Posted on 06/15/2020 7:22:54 AM PDT by Stravinsky
Washington — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is illegal for an employer to fire someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, delivering a major victory in the fight for civil rights for LGBT people.
The court's 6-3 ruling extends the scope of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion, to include LGBT people. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the majority's opinion, joined the liberal wing of the bench in ruling that "an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII."
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
You’re forgetting that DADT was overturned quite some time ago.
Just admit what you are. A social liberal. Mr. Robinson says this is a traditional morality believing site. Use caution. I’ve seen some people banned for less...
What you are describing was done by free, capitalistic, moral society that believed in itself and it’s future. That society is no more. We are more unfree by the day, less capitalistic by the day, and we no longer believe in our civilization.
Your pie-in-the-sky psychobabble bologny won’t stop it’s continuing decline.
Thorough performance/attendance/workmanship documentation is how you prove it. Prohibiting workplace discussions of a sexual/sexuality nature and avoiding engaging in them yourself greatly reduces the risk of anybody being able to prove the decision was based on anything other than professional reasons.
We've been screwed for decades by these so-called "strict constructionist" (oh, I'm sorry, we've renamed them "originalist" since the Bush era) GOP appointed judges, I expect the pattern to continue. Reagan's pick Sandra Day O'Connor was cited as a big win for conservatives during her early years on the court, too. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Basically, Trump moved the court to the LEFT and its now more ideologically like the Warren Burger era ("conservative majority" on paper but leftists routinely get new "wins" whenever one of the "conservative" judges goes wobbly), than the Rehnquist era. I would say the current idealogical makeup of the court is two solid conservatives (Thomas, Alito), three usually-conservative-but-can-be-swayed-to-turn-traitor-on-an-important-landmark-cultural-issue judges (Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh) and four hardcore marxists (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan)
But whatever, can't say the Gorsuch fan club wasn't warned. Liberal "precedents" like abortion-on-demand and gay marriage will never be overturned by Trump's "originalist" judges.
And I bet Harriet Miers is kicking herself for being tapped for the job by GWB instead of Trump. If the latter had happened, her appointment would have immediately hailed as an outstanding pick by "conservative leaders" across the US, FR would have erupted with about a dozen "God bless President Trump for keeping his campaign pledge and giving us terrific pro-life Christian Harriet Miers" posts congratulating her, and she'd be handing down "bipartisan" decisions with the four commie judges on SCOTUS as we speak.
>> Roberts is the new David Souter. <<
It's not THAT bad. I was vehemently AGAINST Gorsuch's appointment (probably almost the LONE voice of sanity on here, surrounded by mindless cheerleading for any and every judge Trump picks), but I would ideologically say its more like this:
Gorsuch = New Sandra Day O'Connor (USUALLY a decent conservative Republican, sincerely opposes leftist dogma on numerous issues, but is NOT a social conservative in any way and agrees with the leftist worldview on certain topics). I predicted that at the time of his appointment, and IMO I nailed it. Replacing Scalia with him was a huge DOWNGRADE. It could have been far more justified if Gorsuch was replacing a monster like Ginsburg, as that would have been an improvement.
Kavanaugh = New Anthony Kennedy (wobbly: sides with the conservative majority most of the time, but not dependable and can be easily swayed to go left now and then... key "swing" vote on important decisions). This was actually WORSE than I predicted. He was far from my ideal choice but I held my nose and supported him because I thought he'd be a SLIGHT improvement over Kennedy. So far, I'm seeing little difference. It was basically a wash.
Roberts = New Warren Burger ("conservative" Chief Justice on paper, but NOT a strong conservative and in no way "leads" the court to push for a conservative direction. Should have never been appointed CJ, as the liberal judges on the court run rogue and have considerably sway over the rest of the court. Might have been OK as an associate Justice). This was much more disappointing than I predicted, though to be fair, Bush originally wanted to name him to replace O'Connor which would have been an upgrade (Roberts is pro-life, for example)
Souter and Stevens were both disasters: they were named by GOP Presidents and touted as decent Republicans, but ended up voting reliably with the RATS, both veered further and further left over the years until they might have been even WORSE than some card-carrying RAT judges. Thankfully, no Bush or Trump judge has gotten THAT bad. At least not yet!
