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 ...
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.”
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.
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.
Pederast turned down for a job at a daycare?
It also included religion, which is a choice and is mutable.
The elimination of property rights continues.
Absolutely correct.
They made the decision, let them enforce it.
“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
As you should be. Gay is happy. Homosexuality is men boning and blowing other men
Separation of powers blocks the President from telling SCOTUS what to do.
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.
I doubt it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
True separation of powers would go in both directions.
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.