LGBTQ? No Civil Rights For You
Why disingenuous? Because if the meaning of sex is as plain as Ravnsborg claims it to be, this case wouldn't have made it to the Supreme Court. His offhanded dismissal of the complexities involved is simplistic and doesn't address the myriad demands for justice in a society as complicated and diverse as ours. And if "plain meaning" is the criterion our Attorney General chooses to use for the law's application, then "plain meaning" should be applied to define what actually occurred. The facts are that these employees were "plainly" fired because of who they are. That means they were "plainly" discriminated against. Ravnsborg has officially put the State of South Dakota into the position of supporting a discriminatory action by employers who can't tolerate the presence of employees that differ from their standards of appearance and personal behavior. And we South Dakotans are supposedly supporting this on the basis of a definition of sex that is archaic and no longer fits contemporary social realities. Heck, if it's about sticking to outmoded language and concepts, we should insist that every gun owner in this country be a member of a "well-regulated militia," just like it says in the Second Amendment.
Our Attorney General can't see that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is more about protecting individual rights than about defining the status of victims. There doesn't seem to be a similar complaint having been lodged in South Dakota (I'm correctable on this--I just haven't found anything), which, if true, means that Ravnsborg is making a gratuitous political statement, one that tells our state's employers that it's okay to fire people for the way they dress or behave privately.