Posted on 06/15/2020 7:25:08 AM PDT by John W
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, a major victory for advocates of gay rights — and a surprising one from an increasingly conservative court.
The decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, among other factors, also covers sexual orientation. It upheld rulings from lower courts that said sexual orientation discrimination was a form of sex discrimination.
Across the nation, 21 states have their own laws prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Seven more provide that protection only to public employees. Those laws remain in force, but Monday's ruling means federal law now provides similar protection for LGBT employees in the rest of the country.
Gay rights groups considered the case a highly significant one, even more important than the fight to get the right to marry, because nearly every LGBT adult has or needs a job.
They conceded that sexual orientation was not on the minds of anyone in Congress when the civil rights law was passed. But they said when an employer fires a male employee for dating men, but not a female employee who dates men, that violates the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Liars lie, and judges are liars.
The vote was 6 to 3, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch writing the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The Black-robed Priests have spoken.
Why was it up before the court again. This was settled law in 1964. What am I missing...beside reading the article.
Ug
And the trial lawyers all hoisted a toast to continued extortion of business.
It didn’t spell out discrimination due to sexual preference because that wasn’t an issue at the time.
Gorsuch and Roberts joined the 4 Leftists.
https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/17-1618_hfci.pdf
I actually saw this as good news. You can only discriminate based on traits that affect their ability to to the job. That applies to race, sex, age, number of limbs, etc. I’m not really seeing the problem with this.
Two disappointments
Activism masked as textualism. No doubt some people here who secretly prefer the outcome will cling to that as a defense.
If the article form this Lying leftist Media outlet is true, then,
Supreme Court rules existing UNCONSTITUTIONAL civil rights law protects gay and lesbian workers
It's just one more reason for U.S. employers to outsource their operations to countries that don't have "civil rights" laws.
My business model is simple: I hire only contractors and family members ... and this model is driven almost entirely by my desire to avoid the kind of sh!t that passes for labor law in the U.S.
The Alphabet Mafia wins again.
This is going to expand the questions companies ask to “What is your sexual preference?” from otherwise visible characteristics.
Companies find it necessary to arm themselves with this information upon hire. Now they will need to constantly ask if our sexual orientation changed, while recording our sex and color was a constant.
This is bizarre and scary.
Never hire a homosexual. They will always tear down any organization they join.
So now I guess if you’re an employer you need to query all of your people as to their sexual preference in order to protect yourself?
So apparently Christian bookstores will have to hire crossdressers.
I seem to recall at least one such provocateur case being brought.
i agree- why shouldn’t they be protected under existing civil rights laws?? Too much knee jerk reaction here- with one guy calling Gorsuch a “disappointment”.
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.