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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
> 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 doesn’t 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.
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.
Pederast turned down for a job at a daycare?
This is a challenge to religious freedom.
Agreed. In fact, rather than having to have new laws created to give extra special rights to the LGBTQXYZ community, the SC just said there's no need. They are protected against discrimination just like everybody else. That's a good thing. It does not, however, protect the LGBTQXYZers from being fired for their acts.