Posted on 10/10/2019 8:38:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Both sides? So there’s a correct way of retconning “transgender rights” into a piece of civil rights legislation enacted more than half a century ago, at a time when transgenderism did not exist as a political ideology.
Why is the govt. Atty., ostensibly arguing the conservative case, citing Obergefell as a justification?
This should be an easy one for Gorsuch, the government has no right to forbid private “discrimination” against anyone.
The flood gates will be open and anyone can claim protected civil rights status.
Homosexuals and trans will lord over us.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was very explicit to which groups the Act applied.
Why can’t Gorsuch stop this desructive practice of legislating from the bench?
Why is it a Judge thinks they can read into a law what the lawmakers intended? It the law doesn’t say a thing about an issue, then the issue is not legally supported period.
If the law does not say LGBT whatever, then the Justices should boot it to Congress to amend the Act to include LGBTQ whatever. That’s where the case ends, it ends with Congress taking it up or not.
“Imvidious”... LOL!
The medias must love that...
As a protected class,will being a transgender be a reason to get asylum if you are from a country that doesn’t protect your transgender rights? That could start a whole new flood.
Gorsuch once had a couple queers clerking for him and went to their
“wedding”. He’s also an Episcopalian who has openly queer pastors and lesbian pastors. He sees nothing wrong with their immoral, perverted lifestyle. He will be the swing vote in this case and of course side with the queers because he’s a social liberal and that’s pretty obvious.
This is a very slippery slope. If the SC finds current laws banning discrimination based on sex also include “gender identity” they will rue the day. It won’t be a week before a white male sues for racial discrimination based on his “racial identity” as a black woman. Soon enough, nearly everybody turned down for a job or fired will be making similar claims.
Transgenderism is not a sexual orientation but that kind of common sense escapes most jurists.
That may be his sentiment, but that's irrelevant. What's the 1964 Civil Rights law say? Transgender is not a gender or a race, nor is homosexuality, so neither are covered by it. Plain and simple, if you follow the law.
It is not SCOTUS job to make law. Sex applies to biological sex of which there are two. Any other take is for the legislature to write.
So much for gaining a solid conservative majority. Gorsuch was marinated in this world view. I cannot imagine that he won’t pander to the sexual deviants.
Isn’t this case really about a business dress code? Is that illegal?
It was over when homos got permission to redefine marriage out of existence. All that followed was just a mop up.
“Justice Ginsburg observed that, unlike other classifications, certain distinctions require treating men and women differently”
Wow. Even the left’s most beloved Justice has the sanity to accept this objective reality.
If it’s not in the Bill of Rights or Constitution, then the federal government has no legal or moral authority.
Not to worry, a bunch of FReepers told me none of that matters since his "judicial philosophy" is "originalist" and that magically guarantees he will vote the right way for the rest of his life.
(Oh and BTW, remember Gorsuch replaced the across-the-board staunch conservative Scalia, which means Trump's "originalist" judge moved the court to the LEFT. But hey, the fact we couldn't even get a reliable conservative to replace a reliable conservative doesn't matter, Trump will also magically replace feminazi Ruth Bader Gingrich with a proven pro-lifer)
Simple answer... does it affect or have an effect on business. If yes, justified. If not, is it a formal policy of the business. If yes, justified.
Simple. If you don’t want trannies and they don’t engage the public make it policy. If your strength training coach at your gym shows up in heels and a dress... well sorry for their luck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.