Landmark Supreme Court decision gives civil rights protections to LGBT

[MU82]

The Supreme Court handed a big win to the LGBT community Monday, ruling in a 6-3 decision that an employer who fires a worker for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act -- which already protected people from employer sex discrimination, as well as discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-gay-workers-protected-from-job-discrimination-in-big-win-for-lgbt-rights

Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts voted with the left-leaning justices.

"Ours is a society of written laws. Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee," said the court's opinion, written by Gorsuch.

In other words, plain and simple, discrimination is wrong. Bravo to the justices.

[JWags85]

Interesting that the Trump appointee, who was the source of much controversy and debate at time of appointment, not only slide “left” in the ruling, but wrote the opinion on it. Nice to see as I think discrimination and human rights should supersede politics (though that’s clearly rarely the case)

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

IMO, I get the sense Gorsuch is a true libertarian and not the fake Tea Party libertarian and you would expect decisions like this on this subject from a true one.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Gorsuch isn't always easy to define.  And justices aren't always easy to put on a left / right continuum. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Here's a pretty good summary of how Gorsuch got there.  There is some leftist fluff there, but you can't get through that to see where Gorsuch is coming from.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/supreme-court-lgbtq-discrimination-employment.html

[real chili 83]

82 complimenting this SCOTUS????

And....quoting Fox news????

Dogs and cats getting along.  ND not sucking.  Are these things possible too????

Mike, that was too easy.

Oh, and in before the lock.  It's too bad this will happen, but that's Scoop for ya these days.

[MU82]

82 complimenting this SCOTUS????

And....quoting Fox news????

Dogs and cats getting along.  ND not sucking.  Are these things possible too????

Mike, that was too easy.

Oh, and in before the lock.  It's too bad this will happen, but that's Scoop for ya these days.

Whenever I have a choice, I like to quote Fox News so an item won't be dismissed by potential readers.

This is a major SCOTUS decision affecting a large segment of society. By now, most of us know several gay people; this is no longer a fringe group of "others." So this is an important topic, and this thread shouldn't be locked, at least not unless it becomes political.

Or, as you said, in before the lock.

[Elonsmusk]

Glad to see this outcome.  Thumbs up to Gorsuch and Roberts.  This one should have been 9-0 IMO.

[Pakuni]

Kavanaugh's opinion, while I disagree, is a reasonable dissent.
Alito's is the judicial equivalent of a temper tantrum.

[muwarrior69]

So how will this decision affect title IX and women's sports. If sex, gender and gender identity all mean the same thing I could see where boys who can't compete with more athletic boys will decide to identify as girls just to get that basketball (or any other sports) scholarship. I'm not sure what the rule is, but do they have to be undergoing hormone treatment to get a women's scholarship at the collegiate level or could a guy just say I identify as a women to get that scholarship.

Just to make clear I agree with the SCOTUS decision, but I fear it could hurt women athletes unless there are clear rules that the person is truly transitioning. Girls are sewing in Connecticut over this issue and wonder how this decision will affect that case.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

So how will this decision affect title IX and women's sports. If sex, gender and gender identity all mean the same thing I could see where boys who can't compete with more athletic boys will decide to identify as girls just to get that basketball (or any other sports) scholarship. I'm not sure what the rule is, but do they have to be undergoing hormone

The ruling was limited to extending gender-based employment rights to sexual orientation and trangendered individuals.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Kavanaugh's opinion, while I disagree, is a reasonable dissent.
Alito's is the judicial equivalent of a temper tantrum.

Which is interesting considering the narrative around both of them.

[Pakuni]

So how will this decision affect title IX and women's sports. If sex, gender and gender identity all mean the same thing I could see where boys who can't compete with more athletic boys will decide to identify as girls just to get that basketball (or any other sports) scholarship. I'm not sure what the rule is, but do they have to be undergoing hormone treatment to get a women's scholarship at the collegiate level or could a guy just say I identify as a women to get that scholarship.

Just to make clear I agree with the SCOTUS decision, but I fear it could hurt women athletes unless there are clear rules that the person is truly transitioning. Girls are sewing in Connecticut over this issue and wonder how this decision will affect that case.

I don't see that as the outcome of, or premise behind, this ruling. The majority seems to have found that when you discriminate against a transgender or homosexual person, you are inherently taking their sex into account. Because how can you disapprove of someone's same-sex relationship if you didn't consider that person's sex in the first place?
But that's not the same as saying sex, orientation and gender are synonymous.

