Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects gay and lesbian workers
NBC News ^ | June 15, 2020 | Pete Williams

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4dchess; activistcourt; artofthedeal; civilrights; firstamendment; freeexerciseclause; gorsuch; homofascism; homosexualagenda; judicialactivism; roberts; trumppick; trusttheplan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: Coronal

I guess I don’t see why his statement is baffling. Looks to me like he’s just saying, “Let’s not legislate from the bench. Let’s have the legislative branch do the legislating.”


61 posted on 06/15/2020 8:34:20 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (If White Privilege is real, why did Elizabeth Warren lie about being an Indian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Coronal

That’s not a technical issue at all. That’s the very substance of the case. It is NOT the Court’s role to change the meaning of a statute to suit its desires. It is up to Congress to do that. At least in a world where the law and our Constitution mean anything.


62 posted on 06/15/2020 8:34:29 AM PDT by Stravinsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: apillar

hi, but if you work in HR, you know that even if the employer has ample, documented cause to fire someone, the individual will sue based on whatever “protected class” he or she is in. I had a case where a worker threw fists at another. Upon termination he claimed “racial and age discrimination”. Didn’t even need a lawyer, the state “antidiscrimination” agency took his case.

This been going on for 40 years, costing businesses billions of dollars and making managerial jobs impossible. Now, we add another “protected class.”

The bitter irony is that many employers, especially small ones without HR depts are more reluctant to hire minorities because they know their hands will be tied with just, fair disciplinary action.


63 posted on 06/15/2020 8:35:18 AM PDT by samkatz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

Pederast turned down for a job at a daycare?


64 posted on 06/15/2020 8:35:29 AM PDT by Bigg Red (WWG1WGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
"ANY application of "civil rights" statutes to private industry is already unconstitutional on its face."

Hear, hear..."Civil rights" laws defecate all over the First Amendment association clause and property rights for starters. Courts or Congress had no business ram-roding forced "privileges" unless the Act/Amendment was through Article V stipulations.
65 posted on 06/15/2020 8:36:48 AM PDT by rollo tomasi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: microgood
The Civil Rights Act targeted immutable characteristics, not lifestyle choices.

It also included religion, which is a choice and is mutable.

66 posted on 06/15/2020 8:38:35 AM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: John W

The elimination of property rights continues.


67 posted on 06/15/2020 8:39:06 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Absolutely correct.


68 posted on 06/15/2020 8:44:39 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Meatspace
Not sure if you are being sarcastic. What he should do is address the nation and say the SCOTUS has clearly overstepped its authority and say prior case law will govern all Federal agencies' responses, and that activists, attorneys, and judges going after any employer under this decision will be arrested for conspiracy to violate civil rights and abuse of authority under color of law.

They made the decision, let them enforce it.

69 posted on 06/15/2020 8:47:02 AM PDT by pierrem15 ("Massacrez-les, car le seigneur connait les siens")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

“So now I guess if you’re an employer you need to”

Another good reason not to be a small-business that employs people Small entrepreneurs should find business models that allow them to work on their own, and use contracting agencies for labor assistance as needed


70 posted on 06/15/2020 8:48:48 AM PDT by rintintin (qu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

As you should be. Gay is happy. Homosexuality is men boning and blowing other men


71 posted on 06/15/2020 8:50:31 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

Separation of powers blocks the President from telling SCOTUS what to do.


72 posted on 06/15/2020 8:50:37 AM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: rintintin
You’re exactly right.

Ironically, this is the kind of sh!t that has tempered a lot of my criticism of companies that outsource their operations overseas and/or push the U.S. to allow more immigrants here. These idiotic regulations do nothing but add to the cost of hiring Americans.

73 posted on 06/15/2020 8:59:44 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("We're human beings ... we're not f#%&ing animals." -- Dennis Rodman, 6/1/2020)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Meatspace

I doubt it.


74 posted on 06/15/2020 9:01:30 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Old Sarge

They are black robed priests. Why are they all that matter? We need an end to judicial supremacy. My entire life, since the Warren Court it has been this way.


75 posted on 06/15/2020 9:03:21 AM PDT by Luke21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pierrem15

I gave up on the SCOTUS a long time ago. The plethora of 5/4 decisions is the greatest indictment against this group. In a sane world, virtually all decisions would be 9/0. The law is very black and white. These decisions should not be all that hard. People just make them hard, and claim the verbose, but silly arguments they make aer compelling.

I see the whole thing these days as a distraction. People don’t really understand that the US has become a more sophisticated version of the old Soviet Union. You don’t need to “disappear” people to gulags. Just destroy their lives and busnesses if they don’t toe the line.


76 posted on 06/15/2020 9:09:10 AM PDT by cuban leaf (The political war playing out in every country now: Globalists vs Nationalists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Couldn’t Kavenaugh have just said the relevant part about separation of powers, and left out the virtue signaling? It’s like he was apologizing for having the correct legal opinion.


77 posted on 06/15/2020 9:10:35 AM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: John W

This country is reaping the judgments that come from turning against God. It has been given up to depravity.

This decision will eventually be applied against churches.


78 posted on 06/15/2020 9:23:57 AM PDT by aimhigh (THIS is His commandment . . . . 1 John 3:23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh
As I like to tell people whenever the conversation turns to the depravity of abortion:

"If we don't fix this outrage now, then it will be fixed for us several decades from now when this country is filled with Mexicans and Muslims."

79 posted on 06/15/2020 9:28:20 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("We're human beings ... we're not f#%&ing animals." -- Dennis Rodman, 6/1/2020)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Coronal
Separation of powers blocks the President from telling SCOTUS what to do.

True separation of powers would go in both directions.

80 posted on 06/15/2020 9:31:04 AM PDT by aimhigh (THIS is His commandment . . . . 1 John 3:23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson