preference a protected class? It really boils down to whether sexual preference is viewed as "being attracted to the other or the same" or "being

by basch 6y ago

But is sexual preference a protected class? It really boils down to whether sexual preference is viewed as "being attracted to the other or the same" or "being attracted to men or women." The former uses the sex of a person to discriminate, while the latter does not.

bhupy 6y ago
No the disparate impact I'm talking about has nothing to do with sexual preference. I'm talking about disparate impact on sex. Suppose (per your comment) a company indeed had a policy that says "we only hire people attracted to women". Given the current sexual orientation distribution in the world, such a policy would result in a disparate impact in which the vast majority of people that qualify would be men, and not women. This creates a disparate impact on the basis of sex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact
- basch 6y ago
  What is the scope of this geographically? Does disparate impact apply locally, or is it generalized nationally first? If the discrimination took place somewhere like Palm Springs, in a place where half the population is LGBTQ, could they get away with it?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    The scope of the law is probably commensurate the scope of the employment policy in question — i.e. for a nationwide company, the scope might be applied nationally. For a local mom-and-pop shop, it might apply locally. All that being said, I'm pretty sure there is no locality on the planet where half the population is LGBTQ (not sure where you found that Palm Springs claim). As of 2015, the metropolitan area with the highest rate of LGBTQ residents was San Francisco, at 6.2% [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/upshot/the-metro-areas-with-the-largest-and-smallest-gay-population.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/upshot/the-metro-areas-wi...
    - basch 6y ago
      Yeah I dont believe it, its a platitude thats been repeated, BUT, 10.7% of households identify as same sex in the census. http://web.archive.org/web/20181205015304/https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Census2010Snapshot_California_v2.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20181205015304/https://williamsin...
      - bhupy 6y ago
        Yes, and also worth mentioning that this ruling really only impacts a subset of states. There already exists state laws that explicitly outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual preference / gender identity, California being one of them [1]. Per the map, this ruling really only affects a subset of states where the disparate impact of your hypothetical law would be pretty clear cut, regardless of scope. [1] https://i.imgur.com/7QBYkvp.png https://i.imgur.com/7QBYkvp.png
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        I think you misread that pdf. The highest % of same sex couple is in San Francisco at 3%.

by basch 6y ago

bhupy 6y ago

No the disparate impact I'm talking about has nothing to do with sexual preference. I'm talking about disparate impact on sex. Suppose (per your comment) a company indeed had a policy that says "we only hire people attracted to women". Given the current sexual orientation distribution in the world, such a policy would result in a disparate impact in which the vast majority of people that qualify would be men, and not women. This creates a disparate impact on the basis of sex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

basch 6y ago
What is the scope of this geographically? Does disparate impact apply locally, or is it generalized nationally first? If the discrimination took place somewhere like Palm Springs, in a place where half the population is LGBTQ, could they get away with it?
- bhupy 6y ago
  The scope of the law is probably commensurate the scope of the employment policy in question — i.e. for a nationwide company, the scope might be applied nationally. For a local mom-and-pop shop, it might apply locally. All that being said, I'm pretty sure there is no locality on the planet where half the population is LGBTQ (not sure where you found that Palm Springs claim). As of 2015, the metropolitan area with the highest rate of LGBTQ residents was San Francisco, at 6.2% [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/upshot/the-metro-areas-with-the-largest-and-smallest-gay-population.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/21/upshot/the-metro-areas-wi...
  - basch 6y ago
    Yeah I dont believe it, its a platitude thats been repeated, BUT, 10.7% of households identify as same sex in the census. http://web.archive.org/web/20181205015304/https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Census2010Snapshot_California_v2.pdf http://web.archive.org/web/20181205015304/https://williamsin...
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Yes, and also worth mentioning that this ruling really only impacts a subset of states. There already exists state laws that explicitly outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual preference / gender identity, California being one of them [1]. Per the map, this ruling really only affects a subset of states where the disparate impact of your hypothetical law would be pretty clear cut, regardless of scope. [1] https://i.imgur.com/7QBYkvp.png https://i.imgur.com/7QBYkvp.png
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      I think you misread that pdf. The highest % of same sex couple is in San Francisco at 3%.