Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Ladybird

Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender, Supreme Court rules

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Ladybird

Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender, Supreme Court rules

By Harper Neidig - 06/15/20 10:15 AM EDT

https://thehill.com/

Excerpt:

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 in a landmark decision that gay and transgender employees are protected by civil rights laws against employer discrimination.

A set of cases that came before the court had asked the justices to decide whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of "sex," applies to gay and transgender people.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion for the six-member majority, said that it does.

"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender," Gorsuch wrote. "The answer is clear. 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. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision.

The decision was one of the most highly anticipated of a Supreme Court term stacked with high-profile cases. It was delivered in the middle of LGBT Pride Month.

The decision resolves a trio of cases in which employers were sued for discrimination by fired workers.

<snip>

The Trump administration had weighed in on the cases, arguing on behalf of a group of employers who had been brought to court for firing their gay or transgender employees. The Department of Justice had argued that the Civil Rights Act did not cover gay or transgender employees.

Last week, the administration similarly finalized a Department of Health and Human Services rule that excludes gay and transgender people from discrimination protections under the Affordable Care Act.

Monday's decision was met with applause from civil rights groups and LGBT advocates.

“This is a landmark victory for LGBTQ equality,” Alphonso David, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement. “No one should be denied a job or fired simply because of who they are or whom they love. For the past two decades, federal courts have determined that discrimination on the basis of LGBTQ status is unlawful discrimination under federal law. Today’s historic ruling by the Supreme Court affirms that view, but there is still work left to be done."

 

<snip>

The dissenting justices criticized the majority for projecting what they see as a new meaning on a decades-old law. Alito argued that it is unlikely that lawmakers in 1964 would have sought to protect gay or transgender people from discrimination.

"If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation––not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time," Alito wrote in a dissent that was joined by Thomas.

"Many will applaud today’s decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court’s updating of Title VII," Alito continued. "But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."

In his own separate dissent, Kavanaugh added, "Our role is not to make or amend the law. As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation."

But Kavanaugh dismissed his fellow conservatives' objections, arguing that "applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law’s passage — whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees in the 1960s — often may be seen as unexpected."

"But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms," Kavanaugh continued.

<snip>

Link

 

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic Rat

Hooray for government over reach!  I am so glad the Fed can tell me who I can hire or fire in MY business.

one primary reason I retired.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tikk

I wonder when I will be sued for rebuking an advance from a gay man.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firecoco
5 minutes ago, GrimV said:

But they *CAN* be fired for believing All Lives Matter.

Behold the New and Improved America....

Great point

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BootsieBets
21 minutes ago, GrimV said:

But they *CAN* be fired for believing All Lives Matter.

Behold the New and Improved America....

Ah yes, the twisted thinking of the intolerant left!

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel

I really don’t care what gender anyone at work is or who they sleep with or what color they are as long as they do thier job. I just see this as one more protected class that can screw up then claim your firing me because.... I honestly don’t know if any of my coworkers are gay, straight or screw animals when they get home and I don’t care. 

  • Best Post (+1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jon Wayne

Disgusting decision, typical of the Roberts Court.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
1 hour ago, Ladybird said:

"If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation––not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time," Alito wrote in a dissent that was joined by Thomas.

Justice Thomas is spot on in his dissent. This isn't about what's equitable -- it's about the court assigning meaning and scope to a law which could have specifically included the LGBT class at the time it was written. It didn't -- SCOTUS is not empowered in by the Constitution to do that.

It did the same by declaring the ACA a tax, which Congress is empowered to create - even though at the time Congress and the President went overboard to object to characterizations of the ACA as a tax.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confessor

Legislating from the bench. Assigning words that aren’t there as if they were.  Why wasn’t this passed through the LEGISLATIVE branch first?  I know, it wouldn’t have passed muster. They wouldn’t get a law with that meaning through Congress. So get the Supreme Court to do it for you.  

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noclevermoniker
55 minutes ago, Squirrel said:

I really don’t care what gender anyone at work is or who they sleep with or what color they are as long as they do thier job. I just see this as one more protected class that can screw up then claim your firing me because.... I honestly don’t know if any of my coworkers are gay, straight or screw animals when they get home and I don’t care. 

Free reign to act up, dress weird, and be generally disruptive. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

Which means that anyone who gets written up for not doing their job correctly can turn around and file a complaint that they are being unfairly judged because of their sexual orientation, which means that their co-workers have to do more work to cover for the asshat who can't be bothered to do their job right in the first place and the employer has to keep someone on payroll who doesn't do their job and adversely affects the other employees and the overall morale in the office.

That's just awesome.  

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CHANG
2 hours ago, Squirrel said:

I really don’t care what gender anyone at work is or who they sleep with or what color they are as long as they do thier job. I just see this as one more protected class that can screw up then claim your firing me because.... I honestly don’t know if any of my coworkers are gay, straight or screw animals when they get home and I don’t care. 

I agree. I don’t care what, or who, you do in your spare time. I don't want to hear about it, and I certainly don’t want to see it.  
 

The problem is, and has always been, that gays identify themselves as queer first and whatever second. As if that is their sole identity. They’ll say “I’m a gay chef,” or “I’m a gay architect.”  They don’t see the measures of their talents or skills. They define themselves by their sexuality. Must be a very miserable existence with a lot of self-loathing.  I think this ruling today is going to inspire them to be more flamboyant, and in your face. If there is no question about their sexual preference, even if it’s unconfirmed, they’ll always have the homophobe sword/shield if they’re ever fired from a job. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, CHANG said:

I agree. I don’t care what, or who, you do in your spare time. I don't want to hear about it, and I certainly don’t want to see it.  
 

