SCOTUS grants federal job protections to gay, lesbian, transgender workers

[RaleBulgarian]

A big victory for the LGBTQ community and America as a whole! :applaud

“WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court further advanced the cause of LGBTQ rights Monday, ruling that a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace applies to gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first nominee to the cour. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices. Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Gorsuch wrote. "Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."
Gay rights: Supreme Court grants job protection to LGBTQ workers

Expect this ruling to have wide ranging positive affects protecting the rights of LGTBQ folks.

 

[BrotherFease]

A big victory for the LGBTQ community and America as a whole! :applaud

“WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court further advanced the cause of LGBTQ rights Monday, ruling that a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace applies to gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first nominee to the cour. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices. Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Gorsuch wrote. "Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."
Gay rights: Supreme Court grants job protection to LGBTQ workers

Expect this ruling to have wide ranging positive affects protecting the rights of LGTBQ folks.

Great victory. All citizens should be protected from discrimination. Donald Trump and the religious right suffered a major loss, but a win for everybody else.

If you're firing somebody for their sexual orientation, you're firing them for their sex.
If you're firing somebody because their gender presentation doesn't line-up with their sex, you're discriminating based on sex and sex stereotype.

What is amazing is the concept that the conservative-leaning court is coming on the side of civil rights.

 

[Bodecea]

Great victory. All citizens should be protected from discrimination. Donald Trump and the religious right suffered a major loss, but a win for everybody else.

If you're firing somebody for their sexual orientation, you're firing them for their sex.
If you're firing somebody because their gender presentation doesn't line-up with their sex, you're discriminating based on sex and sex stereotype.

What is amazing is the concept that the conservative-leaning court is coming on the side of civil rights.

Great news! Time for the CRC rant to begin.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What is amazing is the concept that the conservative-leaning court is coming on the side of civil rights.

I'm not too surprised by the decision. At least not with regards to Roberts, who has ruled in favor of liberal causes before.

 

[BrotherFease]

I'm not too surprised by the decision. At least not with regards to Roberts, who has ruled in favor of liberal causes before.

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh came into power BEFORE Obergefell. Kennedy was the one who cast the deciding vote. Roberts voted against. For Gorsuch and Roberts to vote in favor of this decision, means the conservative court is on the side of the LGBTQ community.

 

[Condor060]

A big victory for the LGBTQ community and America as a whole! :applaud

“WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court further advanced the cause of LGBTQ rights Monday, ruling that a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace applies to gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first nominee to the cour. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices. Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Gorsuch wrote. "Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."
Gay rights: Supreme Court grants job protection to LGBTQ workers

Expect this ruling to have wide ranging positive affects protecting the rights of LGTBQ folks.

So I haven't read the ruling but I am a bit confused. What does this ruling provide that earlier discrimination rulings don't. I am for the ruling but bewildered about how this ruling has any more protections not already provided.

 

[Condor060]

Great victory. All citizens should be protected from discrimination. Donald Trump and the religious right suffered a major loss, but a win for everybody else.

If you're firing somebody for their sexual orientation, you're firing them for their sex.
If you're firing somebody because their gender presentation doesn't line-up with their sex, you're discriminating based on sex and sex stereotype.

What is amazing is the concept that the conservative-leaning court is coming on the side of civil rights.

I guess all the fake media about conservative SCOTUS just got busted. Not surprised they ruled properly.

 

[BrotherFease]

I guess all the fake media about conservative SCOTUS just got busted. Not surprised they ruled properly.

Wow, you agreed with the ruling. Cheers my friend!

 

[BrotherFease]

So I haven't read the ruling but I am a bit confused. What does this ruling provide that earlier discrimination rulings don't. I am for the ruling but bewildered about how this ruling has any more protections not already provided.

Allow me to clarify for you. Here's what happened: The Equal Opportunity Employer Office claimed that homosexuals and transgender/transsexuals are included in the 1964 civil rights act. They argued the words "Because of sex" applies to sexual orientation and people who do not conform to sexual stereotypes aka transgender or cross-dressers. There were four cases being looked at. One was about the late Aimee Stephens who was fired because she wanted to get a sex change and wear female attire to work. Her boss argued that since she was born a man, she had to wear a suit to work. The other incidents involved workers being fired for having a same-sex partner or being attracted to the same sex.

