Landmark Supreme Court decision gives civil rights protections to LGBT

[Jables1604]

Kavanaugh's opinion, while I disagree, is a reasonable dissent.

He likes beer.

[tower912]

Franklin Graham is always great craic.

[rocket surgeon]

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.

was this supposed to be teal?  fox news doesn't necessarily report news based on if it makes them "happy" or not.  i'm sure if i look into some archives, i could find a lot of stuff they reported that may not align with their "slant".   whether or not they are "happy" about everything they report is kinda short sighted imho of course.  so i'm chalking this one up as teal shoulda been implied

[MUeng]

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."

Kavanaugh definitely wanted to punt this one after reading his portion.  Makes an interesting point on the separation of power, but perhaps too literal in his interpretation of the written word of Title VII.  The decision is 100% obvious but Gorsuch's way there was pretty neat to read. 

[MU82]

was this supposed to be teal?  fox news doesn't necessarily report news based on if it makes them "happy" or not.  i'm sure if i look into some archives, i could find a lot of stuff they reported that may not align with their "slant".   whether or not they are "happy" about everything they report is kinda short sighted imho of course.  so i'm chalking this one up as teal shoulda been implied

You don't think Fox News and MSNBC report on news that they also aren't happy about?

Do you think most Fox News on-air personalities were happy about those SCOTUS rulings?

[warriorchick]

You don't think Fox News and MSNBC report on news that they also aren't happy about?

Do you think most Fox News on-air personalities were happy about those SCOTUS rulings?

I am sure Shepard Smith was actually quite happy about it.

[Billy Hoyle]

was this supposed to be teal?  fox news doesn't necessarily report news based on if it makes them "happy" or not.  i'm sure if i look into some archives, i could find a lot of stuff they reported that may not align with their "slant".   whether or not they are "happy" about everything they report is kinda short sighted imho of course.  so i'm chalking this one up as teal shoulda been implied

The couple hours of "News" probably didn't care. The vast, vast majority of opinion/propaganda/misinformation programming was probably apocalyptic.

[rocket surgeon]

You don't think Fox News and MSNBC report on news that they also aren't happy about?

Do you think most Fox News on-air personalities were happy about those SCOTUS rulings?

  doesn't matter and that's not the point.  i think the comment was unnecessary unless we open this bad boy up to all the stuff "the others" ignore cuz it doesn't get 'em all goose pimply(no offense goose.  and if ya haven't noticed, it still is fox news against a whole bunch of others.

i don't know if MOST fox news on air personalities were happy or not, but maybe i'm just weird, but the rulings really didn't evoke either sadness or joy out of me.  actually, it was refreshing to see a bipartisan ruling, showing some that all the unnecessary beatdowns and personal attacks on these guys when they were appointed were way out of line.   

[MU82]

actually, it was refreshing to see a bipartisan ruling, showing some that all the unnecessary beatdowns and personal attacks on these guys when they were appointed were way out of line.

There was a "beatdown" on only one guy, who was accused of sexual improprieties by a woman that even Trump called "a very credible witness" (in a rare moment of honesty).

https://fortune.com/2018/09/28/trump-ford-credible-witness/

And yes, I agree that it was refreshing to see a bipartisan ruling, though it was the only possible logical ruling. Really should have been 9-0.

I am sure Shepard Smith was actually quite happy about it.

Which probably goes to why he no longer is at Fox News.

[rocket surgeon]

I am sure Shepard Smith was actually quite happy about it.

  shep was universally well liked by real people.  he was at fox for 25 years.  if that isn't a testament to #foxnewscouldcarelesswhatyoursexualorientationis nothing is.  shep was/is a true professional unlike his "peer"(loosely referenced) at the other station.  we will probably never know what really went on behind the scenes, but no matta

correction-"I am sure Shepard Smith IS actually quite happy about it"

[MU82]

#foxnewscouldcarelesswhatyoursexualorientationis

#foxnewswasfilledwithcreepyoldwhitemenwhosexuallyharasseditsfemaleemployees

[muwarrior69]

  shep was universally well liked by real people.  he was at fox for 25 years.  if that isn't a testament to #foxnewscouldcarelesswhatyoursexualorientationis nothing is.  shep was/is a true professional unlike his "peer"(loosely referenced) at the other station.  we will probably never know what really went on behind the scenes, but no matta

correction-"I am sure Shepard Smith IS actually quite happy about it"

If he left Fox because of his sexual orientation that would have been reported by now. He left primarily because he was the outlier when it came to Trump reporting at the network and secondarily because of his low ratings which to no ones surprise by Fox viewers.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

If he left Fox because of his sexual orientation that would have been reported by now. He left primarily because he was the outlier when it came to Trump reporting at the network and secondarily because of his low ratings which to no ones surprise by Fox viewers.

I think this is accurate. 25 years is an awfully long time in any position, and being the outlier for that long was, I imagine, takes its toll. It would be no surprise if he did have low ratings, Smith played it down the middle and that it definitely not what Fox news viewers tune in for.