Not sure I agree with you on Gorsuch and Kavanaugh except to the extent that now we have to worry about both of them like we had to do with O’Connor and Kennedy, but the Roberts and Burger similarities become more obvious by the day. Not that conservative, not a natural leader, and weak as hell. It’s a shame Rehnquist didn’t have a more favorable Court during his years as we might have seen a legitimately good Court for the first time since before the Warren revolution.
I’m not saying it will change, but in an ideal world all peaceful interactions should be voluntary. Just because something is offensive, does not mean there should be a law against it. I can’t think of any business that would turn someone away based on race. If they did, the cost to their business would be immense.
I foolishly supported Roberts at the time of his appointment too, but I LEARNED from my mistake and I predicted the Roberts court was ending up much more like Burger than Rehnquist in 2017, long before such a view was "popular" on FR. FReepers were instead having orgasms over any and every judge Trump appointing and hailing it as a great triumph for conservatives despite there being zero evidence these judges would vote the way they wanted.
Bashing Bush for Roberts turning traitor but hailing Trump for picking Gorsuch was stupid and hypocritical of FR. We have to remember the context: the selection was to replace SCALIA and the appointment was being confirmed by a REPUBLICAN controlled Senate, POST "nuclear" option preventing filibusters... there was ZERO excuse for naming a stealth judge. Trump could have named Rush Limbaugh and EVERY RAT Senator screamed about it until they turned blue, and he'd STILL have the votes to confirm such a judge.
Even taking aside the context, Roberts was "more conservative" on paper than Gorsuch was. For example, Roberts had clerked for Rehnquist and his wife was a card-carrying member of a pro-life organization.
The real problem though, is having Roberts as CJ instead of associate justice. Combined with some more "wobbly" conservatives now joining him on the court, the net result is that we now have Warren Burger Court 2.0.
Agreed. But of course not all people are as open minded and fair as you sound to be. C’est la vie I guess. What can we do but vote?
A private investigator should find out what kind of blackmail the left has on Roberts and expose it so that he can no longer be blackmailed into submission.
Yeah, and they’ll still be able to sue your ass off for doing that thanks to this Supreme Court decision. It protects them from much more than just being fired. All they have to do is say the magic words “hostile work environment” and the Feds will swoop in to investigate.
What is reading the opinion going to tell us? There is some protection for trannies that was written in the law with invisible ink and we all missed it?
Not really feasible. You gonna go from having one HR person to having 20 HR people for the same number of employees? Just for one example of the inefficiency.
What do they say? Two times is coincidence, three times is conspiracy?
Well, we’ve been screwed over by “our” justices way more than two times. That NEVER happens with “their” justices, not even once.
Then the law means nothing, and there is only naked power, at the end of the day.
“Just don’t say “I am firing you because you are a homo”
Easy peasy”
Then the court is going to introduce you to a concept called “disparate impact”, which they will use to determine what they think your real intentions were, regardless of what you claim.
“Who anyone chooses to love or sleep with should not be a factor in the eyes of the law.”
Well, that’s exactly what this decision does: force the law to take that into account. Two people can go to court with the exact same circumstances, and one will lose their case, while the other will win, simply because of what they choose to do in their bedroom at night. That is justice to you?
“This decision doesn’t force employers to do anything.”
Nonsense, you just don’t realize all the ramifications of this decision. You can operate your business exactly as you always have, not caring for anyone’s preferences at all, and you’ll still be liable to be sued if the government decides that you didn’t hire enough freaks. They won’t have to prove that you even thought about the matter at all, they only would have to show that your company employs a few percent less of them than their portion of the population, and you will lose and be forced to let the government interfere in your business decisions.
“Statutory Rape or Child Endangerment/molestation are still crimes. A predator would not be protected.”
There’s a whole movement of them that do not commit those crimes (so they claim), but still admit that they have the same kind of attraction. You can’t not hire them because of a criminal record if they don’t have one, and now if you don’t hire them because of their “preference” they will sue you, and most likely win.
“It is SO easy to create a reason not to hire someone.”
Basically you are advocating to disobey the same law that you are defending then. Hypocrite.
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.