The problem is, and has always been, that gays identify themselves as queer first and whatever second. As if that is their sole identity. They’ll say “I’m a gay chef,” or “I’m a gay architect.”  They don’t see the measures of their talents or skills. They define themselves by their sexuality. Must be a very miserable existence with a lot of self-loathing.  I think this ruling today is going to inspire them to be more flamboyant, and in your face. If there is no question about their sexual preference, even if it’s unconfirmed, they’ll always have the homophobe sword/shield if they’re ever fired from a job. 

One of the three cases was a gay man fired after his employer learned he was on a gay baseball league. This is activity outside of work.

 

(I've never met single gay or lesbian person that announced their sexual identity to me.)

Edited by Ladybird
  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash
2 hours ago, Jon Wayne said:

Disgusting decision, typical of the Roberts Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts has an amazing talent to decipher qeylIS ngoq hidden in targeted legislation.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Squirrel
9 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

One of the three cases was a gay man fired after his employer learned he was on a gay baseball league. This is activity outside of work.

 

(I've never met single gay or lesbian person that announced their sexual identity to me.)

How did he know the employee was gay or do gays discriminate against straight players joining? That seems wrong from the lefts view. If your fired for playing a game thats wrong. But once again I’m sure there’s a back story and more left our

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BootsieBets
22 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

One of the three cases was a gay man fired after his employer learned he was on a gay baseball league. This is activity outside of work.

 

(I've never met single gay or lesbian person that announced their sexual identity to me.)

I have, twice.  Both of them were very militant, though and it was in a setting that was very gay friendly so they felt safe telling me they were gay before I really cared about their sexuality!  It doesn't bother me to work with or associate with anyone who is LGBT.  I don't like their militant agenda is all.  While I don't necessarily think this ruling is terrible, I do think it should have been done through legislation.  That is where the legislating from the bench comes in and that is dangerous.  You may think that is a good thing, but be careful what you wish for.  

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
52 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

(I've never met single gay or lesbian person that announced their sexual identity to me.)

And that's relevant because. . . . ?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
15 minutes ago, BootsieBets said:

I have, twice.  Both of them were very militant, though and it was in a setting that was very gay friendly so they felt safe telling me they were gay before I really cared about their sexuality!  It doesn't bother me to work with or associate with anyone who is LGBT.  I don't like their militant agenda is all.  While I don't necessarily think this ruling is terrible, I do think it should have been done through legislation.  That is where the legislating frohave come outm the bench comes in and that is dangerous.  You may think that is a good thing, but be careful what you wish for.  

I should specify that I mean on first meeting. "Hi my name is blah-blah and I'm gay" never happened with me.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
6 minutes ago, mjperry51 said:

And that's relevant because. . . . ?

The poster I quoted said, among others things that, gays announce their sexuality.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjperry51
Just now, Ladybird said:

The poster I quoted said, among others things that, gays announce their sexuality.

Okay -- a sample size of one.

Meaningless. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Buckwheat Jones
Posted (edited)

Well the issue I can see coming down the road is compelled speech and transgenders. Robert wants to be called Roberta and demands to use the ladies room at work. And if the employer doesn’t comply it’s literally a Federal case. 

Or if you’re outside of the workplace, and you don’t want to call Robert by his new name, then he may claim you’re instigating violence against him. And as he he has every right to defend himself, he may stick you in the eye with his hair pick. 

Its not so much the ruling I find disturbing as it is the latitude with which militants grant themselves. I will refer to a Trans by whatever name or pronoun they want for themselves in a personal setting just to be polite, but I won’t do that when referring to them generally because I don’t believe what they believe for themselves. I am not going to affirm something that I don’t believe is true simply because they demand that I do so. 

image.thumb.jpeg.8f016b696f39eaab544bbfce24ba5683.jpegummm....no.

Edited by Buckwheat Jones
Add pic
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satellite66
Posted (edited)

Can a gay employee be fired for wearing a MAGA hat?   We know that wearing a MAGA hat can get you beat up.  

Edited by satellite66
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BootsieBets
29 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

I should specify that I mean on first meeting. "Hi my name is blah-blah and I'm gay" never happened with me.

OK, so you and I have had different experiences.  They didn’t walk up to me and say, Hi, my name if Robert and I am gay.  The one situation was more of a conversation that started shortly after I began volunteering (first meeting) at an organization and the guy started to say he hoped that it wasn’t going to be a problem that half the people were gay and he was and if I had a problem with that, yada, yada, yada.  Very weird, like he didn’t want a straight woman there.  He didn’t know what my orientation was, which was a strange thing.  I didn’t say Hi, I’m straight and here to help.  The other was a little different in that he just started to talk very pointedly during training about the fact that there were a lot of different people there and that he was gay (which was evident as he was very out there) and there were a lot of gays working there.  I shrugged and went about my business.  Turned out we ended up getting along pretty well.  Not best friends, but we had fun.  Just sort of a bumpy start.  Both were very vocal about gay rights and “preached” it often.  I don’t think I could have talked about my politics at either place to tell you the truth, though.  In fact, I know I couldn't, even though it was quite a few years ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown
40 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

I should specify that I mean on first meeting. "Hi my name is blah-blah and I'm gay" never happened with me.

Given that caveat, I have never seen a co-worker get fired the first day on the job.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...