[Pakuni]

Which is interesting considering the narrative around both of them.

True.
Kavanaugh's ruling, from skimming it, seems to be "Congress should amend the Title VII to fix this problem instead of the court doing it through this ruling, but it's good that we're not going to allow discrimination."

[muwarrior69]

The ruling was limited to extending gender-based employment rights to sexual orientation and trangendered individuals.

So if the precedent is set for Title VII why not Title IX?

[GooooMarquette]

Kudos for SCOTUS getting this one right, despite real or perceived political biases.

[tower912]

Could not be more obvious.   Huzzah.

[muwarrior69]

So will this ruling apply to religious institutions and churches, temples and mosques?

[tower912]

A fascinating dichotomy.    Other than mega church pastors, no one goes into the ministry to get rich.    Most feel a calling and are following John 13:34, attempting to love others as God as loved us.    Ironically, when the LGBTQ children of God go into work for most churches, the institution can't follow that commandment and feels the need to demonize them.       


I don't know what will happen from a legislative perspective.    I imagine a bunch of middle aged and older white guys will look for ways to exempt religious institutions and allow them to discriminate.   

From a personal perspective, I try to discriminate against the people Jesus told us in the gospels to discriminate against.   

[MU82]

So how will this decision affect title IX and women's sports. If sex, gender and gender identity all mean the same thing I could see where boys who can't compete with more athletic boys will decide to identify as girls just to get that basketball (or any other sports) scholarship.

So if the precedent is set for Title VII why not Title IX?

So will this ruling apply to religious institutions and churches, temples and mosques?

"You ask a lot of questions!"

Here's what the AP article about the ruling said:

But Monday's decision is not likely to be the court's last word on a host of issues revolving around LGBT rights, Gorsuch noted.

Lawsuits are pending over transgender athletes' participation in school sporting events, and courts also are dealing with cases about sex-segregated bathrooms and locker rooms, a subject that the justices seemed concerned about during arguments in October. Employers who have religious objections to employing LGBT people also might be able to raise those claims in a different case, Gorsuch said.

“But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today," he wrote.

[mu_hilltopper]

The Fox news set can't be happy with SCOTUS today, they seem to have lost a triple header.

LGBT decision.  Sanctuary city challenge rejection.  Gun right lawsuit(s) rejection. 

[MU82]

The Fox news set can't be happy with SCOTUS today, they seem to have lost a triple header.

LGBT decision.  Sanctuary city challenge rejection.  Gun right lawsuit(s) rejection.

Hey 'topper ... don't make me ban you for making this political!

I always wanted to say that.

And yes, you're right. Actually, make that "correct," not right.

[muwarrior69]

A fascinating dichotomy.    Other than mega church pastors, no one goes into the ministry to get rich.    Most feel a calling and are following John 13:34, attempting to love others as God as loved us.    Ironically, when the LGBTQ children of God go into work for most churches, the institution can't follow that commandment and feels the need to demonize them.       


I don't know what will happen from a legislative perspective.    I imagine a bunch of middle aged and older white guys will look for ways to exempt religious institutions and allow them to discriminate.   

From a personal perspective, I try to discriminate against the people Jesus told us in the gospels to discriminate against.

I share your sentiment. My choir director at my parish was gay and living with his partner. Just a month before he died from AIDS, he along with 15 other RCIA candidates were confirmed, received communion and accepted as a members of our parish and the Catholic Church. At his memorial mass over 2000 parishioners celebrated his life and 17 years of service to our community. He was loved.

However, there are those who believe otherwise; that the gay person is living a sinful life. As wrong headed as that may be to you and me they are following their beliefs in good conscience and the state should not compel them to act in contradiction to those beliefs. How many Imans would openly accept gays into their Mosques and schools?  I don't want to live in a country where the state compels people what to believe or think and how to act on those beliefs.

[tower912]

I don't think the state should pass laws saying it is OK to discriminate.

[Pakuni]

I don't want to live in a country where the state compels people what to believe or think and how to act on those beliefs.

Too late.
Signed, Mormon Polygamists.

The state isn't telling anyone what to believe or think. They're just saying your right to believe or think something doesn't supersede Constitutional protections against discrimination (or other unlawful activity).