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 ...
Trust me, I work in HR this stuff happens all the time when an employer wants to get rid of an employee for being obnoxious or a troublemaker but is afraid of being sued, you just need to invent a "legitimate" reason and document it.
So, let’s see. You can be fired from your job for saying, “All lives matter”, but not for being a pervert.
Look for instances of sexual harassment. I’ve heard from friends about lesbian restaurant/bar managers hiring their girlfriends and firing them when the sexual relationship(s) soured. Also heard about catty infighting at a hospital when lesbian doctors and nurses had it in for their ex-es when those relationship soured or advances were rejected.
From the excerpt above: They conceded that sexual orientation was not on the minds of anyone in Congress when the civil rights law was passed.
If you are a litigious lawyer you will love it.
It is horrible news. It provides the trial lawyers one more reason to attack small and family-owned businesses.
Statutes mean what their words say they mean. Gays have been with mankind since the beginning it is nothing new. If those who wrote, voted for and ultimately signed the Civil Rights Act intended to provide protections for gays, they would have said so. They did not. The role of the Supreme Court should not be to re-write statutes to fit current societal preferences. That is the job of Congress. This is judicial dictatorship.
Homosexuality is a mental illness and was described as so until about 1980 when the homomafia got it expunged from the DSM. Never hire mentally ill people.
Judas Roberts strikes again.
Thanks, Dumbya.
> You can only discriminate based on traits that affect their ability to to the job. <
I have mixed feelings about this. What you said there makes perfect sense. But suppose you ran a fundamentalist Christian (or Jewish or etc.) private school. It looks like now you cannot turn away some gay guy who likes to dress as a woman. And if you do, lawsuit time.
That doesnt seem right.
So now you can’t put you need a certain sex to do the job, such as Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz is now open to males.
Of course male jobs were already being co-opted (e.g. CPT Marvel).
Going to play hell with GOGO joints.
I agree this does not affect anything. In fact, now sexual harassment laws apply to homosexuals, lesbians and transgendered as well.
A very bad day for strict constructionists and for people who take the separation of powers seriously.
The minority opinion is worth reading. They correctly point out that whether discrimination based on sexual orientation should be unlawful is something the legislative branch should and was debating. Bills were introduced numerous times to add it to the law.
But it’s simply not the job of the court to change the meaning of a statute.
And its’ a VERY VERY bad day for people who hoped Gorsuch would be a strict constructionist.
Sorry to seem like a defeatist but this decision makes the 2020 election a lot less important in my opinion.
You can always count on Roberts to come to the rescue of homos
Now that Gorsuch is the new Justice Kennedy, what case is next on the Agenda?
What you're seeing here is the natural progression of a fascist political-economic system, where private employers increasingly function as arms of the state.
The court is rewriting the meaning of the law in effect creating a new law.
“ sexual orientation discrimination was a form of sex discrimination.”
“Sex” when the law was written meant biological sex i.e male and female. “Sexual orientation” means sexual behavior whether it’s constructive or the destructive result of mental illness.
In the present this sets up revoking faithful Christian organizations 501c3 status.
Also with this ruling the court is opening up a court ordered legalization of pedophilia which is widely regarded among “experts” to be a sexual orientation.
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.
Logic missing they ruled to give special treatment to gays.
The problem is you will have to prove the sexual orientation didn't enter into it. Just because you can make up some other reason doesn't mean a lawyer won't make you prove it. Lawyers love these cases. Well, some lawyers do.
The Civil Rights Act targeted immutable characteristics, not lifestyle choices.
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.