[MU82]

Was wondering what Shep was up to, so I looked it up.

He has a non-compete agreement that won't let him go to another network until this summer. ABC, CNN and MSNBC are said to be interested ... and why wouldn't they be? He is talented and knowledgeable.

He supposedly is not interested in being in a big opinion-giving role but more of a regular news gig.

He has donated $500K to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonprofit group that works to protect press freedom overseas. Very important work.

[muwarrior69]

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.

I hope you are right, but I don't see it. Homosexuals and Transgendered people are not discriminated because of their sex but their behavior or relationships as you stated. Being black, male or female is not a behavior. So religious institutions now must hire them because those behaviors are protected by the new meaning of sex or go to court to protect their religious freedom.

[The Sultan]

I hope you are right, but I don't see it. Homosexuals and Transgendered people are not discriminated because of their sex but their behavior or relationships as you stated. Being black, male or female is not a behavior. So religious institutions now must hire them because those behaviors are protected by the new meaning of sex.

Gender identity and sexual orientation are traits.  Not behaviors.  And not allowing someone to act upon those traits is problematic.

[muwarrior69]

Gender identity and sexual orientation are traits.  Not behaviors.  And not allowing someone to act upon those traits is problematic.

Trait: noun

a particular characteristic that can produce a particular type of behavior:
His sense of humor is one of his better traits.
Arrogance is a very unattractive personality/character trait.

So where in title vii does it say traits; it says sex. I guess we can't discriminate now based on our traits, like arrogance.

[Pakuni]

I hope you are right, but I don't see it. Homosexuals and Transgendered people are not discriminated because of their sex but their behavior or relationships as you stated. Being black, male or female is not a behavior. So religious institutions now must hire them because those behaviors are protected by the new meaning of sex or go to court to protect their religious freedom.

Is a closeted or celibate gay person not really gay because they're not behaving gay?

And no, nobody is being forced to hire a person because he/she is gay or transgender. You're just not allowed to discriminate against him/her because of it.

[muwarrior69]

Is a closeted or celibate gay person not really gay because they're not behaving gay?

And no, nobody is being forced to hire a person because he/she is gay or transgender. You're just not allowed to discriminate against him/her because of it.

If the condition of employment is to abide by the tenants of that religious institution and that condition is in conflict with the LGBTQ life style and that institution refuses to to hire them because they are LGBTQ how is that not discrimination.

How could you fire or discriminate against someone for being gay when you don't know they are gay.

[The Sultan]

Trait: noun

a particular characteristic that can produce a particular type of behavior:

Right.  It CAN produce a type of behavior.  It isn't the behavior itself.

[Pakuni]

If the condition of employment is to abide by the tenants of that religious institution and that condition is in conflict with the LGBTQ life style and that institution refuses to to hire them because they are LGBTQ how is that not discrimination.

This is not what you wrote. You wrote " So religious institutions now must hire them." That's not true. Nobody is forced to hire a gay or transgender person. You just can't refuse to hire or fire a person for that reason.
If you read Gorsuch's opinion, he writes that whether Title VII's religious exemption applies for LGTBQ cases has yet to be decided.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

nm

[The Sultan]

If the condition of employment is to abide by the tenants of that religious institution and that condition is in conflict with the LGBTQ life style and that institution refuses to to hire them because they are LGBTQ how is that not discrimination.

How could you fire or discriminate against someone for being gay when you don't know they are gay.

I mean, I have never asked my assistant if she identifies as female.  Or married to someone who identifies as male.  But the picture with them and her three kids on her desk kinda leads me to believe that she is a heterosexual female.

[muwarrior69]

This is not what you wrote. You wrote " So religious institutions now must hire them." That's not true. Nobody is forced to hire a gay or transgender person. You just can't refuse to hire or fire a person for that reason.
If you read Gorsuch's opinion, he writes that whether Title VII's religious exemption applies for LGTBQ cases has yet to be decided.

Not forced, just can't refuse. So a small church will now have to incur large legal fees to go to court to see if their first amendment rights are exempted or not. Is there a religious exemption in Title VII?

[MU82]

This ruling leads me to believe that "bathroom bills," like HB2 in NC a few years ago that cost the state's economy hundreds of millions of dollars in business, would not fare well if appealed up to this SCOTUS.

And of course, the irony of the bathroom bill (aka Hate Bill 2) was that it would have legally required transgender men - women who now identify as men - to use the ladies room.

So all of the hypocrites who claimed the law was necessary to "protect little girls" would have had no problem with somebody such as Chaz Bono - full beard and all - occupying the same ladies room as little girls? Talk about the unintended consequences of legalizing discrimination.

Not forced, just can't refuse. So a small church will now have to incur large legal fees to go to court to see if their first amendment rights are exempted or not. Is there a religious exemption in Title VII?

Did you miss the part in which this has yet to be decided? I said it yesterday, and Pakuni JUST said it.