Supreme Court enshrines protections for LGBTQ employees (and more)

[Fau Teixeira]

In a 6-3 majority decision written by conservative pin-up centerfold Neil Gorsuch, the supreme court said and I quote:

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.

And therefore, he said, the employer is in violation of the Civil Rights Act and the law.

Practically this means a few things.

Most directly it means that you can't be fired or discriminated against for your sexual orientation or identity. Putting those two gray areas solidly into protected classes. Thus reinforcing the Obama administration interpretation of the statute and rejecting the Trump interpretation.

As a result, a variety of rules that the Trump administration implemented or are in the process of implementing are no longer valid.  Such rules include things like the Betsy Devos rule prohibiting transgender people from using the bathroom for the gender that they identify with.  Ben Carson's rule allowing homeless shelters the ability to discriminate against transgenders. An HHS decision allowing medical providers to deny treatment to transgender patients. This will also impact ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to prohibit LGBT adoptions.

Personally I'm hoping that under a Biden administration that LGBT people sue religious schools and churches based on their now protected class. I literally can't wait.

This is all thanks to a couple of Justices put forth by the Federalist Society. Which basically creates the list of people Trump is allowed to nominate to the supreme court.  I kept hearing from people like CF (and to be fair others) that they don't like Trump or his policies but that they voted and continue to support him because of the supreme court. I'm curious if this type of ruling is what you were looking for Trump to deliver.

[Dolphster]

I was actually surprised by Trump's relatively reserved reaction.  He commented to reporters "They've ruled and we live with their decision. That's what it's all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court. Very powerful. A very powerful decision actually. But they have so ruled."   Not exactly embracing the decision, but at least he didn't embarrass himself by saying something stupid.   

As long as the implementation of the ruling is fair and equal treatment of those groups and not preferential treatment, then I'm totally fine with it.  I don't approve of any discrimination.  In all honesty, trans people still creep me the f' out.  But I'm old and I get it that I grew up in a different generation.  I'm not going to be one of those people who think that someone should be treated unfairly just because I don't care for how they roll.  Oddly, I am totally fine with homosexuality and have had gay friends before but their being gay had no more impact on me than my being straight had on them.  The old man in me can't help but be weirded out by trans people.  But by no means do I think they should be discriminated against.   

[CF DolFan]

In a 6-3 majority decision written by conservative pin-up centerfold Neil Gorsuch, the supreme court said and I quote:

And therefore, he said, the employer is in violation of the Civil Rights Act and the law.

Practically this means a few things.

Most directly it means that you can't be fired or discriminated against for your sexual orientation or identity. Putting those two gray areas solidly into protected classes. Thus reinforcing the Obama administration interpretation of the statute and rejecting the Trump interpretation.

As a result, a variety of rules that the Trump administration implemented or are in the process of implementing are no longer valid.  Such rules include things like the Betsy Devos rule prohibiting transgender people from using the bathroom for the gender that they identify with.  Ben Carson's rule allowing homeless shelters the ability to discriminate against transgenders. An HHS decision allowing medical providers to deny treatment to transgender patients. This will also impact ongoing efforts by the Trump administration to prohibit LGBT adoptions.

Personally I'm hoping that under a Biden administration that LGBT people sue religious schools and churches based on their now protected class. I literally can't wait.

This is all thanks to a couple of Justices put forth by the Federalist Society. Which basically creates the list of people Trump is allowed to nominate to the supreme court.  I kept hearing from people like CF (and to be fair others) that they don't like Trump or his policies but that they voted and continue to support him because of the supreme court. I'm curious if this type of ruling is what you were looking for Trump to deliver.

I'm not sure it means everything you think it does Fau. Based on everything I've read this specifically deals with work place discrimination. An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling I don't know that saying someone has to use the bathroom of the gender of birth falls into this category.

With that said I honestly thought "duh" when this came out. I was actually surprised 3 of them dissented. I never would have thought it was ok to fire someone based on their sexual preference unless it is a religious organization. For instance ... I don't expect Mosques to have to hire a gay or even Jewish person. I also have no issue with people who have had their sex organs replaced to go to the other bathrooms. My only concern is where any guy can proclaim to be a girl and go in a bathroom or locker room with underage girls.

[CF DolFan]

I was actually surprised by Trump's relatively reserved reaction.  He commented to reporters "They've ruled and we live with their decision. That's what it's all about. We live with the decision of the Supreme Court. Very powerful. A very powerful decision actually. But they have so ruled."   Not exactly embracing the decision, but at least he didn't embarrass himself by saying something stupid.    

I wasn't. I was more upset once again that the SC passed on several pieces of gun legislation and immigration laws. It's ridiculous to me they won't make a ruling on those things so the country can move on. I don't understand being able to say "I'm just not going to do my job again today".

[Fau Teixeira]

This was brought about by workplace discrimination, but the ruling is about clarifying the interpretation of the 1964 civil rights act and that piece of legislation does more than affect workplace law.

And i'm not the only one seeing it that way:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/15/supreme-court-denies-job-protection-lgbt-workers/4456749002/

The court's ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on federal civil rights laws barring sex discrimination in education, health care, housing and financial credit. Lawsuits pertaining to those laws are pending in lower courts, which are required to follow Supreme Court precedent.

[Spider-Dan]

I was more upset once again that the SC passed on several pieces of gun legislation and immigration laws.

Which cases are you referring to?

[Spider-Dan]

SCOTUS just blocked the Trump Administration's attempt to end DACA, saying that they did not follow the correct process to implement the change.  5-4, with Roberts providing the swing vote.

Now I'm starting to get scared.  If Roberts is stopping Trump from doing this, that usually means there is some real BS coming down the pipeline.  Offhand, my guess is that Roberts is getting ready to rule that states can place whatever restrictions on abortion admissions they like, effectively allowing red states to shadowban abortion ("You must be certified by [anti-abortion organization] to perform abortions in this state"), or possibly that he will rule that employers are allowed to deny contraceptive coverage on "moral grounds."

TANSTAAFL

[CF DolFan]

Which cases are you referring to?

Take your pick as they are numerous. We should be getting them settled instead we are just arguing amongst ourselves.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I wasn't. I was more upset once again that the SC passed on several pieces of gun legislation and immigration laws. It's ridiculous to me they won't make a ruling on those things so the country can move on. I don't understand being able to say "I'm just not going to do my job again today".

The SC gets 7000-8000 petitions a year and hear about 80.  Just because your favorite didn’t make the top 1% doesn’t mean they aren’t doing their job.  The S. Ct. tends to do its best if it waits for several circuits and state s. cts make rulings first.

[CF DolFan]

The SC gets 7000-8000 petitions a year and hear about 80.  Just because your favorite didn’t make the top 1% doesn’t mean they aren’t doing their job.  The S. Ct. tends to do its best if it waits for several circuits and state s. cts make rulings first.

Seriously. Can you please try and make one post to a conservative that isn't just you being an asshole? No wonder no one takes you serious.