Supreme Court supports ban on LGBT Workplace Discrimination!

[lauraincolumbia]

WOW!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/15/supreme-court-lgbt-rights-decision-319693

 

I was really worried this would get overturned.  

I'm not as surprised about Chief Justice John Roberts decision, but that Niel Gorsuch wrote wrote the decision made my jaw drop

[Cyndee]

Thanks for sharing such good news Laura

 

a 6 - 3 decision no less.

 

The timing of this decision is fantastic and sends a good message.

[KathyLauren]

WOW!!!  What amazingly good and unexpected news!

 

I wonder if they've told Trump yet?  I'd love to have seen his face turn purple when they told him. ?

[Mx.Drago]

Molto bene!?

[NB Adult]

27 minutes ago, lauraincolumbia said:

WOW!

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/15/supreme-court-lgbt-rights-decision-319693

 

I was really worried this would get overturned.  

I'm not as surprised about Chief Justice John Roberts decision, but that Niel Gorsuch wrote wrote the decision made my jaw drop

 

It shouldn't have, the man is and has been a totally impartial judge and follows the spirit of the constitution religiously. Let's face it, the US Constitution is based on the reference to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the Founding Fathers stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution guarantees those rights apply to every American citizen. Bigotry emanates from the biased thoughts of individuals, the idea that a conservative judge doesn't fit in the box of one's own political mindset and couldn't possible judge in an unbiased manner is biased thinking with no sound logic to back it up. We here tend toward group-think mentality and follow the mob in a lemming-like manner at times. Perhaps we should all try to be impartial in our own thinking. I'm reminded of this myself when I have been amazed that Ruth Bader Ginsberg rules with conservative judges on certain matters. The Supremes are constrained and entreated to refrain from allowing their own political affiliation to in any way affect their judgment, some are better at following those constraints than are others.

[KathyLauren]

30 minutes ago, NB Adult said:

 

The Supremes are constrained and entreated to refrain from allowing their own political affiliation to in any way affect their judgment, some are better at following those constraints than are others.

 

Nice to see integrity win!

[Carolyn Marie]

46 minutes ago, KathyLauren said:

 

I wonder if they've told Trump yet?  I'd love to have seen his face turn purple when they told him. ?

 

Yeah, I'm very interested in his reaction, too.  He actually might try to turn it to his advantage and tout his appointment of Gorsuch and support for the LGBT community.

 

On second thought, nah, he'll be pissed.

 

It is a very pleasant surprise, especially that the trans case was decided by the same 6-3 margin (as I understand it, the cases were consolidated).  A great day for our community, and a terrible day for the West Wing.  ?

 

Carolyn Marie

[VickySGV]

Oh heck, I just posted that one too.  But it is good news!!

[Erikka]

That is a relief. But I do wonder what trump will do next to pander to his base.

[Astrid]

This decision, though terrific, does NOT also distinguish gender identity as a valid legal entity.  Here's part of their wording, from today's decision (available here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf ) -- which I've been reading in detail this morning.

 

Appealing to roughly contemporaneous dictionaries, the employers say that, as used here, the term “sex” in 1964 referred to “status as either male or female [as] determined by reproductive biology.” The employees counter by submitting that, even in 1964, the term bore a broader scope, capturing more than anatomy and reaching at least some norms concerning gender identity and sexual orientation. But because nothing in our approach to these cases turns on the outcome of the parties’ debate, and because the employees concede the point for argument’s sake, we proceed on the assumption that “sex” signified what the employers suggest, referring only to biological distinctions between male and female.

 

So there will be further legal battles over gender identity, I'm sure.  But this puts a foot in the door for that.  Or perhaps, if we have a more favorably inclined Senate, House, and President after November, a law that explicitly recognizes and protects gender identity can be forthcoming -- as it has, gradually, in states like mine (Massachusetts).

 

We will persist and win the gender identity battle, some day.

 

Astrid

[NB Adult]

2 hours ago, NB Adult said:

We here tend toward group-think mentality and follow the mob in a lemming-like manner at times. Perhaps we should all try to be impartial in our own thinking. I'm reminded of this myself when I have been amazed that Ruth Bader Ginsberg rules with conservative judges on certain matters. 

