October 8, 2019 6:00 AM
Morning Reads for Tuesday, October 8
Good morning!
- Senator Isakson hopes that our presiding stable genius, he of the great and unmatched wisdom, will rethink his approach to the Middle East.
- The University System of Georgia’s health insurance will now cover gender-affirmation surgery.
- Meet DeKalb County’s first female police chief.
- Further judicial review is necessary to determine whether guns can coexist with the roses (sorry not sorry!) at the Atlanta Botanical Garden.
- Three school systems are suing Juul because of the time, money, and other resources they have expended to fight vaping – and the consequences of vaping – in their schools.
- Savannah’s airport is ranked #2 in the country in a readers’ choice poll.
- A Houston County Girl Scout published an anti-bullying book (and earned her Silver Award in the process).
- Opera legend Jessye Norman’s funeral will take place in Augusta this Saturday.
- Restoration work commenced at Savannah’s historic First African Baptist Church.
About Author
Teri
Teri Anulewicz is a Democrat who represents House District 42 in the Georgia General Assembly. She previously spent nearly a decade on the Smyrna City Council. A native New Orleanian and quasi-Texan, Teri graduated from Agnes Scott College in 1998. She's been a front page contributor since 2015, and she compiles each Tuesday's Morning Reads.
7 Comments
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The case of a Georgia man who claims he was fired due to his sexual orientation is front & center in SCOTUS arguments today. Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia is consolidated with Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda in arguments regarding whether or not Title VII’s “because of…sex” provisions extend to sexual orientation as applied to employment discrimination.
In separate arguments (also today), the same provision will be scrutinized in regard to gender identity in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Amy Howe previews all three cases for SCOTUSblog.
Dang sky hippie. The whole case is the word “sex” as written in the 1964. I would say sex meant male/female not she/male, he/she, or gay. It will be interesting.
I agree it will be interesting. Three vastly different cases, different issues, all trying to win sex discrimination.
Good link. “In their briefs in the Supreme Court, Bostock and Zarda argue that the text of Title VII clearly applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation:… After all, they reason, a woman would not have been fired for being attracted to men.”
One of the opposing arguments to the point above could be summed up, “Well, we fire lesbians when they come out too.”
Also from Amy Howe (and also h/t SCOTUSblog) Argument Analysis
If I am a woman and I would identify better as a big breasted woman should the University pay for my breast augmentation? When does this madness to our tax dollars stop?
No. You disqualified yourself by being a woman already. Doesn’t even compare to the case reported. Totally different circumstances.