The courts ruled that any firings due to sex period, was illegal.

 

[ludin]

So I haven't read the ruling but I am a bit confused. What does this ruling provide that earlier discrimination rulings don't. I am for the ruling but bewildered about how this ruling has any more protections not already provided.

It means that the SCOTUS ahs the ability to change law now.
something that is 100% barred by the constitution.

They basically determined that sex is malleable and can be whatever anyone wants to call themselves regardless of whether it is true.
The issue is that they re-wrote the 60's definition of sex without constitutional authority.

at the federal level there wasn't protection now there is.

 

[Drawdown]

So I haven't read the ruling but I am a bit confused. What does this ruling provide that earlier discrimination rulings don't. I am for the ruling but bewildered about how this ruling has any more protections not already provided.

It really did not. It cleared a conflict between the circuits. Little more.

 

[Condor060]

Wow, you agreed with the ruling. Cheers my friend!

Whats not to approve of? Did another myth just get busted as well?

 

[Condor060]

It means that the SCOTUS ahs the ability to change law now.
something that is 100% barred by the constitution.

I thought they ruled on constitutional issues. If you have a law that isn't constitutional, the SCOTUS can rule against it. It's always been that way. No?

They basically determined that sex is malleable and can be whatever anyone wants to call themselves regardless of whether it is true.
The issue is that they re-wrote the 60's definition of sex without constitutional authority.

Ok, so thats a good thing.

 

[Condor060]

Allow me to clarify for you. Here's what happened: The Equal Opportunity Employer Office claimed that homosexuals and transgender/transsexuals are included in the 1964 civil rights act. They argued the words "Because of sex" applies to sexual orientation and people who do not conform to sexual stereotypes aka transgender or cross-dressers. There were four cases being looked at. One was about the late Aimee Stephens who was fired because she wanted to get a sex change and wear female attire to work. Her boss argued that since she was born a man, she had to wear a suit to work. The other incidents involved workers being fired for having a same-sex partner or being attracted to the same sex.

The courts ruled that any firings due to sex period, was illegal.

Got it. Good ruling

 

[ludin]

I thought they ruled on constitutional issues. If you have a law that isn't constitutional, the SCOTUS can rule against it. It's always been that way. No?

The case before the court wasn't about sex but sexual orientation. The re-wrote a law. that is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers.
only the legislative branch can change laws.

Ok, so thats a good thing.

Biology says it can't be. YOu are either male or female.

 

[Condor060]

The case before the court wasn't about sex but sexual orientation. The re-wrote a law. that is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers.
only the legislative branch can change laws.

Since the SCOUTS has changed every law they ruled constitutional, I don't see how you think they can't do that. It's exactly what they have been doing for decades.

Biology says it can't be. YOu are either male or female.

While we agree on this, I think the ruling was more about you can't be fired if you claim to be a sex that you are not.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

So I haven't read the ruling but I am a bit confused. What does this ruling provide that earlier discrimination rulings don't. I am for the ruling but bewildered about how this ruling has any more protections not already provided.

Today’s ruling affirms, specifically, that the protections guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes members of the LGBTQ community.

The case ruled on today was one where a transgendered person was fired from her job based solely on her transgender status. That cannot happen anymore.

 

[BrotherFease]

The case before the court wasn't about sex but sexual orientation. The re-wrote a law. that is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers.
only the legislative branch can change laws.

Biology says it can't be. YOu are either male or female.

Incorrect. The whole point of the court case was to determine if sexual orientation and gender identity were connected to sex. 6 of the 9 justices said it did. So there's that. The federal statue says you cannot discriminate based on sex. Firing a worker because they are in a same SEX relationship is now illegal in all 50 states. Firing a worker because they refused to specific wear clothing based on their SEX is now illegal in all 50 states. Notice the word "sex" being thrown around. If you cannot talk about a transgender or gay worker, without using the word "sex" means you lost the argument.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh came into power BEFORE Obergefell. Kennedy was the one who cast the deciding vote. Roberts voted against. For Gorsuch and Roberts to vote in favor of this decision, means the conservative court is on the side of the LGBTQ community.

