Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ Workers Rights

[Furryrat]

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender in a major win for members of the LGBT community.

The holding is a blockbuster development in the history of gay rights in the United States.

While workers in about half the country were protected by local laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, there was no federal law that explicitly barred LGBT workers from being fired on that basis. The decision was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first nominee to the court. 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.

Read the full Opinion and Dissent (if legal brilliance and masochistic behaviors are your thing) here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1618_hfci.pdf

This is just another of many decisions where President Trump's appointed Justices have presented their own independent views and not simply sided with the solid Right agenda.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs/4456749002/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supr...ansgender.html

[Seran]

A landmark ruling to be certain, making the expression of orientation or non-binary genders a protected activity.

[Blazar]

This is just another of many decisions where President Trump's appointed Justices have presented their own independent views and not simply sided with the solid Right agenda.

See, the SCOTUS judges are in a unique position to do that though, because there's no take backs, and threats won't matter to them. There's literally nothing anyone can do to them. Would be nice if the entire government functioned the same way.

[~Rocktar~]

Demands for special/preferential treatment in 3. 2. 1.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

See, the SCOTUS judges are in a unique position to do that though, because there's no take backs, and threats won't matter to them. There's literally nothing anyone can do to them. Would be nice if the entire government functioned the same way.

You are insane. Any position should have checks and balances. I'm sure you'd agree with respect to POTUS, right?

[Ardwen]

Honestly this decision broke pretty much how I expected it to, the vastly more surprising one was their decision to not hear any of the 15 or so Second Amendment cases that were up for discussion, that is a much larger slap in the face to conservatives then this is. They essentially let stand much narrower laws on public carry and the like then anyone thought they would.

[Parkbandit]

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender in a major win for members of the LGBT community.

The holding is a blockbuster development in the history of gay rights in the United States.

While workers in about half the country were protected by local laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, there was no federal law that explicitly barred LGBT workers from being fired on that basis. The decision was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first nominee to the court. 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.

Read the full Opinion and Dissent (if legal brilliance and masochistic behaviors are your thing) here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1618_hfci.pdf

This is just another of many decisions where President Trump's appointed Justices have presented their own independent views and not simply sided with the solid Right agenda.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rs/4456749002/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/15/supr...ansgender.html

No one should be fired from a job (or not hired for a job) because of anything except his/her performance.

I'll have to read why 4 Justices thought that would be ok.

[Furryrat]

I'll have to read why 4 Justices thought that would be ok.

The Dissent, as most often is when authored by the conservative Justices, is based upon the fundamental view that the Court is not a legislative body.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, dissenting.

Like many cases in this Court, this case boils down to one fundamental question: Who decides? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination “because of ” an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The question here is whether Title VII 2 BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting should be expanded to prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court. The political branches are well aware of this issue. In 2007, the U. S. House of Representatives voted 235 to 184 to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 2013, the U. S. Senate voted 64 to 32 in favor of a similar ban. In 2019, the House again voted 236 to 173 to outlaw employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Although both the House and Senate have voted at different times to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, the two Houses have not yet come together with the President to enact a bill into law. The policy arguments for amending Title VII are very weighty. The Court has previously stated, and I fully agree, that gay and lesbian Americans “cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9). But we are judges, not Members of Congress. And in Alexander Hamilton’s words, federal judges exercise “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, our role as judges is to interpret and follow the law as written, regardless of whether we like the result. Cf. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 420–421 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Our role is not to make or amend the law. As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation.

The next 26 pages go on to present his full Dissent.

[Viekn]

The Dissent, as most often is when authored by the conservative Justices, is based upon the fundamental view that the Court is not a legislative body.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, dissenting.

Like many cases in this Court, this case boils down to one fundamental question: Who decides? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination “because of ” an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The question here is whether Title VII 2 BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting should be expanded to prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court. The political branches are well aware of this issue. In 2007, the U. S. House of Representatives voted 235 to 184 to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 2013, the U. S. Senate voted 64 to 32 in favor of a similar ban. In 2019, the House again voted 236 to 173 to outlaw employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Although both the House and Senate have voted at different times to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, the two Houses have not yet come together with the President to enact a bill into law. The policy arguments for amending Title VII are very weighty. The Court has previously stated, and I fully agree, that gay and lesbian Americans “cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9). But we are judges, not Members of Congress. And in Alexander Hamilton’s words, federal judges exercise “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961). Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, our role as judges is to interpret and follow the law as written, regardless of whether we like the result. Cf. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 420–421 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring). Our role is not to make or amend the law. As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation.

I would think the decision was based on "interpreting" that "sex" in Title VII applied to lgbtq people, not that this was the courts basically legislating. Not sure I agree with Kavanaugh's reasoning here.

[Furryrat]

I would think the decision was based on "interpreting" that "sex" in Title VII applied to lgbtq people, not that this was the courts basically legislating.

This was the basis for the majority Opinion. Very briefly excerpted:

"The only statutorily protected characteristic at issue in today’s cases is “sex”— and that is also the primary term in Title VII whose meaning the parties dispute."

Not sure I agree with Kavanaugh's reasoning here.

Kavanaugh's Dissent is the more thorough and eloquent, as he prefers. The lead Dissent by Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas was far more accusatory of legislating from the bench.