 

Not at all surprised at the comments following my own post here, dovetails perfectly with what I said in the above observation. In all fairness I've not seen anything other than open arms for women, minorities and LGBT members by Trump, most of the suffocatingly disgraceful bias and bigotry towards LGBT comes from both sides of the political aisle and media outside of the WH. It also comes from an inability to look at things objectively rather than through the prism of an emotional need to blame Trump for everything. 

[Charlize]

I'm glad to read this as it means i don't have to discriminate against the cis, straight folks who i might need to employ on the farm.  

Great news for our community.

 

Hugs,

 

Charlize

[michelle_kitten]

5 hours ago, Astrid said:

This decision, though terrific, does NOT also distinguish gender identity as a valid legal entity.  Here's part of their wording, from today's decision (available here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf ) -- which I've been reading in detail this morning.

 

Appealing to roughly contemporaneous dictionaries, the employers say that, as used here, the term “sex” in 1964 referred to “status as either male or female [as] determined by reproductive biology.” The employees counter by submitting that, even in 1964, the term bore a broader scope, capturing more than anatomy and reaching at least some norms concerning gender identity and sexual orientation. But because nothing in our approach to these cases turns on the outcome of the parties’ debate, and because the employees concede the point for argument’s sake, we proceed on the assumption that “sex” signified what the employers suggest, referring only to biological distinctions between male and female.

 

So there will be further legal battles over gender identity, I'm sure.  But this puts a foot in the door for that.  Or perhaps, if we have a more favorably inclined Senate, House, and President after November, a law that explicitly recognizes and protects gender identity can be forthcoming -- as it has, gradually, in states like mine (Massachusetts).

 

We will persist and win the gender identity battle, some day.

 

Astrid

 

I just read both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion.  I am pleased that Gorsuch did such an excellent job writing the opinion.  I also disagree with Alito's dissenting opinion, and feel he failed to make a compelling argument.  Keep in mind the issue before the court was whether or not the firing of the plaintiffs was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII according to its meaning.  There was no room for the court to recognize gender identity as a protected class, nor should it be.  That should be an act of Congress.

 

The court ruled that because being homosexual or trans-sexual relies on what we would call assigned sex, sex is in part a factor in employers deciding to fire or refusing to hire a person based on sexual orientation or sexual identity.  That is if an employer were to fire a gay man for being gay, he would not be firing the man simply for being attracted to men, but being a man attracted to men, and therefore sex is in part involved in the decision to fire.  Further, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII addresses the issue as being discrimination against specifically individuals that employer policies to ensure  equal treatment according to sex is not a defense.  The opinion has numerous citations to back the notion that using sex as a factor, even in part as a basis for discharge or refusing employment is supported by previous rulings.

 

What this does is force Congress to change the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to place specific exclusions to the rights given in Title VII, if they are to strip the protections against firing gay and trans people.  That is unlikely to ever happen in the near future.

 

I am also pleased to see that Alito confines his dissenting opinion to the case at hand.  Alito does not in anyway detract from the idea that people should have rights based on sexual orientation nor sexual identity, but only whether or not the term sex, as it was used in 1964 could be used in the way the majority opinion uses it.  Alito notes, as did the plaintiffs, that Congress can make laws adding to the Title VII, but argue the intention of Title VII was entirely based on sex, and not on additional factors, and thereby saying homosexuality is something separate from sex and sexual orientation is a separate factor from birth sex.  In this case it does not mean Alito is anti-LGBTQIA+, but rather is open to additional legislation, feeling the existing laws do not do enough to grant the protections the majority opinion states.

 

The significance of the 6-3 decision cannot be understated.  Gorsuch is considered with Alito and Kavanaugh as being the more right leaning justices.  I feel Gorsuch's opinion is logical, well thought-out, and fair considering the petitions filed by the plaintiffs, and the arguments presented by both plaintiffs and defendants.

[KayC]

Saw this too, yesterday.  Happy you posted @lauraincolumbia!  Happy that Gorsuch has some common legal sense and did not tow the "party line" on this one.  Could have been a disaster.
Its a step in the right direction and at least puts the Federal judiciary in line with protecting LGBTQ+ rights in this area.
Trump will find other places to attack, and already has... wrt medical coverage, military, etc...

 

One answer, many voices -- VOTE in November!

[Lexi C]

This was great news, but and  a BIG BUT...It's dose not give us our medical rights back..I live in a blue state TG...but a lot of our sisters and bothers are screw..We need to vote this D out of office and get all our rights back..Trans Lives Matter  Too.