logoalt Hacker News

UncleMeat04/03/20251 replyview on HN

My original comment regarding the EEOC was about the impotence of Bostock in modern federal courts because the EEOC is dropping cases of Title 7 workplace discrimination brought by LGBT people. Although the US generally has at-will employment, there are certain reasons for firing people that are prohibited by law.

The discussion of housing is separate from that and is instead a point about the fact that LGBT people do not have federal protections in this domain. I thought that my post was very clear. LGBT people do not have any federal protections in many domains (housing for example). They have protections in some domains (employment, via Bostock) and even that is backsliding because of the EEOC's changing behavior.

Only adults can consent. The sodomy laws struck down in Lawrence were about consenting and private intercourse, both in general and in the very specific case of Mr. Lawrence.

I am extremely uninterested in any discussion that smacks of painting gay people and their relationships as in any way related to child rape.


Replies

genewitch04/04/2025

> I thought that my post was very clear. LGBT people do not have any federal protections in many domains (housing for example).

https://www.findlaw.com/lgbtq-law/housing-discrimination-pro...

> At the federal level, you can find protections for renters in the following:

    Federal Fair Housing Act
    Bostock ruling
    The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Equal Access Rule
show 1 reply