Dwight ~

If you are going to refer to United States Supreme Court rulings or those by the lower courts (i.e., 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), you should at least attempt to objectively stick to the facts in those cases.

In your March 30th Editorial, you failed to mention the fact the 9th Circuit found that Medina had failed to present evidence he had been discriminated against on the basis of sex (gender). The Court held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not violated by Medina's co-workers or supervisor at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. The Court did recognize that Medina, an openly gay male, did sustain verbal taunts and was grabbed on several occasions by several co-workers. However, the Court said Medina had not availed himself of other legal action under the law such as criminal assault and battery. The 9th Circuit Court as well as other Circuit Courts of Appeals have consistently held in other opinions that sexual orientation is not proscribed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Once again, it is far better to stick to the facts presented in those cases rather than editorialize on those opinions to buttress your own arguments that have merit -- but only in the Court of Public Opinion.