It's now mandatory for everyone
Posted on 06/19/2020 7:40:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One of the men at the center of the recent Supreme Court decision that held that firing people based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination, was not ousted because he was gay, his former employer says.
In a 6-3 decision that was released Monday in Bostock v. Clayton County — which was consolidated along with two other cases involving firings of homosexual and trans-identified employees — the high court ruled that Title VII, the civil rights provision within the 1964 Civil Rights Act that pertains specifically to employment, extends nondiscrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status. Terminating someone from a job on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status is a form of sex discrimination, the high court ruled in its majority opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's first appointee to the bench.
Yet Gerald Bostock was not fired because he was gay, his former boss maintains.
In a Wednesday interview with Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Bill Torpy, Clayton County Juvenile Court Chief Judge Steven Teske said he knew Bostock was gay for many years, had socialized with him and his partner, and supported the outcome of the Supreme Court decision.
Bostock was the coordinator of the county court appointed special advocates (CASA) program and alleged in a 2016 lawsuit against the county that he had been terminated on the basis of being homosexual. He claimed that after he joined a gay softball team, he began receiving disparaging comments at work and that following a 2013 audit alleging he has misused court funds he was out of a job. The audit was a pretext for Teske firing him, Bostock additionally claimed.
“I avoided this going public before it went to the Supreme Court. I’m glad he (Bostock) won,” Teske told the Georgia newspaper. “But there’s only so long he can hide from the truth.”
“We went to gay venues in Midtown; we met a lot of their gay friends,” Teske said.
“Gerald is a nice guy. My mom and dad loved him. That’s how close we were. He knew my kids, my mom, my dad. We became very close. That’s why it was very hard for me to let him go.”
The audit found that nearly all of the $12,294 in court funds that Bostock had spent in the previous 28 months was on entertainment and meals save for $1,000 sponsoring the Atlanta softball team; the audit also showed that he spent hundreds of dollars with no receipts and had a reception in Alabama with his softball team.
Bostock's ex-partner, Paul, who did not supply his last name for the interview lest he be viewed as a "traitor to the [LGBT rights] cause," vouched for Teske's character.
“I felt bad for Judge Teske because he was thrown under the bus. It felt like a slap in the face to [Teske] and his co-workers that they were called homophobic and mean-spirited,” he said.
Bostock's original case against the county was dismissed and never heard. The facts of the case against the county have not been formally established and witnesses have not been deposed, according to Atlanta employment lawyer Thomas Mew, Bostock's attorney. Teske said he welcomes a trial.
“There are too many witnesses who know we enjoyed each other’s company,” he said.
“We went to nightclubs together; there were times it was every weekend. I just don’t think he told the full story to his lawyers. Sooner or later, this is all going to come out.”
The 11th Circuit — the federal appellate court that has jurisdiction over Georgia, Florida, and Alabama — had held that Title VII does not forbid employers from firing employees for being homosexual and Bostock's suit could be dismissed as a matter of law. In its reversal of the 11th Circuit's ruling, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the high court's opinion.
Despite the lack of an established factual basis of events in the case, the Bostock matter was allowed to be heard before the high court for the purposes of adjudicating the constitutionality of the relevant legal issues.
The DOJ doesn’t want to prosecute Michael Flynn, but the judge does and that little railroad job is going forward.
The Supreme Court just created settled law over a bogus case that had nothing to do with the law that just got settled.
Our justice system is a dumpster fire.
white, christian, straight & male seem to be the only designations now without extra protections from discrimination.....
The same way a trumped up case brought about Roe v. Wade. The issue is never the issue, the issue is always the revolution.
“Sooner or later this is all going to come out”? For the MSM, the truth will stay in the closet forever.
And an asumption6of undefined guilt.
It's now mandatory for everyone
This information would have been a lot more useful LAST WEEK, you lawyers!
Just like Roe v. Wade, built on a lie.
“Sooner or later, this is all going to come out.”
Silly man still thinks the truth matters.
L
“It’s not a justice system but a legal system. Big difference.”
Thanks for making a point I usually state in these threads. We have one hell of a legal system that ensures certain outcomes. When those outcomes swerve into actual justice, it’s not because that was a stated goal. Mere happenstance...
The issue is never the issue, the issue is always The Revolution.
Watch for this- active participants who both want the same side of a decision, who are supported by big $$$ and who both want the same outcome- they will litigate and appeal until they get the desired outcome.
Another courtroom plan is 'repeal' to a new (3rd) position. The word Repeal used to mean you go back to what it was... the new 'repeal' by a court send it to a whole new position.
This is how they got gay marriage. Pass a law so badly worded, that it needs to be repealed. Then go to the OPPOSITE.
They used to only provide marriage certificates to a man and woman. So they passed a law saying this was now LEGALLY defined that way- you could ONLY give marriage licenses to a man and a woman. Then you get that 'repealed' and say "Oh, the opposite must be true- you MUST give marriage licenses to anyone"
That is the intent. By weakening a free society that replaced its population where members competed and produced wealth, a minority of people are able to parasitically siphon off its remainong wealth through tight legal controls.
So I guess the best course of action would have been to just let the fag keep stealing money?
According to the Supreme Court decision, Bostock was fired for conduct “unbecoming” a county employee. Not for fraud or misuse of funds. If Bostock’s sexual orientation did not play into the decision to fire him then his employer or its legal representatives did a terrible job of proving that.
If a worker is homosexual, black or a member of any other “protected” class, the employer had better have total documentation of the cause for firing.
According to this article, the matter in question has yet to be adjudicated. The suit was dismissed prior to a finding of fact on whether the firing was legal or not because the circuit court determined that Title VII did not cover sexual orientation.
Blaming someone for doing a bad job when the job was never needed according to the presiding court is a circular argument without beginning or end.
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.