[genewitch]

i'm willing to listen to arguments about why any of those are basic rights. I am unsure about the housing, so i didn't mention it. Upon a quick check, Bostock prevents renters from being evicted or otherwise un-housed merely for being LGBT. Unless i see actual writing that shows there is a literal directive to ignore complaints, i cannot just accept your words. top results for eviction of LGBT sort of news is about people "behind on rent." If i don't pay rent for 2 months, i'll also get an eviction notice (sometimes called a pay or quit.)

there's groups of people that think all kinds of things are "basic rights" but it doesn't mean they are. I could say nothing is a "basic right" since any example you can give is violated globally. Maybe some stuff should be globally truly basic rights. But i am willing to listen to arguments that any of these things are a basic right as it stands.

just a for instance: Sodomy. saying it's a human right implies that sexual intercourse is a basic human right. I am unsure if you really want to make this argument.

[UncleMeat]

Bostock applies to Title 7. The reasoning is that discrimination based on sexuality or gender identity is sex discrimination, which can be applied to other laws like the FHA but this is not established federally and the Trump administration is currently in legal fights explicitly in opposition to this position. So I do not think that it is fair to say that Bostock prevents renters from being evicted based on their gender identity or sexuality.

[Here](https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/removing-gender-ideology-and-r...) is an EEOC's "literal directive" pulling back on relevant cases. If you want specific cases then [this article](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eeoc-transgender-discrimination...) references specific ongoing cases that have been dropped by the EEOC.

And I do think the ability to have consenting and private intercourse without being imprisoned is a human right. I did not expect that this would be controversial.

[genewitch]

the eeoc link doesn't mention housing or "rent." https://www.findlaw.com/lgbtq-law/housing-discrimination-pro... this says that HUD and DoJ handle those cases.

If you're talking about employment (which the EEOC appears to cover) - i've been fired for not cutting my hair short enough. I've been fired for refusing to wear a tie for a cubicle job. In the US, employment is at-will, generally. If that's what you have an issue with, then let's talk about that. Even if the issue is with hiring discrimination of any kind, i can get behind that, too.

And there's a subtle, yet perceivable difference between what you said, "sodomy laws" and your statement now about "consenting and private intercourse." i also notice you didn't mention "between adults."

I don't really want to have a side-channel discussion, here. The employment vs housing statements, you either had a typo, or it was a red herring, i am unsure. I feel like this is devolving, perhaps of my own fault, into a god of the gaps argument.

[UncleMeat]

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.

[genewitch]

> 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

[UncleMeat]

Like I said, depending on an agency's interpretation of how Bostock's reasoning could be applied to a different law is not protection in the modern Trump administration. This is like you saying that Bostock protects trans people via Title 9 because of the Biden admin's interpretation of Title 9.... which was undone by the Trump administration.

Federal legislation, or at least clear jurisprudence, is needed for this protection to meaningfully stick.