On the side of justice. :thumbs:

 

[ludin]

Since the SCOUTS has changed every law they ruled constitutional, I don't see how you think they can't do that. It's exactly what they have been doing for decades.

We have a constitution for reason. that constitution lays out the powers of each branch of government. No they haven't changed every law. If they do then they are breaking the constitution
a job in which they have sworn to uphold and defend.

Umm the constitution says they can't do that. pretty simple. They can only rule on whether a law is constitutional or not constitutional. They do not and never have had the power
to change law. that sole responsibility resides with the congress.

While we agree on this, I think the ruling was more about you can't be fired if you claim to be a sex that you are not.

sex and sexual orientation is not the same thing.

it might seem to be minor but it isn't.

again i am more concerned with the Judges thinking they can re-write law. that is hugely dangerous.

 

[Carleen]

A big victory for the LGBTQ community and America as a whole! :applaud

“WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court further advanced the cause of LGBTQ rights Monday, ruling that a landmark civil rights law barring sex discrimination in the workplace applies to gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first nominee to the cour. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court's four liberal justices. Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex," Gorsuch wrote. "Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."
Gay rights: Supreme Court grants job protection to LGBTQ workers

Expect this ruling to have wide ranging positive affects protecting the rights of LGTBQ folks.

What was most surprising was the 6 to 3 vote.

 

[Condor060]

Today’s ruling affirms, specifically, that the protections guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes members of the LGBTQ community.

The case ruled on today was one where a transgendered person was fired from her job based solely on her transgender status. That cannot happen anymore.

After a few posters responded, my understanding is the difference was, in earlier rulings of civil rights, there was no exception based on your sexual preference, but it was based on actual sexual gender.

This ruling would protect those who changed gender. You can't be fired if you claim to be a certain gender you are not? Meanng, if you have a job, and decided you wanted to change your gender, you couldn't be fired.

I guess thats my take away. Not a bad thing, just got confusing.

Allow me to clarify for you. Here's what happened: The Equal Opportunity Employer Office claimed that homosexuals and transgender/transsexuals are included in the 1964 civil rights act. They argued the words "Because of sex" applies to sexual orientation and people who do not conform to sexual stereotypes aka transgender or cross-dressers. There were four cases being looked at. One was about the late Aimee Stephens who was fired because she wanted to get a sex change and wear female attire to work. Her boss argued that since she was born a man, she had to wear a suit to work. The other incidents involved workers being fired for having a same-sex partner or being attracted to the same sex.

The courts ruled that any firings due to sex period, was illegal.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

It means that the SCOTUS ahs the ability to change law now.
something that is 100% barred by the constitution.

They basically determined that sex is malleable and can be whatever anyone wants to call themselves regardless of whether it is true.
The issue is that they re-wrote the 60's definition of sex without constitutional authority.

at the federal level there wasn't protection now there is.

No surprise at all that you disagree with treating all Americans equally, as the Constitution guarantees.

 

[ludin]

Incorrect. The whole point of the court case was to determine if sexual orientation and gender identity were connected to sex. 6 of the 9 justices said it did. So there's that. The federal statue says you cannot discriminate based on sex. Firing a worker because they are in a same SEX relationship is now illegal in all 50 states. Firing a worker because they refused to specific wear clothing based on their SEX is now illegal in all 50 states. Notice the word "sex" being thrown around. If you cannot talk about a transgender or gay worker, without using the word "sex" means you lost the argument.

They don't. Judges do not have the power to re-write law.
Yes you can't discriminate based on whether the person is male or female.

it says nothing of sexual orientation. In order for it to say that it would have to be amended by the legislature and added in.

you can thrown around whatever word you want to. Sexual orientation is not sex.
sex - m or f

it has nothing to do with who you date.

 

[ludin]

No surprise at all that you disagree with treating all Americans equally, as the Constitution guarantees.

no i disagree with courts writing law that they don't have the power to do.
that is the sole job of the legislature.

my argument has nothing to do with what you just said.