Why aren't 'religion' and 'sex' protected categories in Title VI?

Why aren't 'religion' and 'sex' protected categories in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act? Only race, color and national origin are protected categories. Religion and sex are covered in other Titles, or maybe even all titles. And if they are absent in other Titles, then why are they?

 

@Maquiscat, you're a knowledgeable guy.

 

Not the case @Maquiscat?

 

You are delving into details I've never bothered to research. It probably has something to do with conflicting rights. Rights are limited. I have a right to fling my arms about Willy Billy, but I have no right to strike you with them while doing so.

 

Religion is already protected under the 1st Amendment and executive orders.

Joe Biden recently preached out of the Book of Hebrews in a church.

 

What does this have to do with Title VI?

What, as in a sermon?

 

@xwsmithx, any clues?

 

@cd8ed, @Golem, @WillReadmore, @btthegreat, @Giftedone, any clues?

 

I'm not sure what that has to do with why 'religion' and 'sex' aren't protected categories in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

 

Maybe sexuality should be protected too. That would fix the gay marriage issue.

 

Isn't that issue already fixed?

 

I don't know. Do all US States allow it? There's always discussions going on here about it.

 

You appear to have missed the 2015 Supreme Court ruling which ruled that it is illegal for any state to refuse same sex marriage. It is the law of the land now.

 

That's not what I said. Have all States complied?
Quote from Wiki:
State and territorial recognition[edit]
Further information: Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state
Same-sex marriages are licensed in and recognized by all U.S. states and the District of Columbia, as well as all U.S. territories except American Samoa.[40] On July 3, 2015, the Attorney General for American Samoa stated "we are reviewing the opinion [Obergefell v. Hodges] and its potential applicability to American Samoa, and will provide comment when it is completed."[41] Currently, same-sex marriages are neither licensed nor recognized there. On January 6, 2016, Alabama's Chief Justice, Roy Moore, issued a ruling forbidding state officials from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.[42] The ruling had no effect as all Alabama counties continued either issuing marriage licenses to all couples or not issue licenses at all. In May 2016, Moore was charged with ethics violations by the state Judicial Inquiry Commission for the ruling,[43] subsequently being suspended from the bench for the remainder of his term on September 30 of that year.[44]

Counties not issuing marriage licenses[edit]

• Officials of one Texas county, Irion, issue marriage licenses, but has claimed they would refuse same-sex couples. Since 2017, they have refused to comment on what they would do if a same-sex couple were to apply for license.[45] None has applied and no legal action has been taken. Since Alabama replaced marriage licenses with marriage certificates and required that all counties issue them, Irion County, Texas is the only remaining county in the country that does not allow same-sex couples to marry.
• Officials in several Alabama counties initially stopped issuing any marriage licenses rather than issue them to same-sex couples. By 2017, the number of counties doing this to avoid issuing them to same-sex couples dropped to eight.[46][47] This was in accordance with a state law, which was passed in 1961 to preserve racial segregation by making it optional for county clerks to issue marriage licenses.[48] The Alabama Legislature passed a bill replacing marriage licenses with marriage certificates in May 2019.[49] These final eight counties resumed allowing couples to marry on August 29, 2019.
• Several Kentucky counties initially refused to marry same-sex couples. In response, Kentucky reformed its marriage license forms and removed the name of the county clerk from the licenses. As of June 2016, Chris Hartmann, director of the Kentucky-based Fairness Campaign, said that to his knowledge "there are no counties where marriage licenses are being denied" in his state.[50]

So not bad then, just a few stragglers.

 

Yeah, I didn't know about any of that actually.

 

The way the individual sections are written may be with in the context of where the right is limited.

 

There have been multiple cases where the ruling is that since sexuality is based upon sex it is protected.

 

Cases since Obergefel v Hodges?

 

I made this thread after learning about Trump's executive order which extends Title VI to Jews for the purpose of anti-discrimination in colleges. Do you know anything about it?

 

Prior IIRC.

 

No not really. I tend to ignore the Cheeto to the extent I can. Would have done the same for Shillary as well.

 

Imagine the dungstorm of national news if a republican had done that.

 

Women's rights[edit]

Engrossing copy of H.R. 7152, which added sex to the categories of persons against whom the bill prohibited discrimination, as passed by the House of Representatives[24]
Just one year earlier, the same Congress had passed the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibited wage differentials based on sex. The prohibition on sex discrimination was added to the Civil Rights Act by Howard W. Smith, a powerful Virginia Democrat who chaired the House Rules Committee and who strongly opposed the legislation. Smith's amendment was passed by a teller vote of 168 to 133. Historians debate Smith's motivation, whether it was a cynical attempt to defeat the bill by someone opposed to civil rights both for blacks and women, or an attempt to support their rights by broadening the bill to include women.[25][26][27][28] Smith expected that Republicans, who had included equal rights for women in their party's platform since 1944,[29] would probably vote for the amendment. Historians speculate that Smith was trying to embarrass northern Democrats who opposed civil rights for women because the clause was opposed by labor unions. Representative Carl Elliott of Alabama later claimed, "Smith didn't give a damn about women's rights...he was trying to knock off votes either then or down the line because there was always a hard core of men who didn't favor women's rights,"[30] and the Congressional Record records that Smith was greeted by laughter when he introduced the amendment.[31]

Smith asserted that he was not joking; he sincerely supported the amendment and, indeed, along with Rep. Martha Griffiths,[32] he was the chief spokesperson for the amendment.[31] For twenty years Smith had sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment (with no linkage to racial issues) in the House because he believed in it. He for decades had been close to the National Woman's Party and its leader Alice Paul, who was also the leader in winning the right to vote for women in 1920, the author of the first Equal Rights Amendment, and a chief supporter of equal rights proposals since then. She and other feminists had worked with Smith since 1945 trying to find a way to include sex as a protected civil rights category. Now was the moment.[33] Griffiths argued that the new law would protect black women but not white women, and that was unfair to white women. Furthermore, she argued that the laws "protecting" women from unpleasant jobs were actually designed to enable men to monopolize those jobs, and that was unfair to women who were not allowed to try out for those jobs.[34] The amendment passed with the votes of Republicans and Southern Democrats. The final law passed with the votes of Republicans and Northern Democrats. Thus, as Justice William Rehnquist explained in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, "The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives... the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act's prohibition against discrimination based on 'sex.'"[35]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

Executive Order

December 11, 2019 Executive order on Combating Anti-Semitism states: "While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual’s race, color, or national origin. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI." The order specifies that agencies responsible for Title VI enforcement shall "consider" the (non-legally binding) working definition of anti Semitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on May 26, 2016 as well as the IHRA list of Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism, "to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent".[48]

 

No clues have

 

My understanding is that Title VI doesn't cover religious discrimination. That discrimination is covered elsewhere.

If Biden wants to preach to voluntary listeners, that's fine. Public schools are off limits as a venue for religious messages by public officials.