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 ...
Great, when a company hires a sales manager that looks to be a normal man, you can’t fire him when he shows up for work in a mini skirt, lipstick, and a 3 day beard.
Well then, I am gay now
Thanks, Supreme Court, nice to see that you are woke.
The Supreme Court just opened up a window and threw science out of it.
You left out churches. Part of 501c3 is compliance with all labor laws. If you can't discriminate based on behaviors that go against the religious beliefs of a church, you can be sued for your religious beliefs.
I can see fruits applying for jobs just to cash in with law suits.
I read the minority opinion. They say that there is ongoing legislation about ‘sexual orientation’. I agree.
I read the majority opinion, and find that the civil rights act of 1964 intended to prevent people from discriminating against individuals for silly things, including sex, race, ect.
Both the majority and minority opinion have weight. I don’t know if it is a disaster, but I think people are overreacting.
Fire people because they disrupting work flow, or because they annoy other employees, or because you believe you can do better with a new hire, or they are ‘dead’ weight. Don’t make it about silly stuff.
I’m good with protecting against job discrimination, etc., re: sexual orientation.
But I wish the court would be honest and consistent in making Congress rewrite laws if what is trying to be covered by a fair reading of existing law isn’t covered.
What I saw was this: We don’t need another law/amendment.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.Protecting the immoral drags the country down. We already got a taste of it in the Democratic cities, of late.
— John Adams
This is actually one reason I see this as good news. It further pushes us to the day of reckoning.
The constitution and bill of rights only protect us from government and public place discrimination. Private businesses and people on their own property have the constitutional right to discriminate for any reason whatsoever. That’s right. I believe the constitution protects our right to discriminate for whatever reason. It only ties the government’s hands.
At least that is how it works in my fantasy world. People don’t realize how much we are like the old Soviet Union. But instead of “disappearing” you to a gulag, they simply strip you of your ability to support yourself in any meaningful way.
At least people’s eyes are becoming more and more opened as to who our government really is. This is why this is a good thing.
What you should care about is that the SCOTUS still feels free to make the law mean whatever it feels it wants it to be, usurping the role of the legislature.
There is also the fundamental problem that race and the Civil War amendments are now taken to give every level of government the authority to override any right of private association, the perfect tool communist social engineering.
Every orthodox Christian community and business owner will now be assaulted by pro-homosexual activists and attorneys.
Alito calls them out in dissent: “The Court attempts to pass off its decision as the inevitable product of the textualist school of statutory interpretation championed by our late colleague Justice Scalia, but no one should be fooled. The Court’s opinion is like a pirate ship. It sails under a textualist flag, but what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated - the theory that courts should “update” old statues so that they better reflect the current values of society.”
Any minute from now, Trump will be Tweeting about this Decision!
How do you prove that you’re gay?
Sing any Barbra Streisand song.
Kavanaugh’s dissent is somewhat baffling. His issue seems to be more with a technical issue than the substance of the case.
“Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgement”
It’s quite clear now that there will never again be a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
The left can rely on their guys every single time. We have at most three reliable judges, and maybe just two since Kavenaugh is still somewhat of an unknown factor.
Under what scenario do we get five genuine conservative justices?
It’ll never happen.
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.