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...
Transgenderism is not a sexual orientation but that kind of common sense escapes most jurists.
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?
“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.
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.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Corrupt lawmakers unconstitutionally expanded the fed's constitutionally limited powers when they made the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964 and its titles imo. And now, post-FDR era, institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court justices are attempting to politically rewrite the unconstitutional CRA to make it even more unconstitutional imo.
From a related thread…
You would probably like to think that the first thing that the Supreme Court does in deciding if a federal law has been violated would be to check if the states have expressly constitutionally given the constitutionally-limited power feds the specific power to make the law in the first place. If the Court cannot find a clause that expressly and reasonably justifies a law then the law is unconstitutional.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
But neeeu.
Misguided, post-17th Amendment ratification, post-FDR era Supreme Court justices need to pull their heads out of their institutional indoctrination and recognize that the only mention of sex in the Constitution is in the 19th Amendment (19A). The states ratified that amendment in response to the Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett which recognized sex strictly on the basis of female and male biological sexes.
"19th Amendment:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added]."
In other words, the Democratic vote-winning Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its titles are unconstitutional imo because they address sex related protections that are clearly outside the scope of Congress’s 19A voting rights powers.
Let's also throw in the 15th Amendment to undermine the constitutionally indefensible, non-voting-related race protections of CRA.
"15th Amendment:Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.Section 2: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation [emphasis added].”
Patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to fully support PDJT's vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also do this.
New patriot lawmakers also need to support PDJT in deciding the fate of people in prison for violating a federal law that the feds never had the express constitutional authority to make.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Corrections, insights welcome.
So, if I read this correctly, the employee at the funeral home was fired because he/she refused to dress up like a typical funeral home employee (I presume a suit and tie typical of male business attire).
Was he hired as a transgender or did he dress up like a man originally and only refused after switching his “identity”? If the latter, I would side with the funeral home because the transgender made him/herself a liability to the home’s business viability by dressing up as a woman (in other words, he/she creeped out the customers).
Can the funeral home prove he was hurting their business by dressing that way? Did his/her revenue generation drop after his transition?
Conversely, if he showed up for the job interview dressed as a woman and never presented himself to them as a man, then it is their fault for hiring him/her in the first place and have no grounds to fire him/her if she had otherwise been a satisfactory employee.