SCOTUS - Employers can't discriminate against LGBT workers (election, homosexuals, separation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Huge win for LGBT. Before this SCOTUS ruling, someone could be fired for being gay and it was perfectly legal in many states.
Now it's illegal at the federal level(thus all states) to fire someone or refuse to hire someone for the sole reason that they are LGBT. Many people had to hide their status because it could cause them to get fired and it was legal.
This case was NOT about job protections against Gay/Lesbian Citizens. It was about Transgendered Citizens.
It was also something that CongressCritters REFUSED to address ...
On the UP Side ... no person should be discriminated based on who they choose to sleep with, or what might go on in the privacy of their own bedrooms...... which was the case in many States. On the Downside... it was a Legislative issue that SHOULD have been settled years ago... not decided by Courts because the Democrats and Republicans refused to do their jobs.
My feeling is that Gorsage and Roberts did the correct thing ... BUT they had to do it because the Democrats used Gay/Lesbians as Cannon Fodder for Votes, and had zero interest in their Civil Rights. Ailto/Kavanaugh/Thomas were correct that this is NOT a Judicial matter, it’s a Legislative matter ... which has been the ruling many times beginning in the 1970’s.
All & All, a good day for Civil/Equal Rights and Nother Bad day for Ideology Agendas.
It’s not supposed to be this way... our system doesn’t work well when the Judicial ranch is FORCED to do what the Legislative Branch refuses to do .... based on Agenda for VOTES.
That is the logic that the majority opinion followed and it plainly makes sense with a logical flow of precedent. Since when is congress straightforward about anything?
Congress does not grant rights. They are inalienable and to be given equal protection of the law as established in our founding documents. Civil Rights Act is merely an expression of understanding that fact, not the origin.
This was not a civil rights case, lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000
Changing the interpretation of a word or multiple words in a written law is not changing the law. It is changing the interpretation of the law. The founding fathers put this check in place. It is critically important that those who interpret the laws are different than those who write the laws and those who enforce the laws.
As a Constitutional lawyer, I do know how it works. In fact, it's not likely, but it is possible that this very ruling could make it on my desk to review. President Trump is my largest client (not directly, through the Whitehouse) to do just that. So glad he and you are paying for my beautiful vacation home.
As someone living in America, you should know this. I don't mind foreigners coming here to live, but it would be good if they learned how our country worked.
Have no idea why your rant about foreigners, and yes, changing the definition of terms is changing the law. This was not an interpretation, even the dissent highlights this, hope you notice this when it comes across your desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasLawyer2000
Why? Those SCOTUS judges don't have a problem with how America works and how the founding fathers created our government. You do.
Well, since my view and the three SCOTUS justices who dissented have the exact same view, you are telling me I should leave, thus you are telling them also. My opinion is no different than their dissent.
"There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive."
"The Court's opinion is like a pirate ship," Alito said. "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 statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society. "
"even if discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity could be squeezed into some arcane understanding of sex discrimination, the context in which Title VII was enacted would tell us that this is not what the statute's terms were understood to mean at that time."
"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 judgment," Kavanaugh wrote.
Question, does anybody know if religious institutions are exempt? It didn't seem clear. Would churches get in trouble if they refuse to hire a transgender priest? It would be dumb if they were to lose their tax exempt status if something contradicts their beliefs.
Although the Catholic church already discriminates against hiring women priests so I'm guessing they are exempt?
Changing the interpretation of a word or multiple words in a written law is not changing the law. It is changing the interpretation of the law. The founding fathers put this check in place. It is critically important that those who interpret the laws are different than those who write the laws and those who enforce the laws.
[snipped for irrelevance and self-adulation]
I told you we'd go in a circle. It doesn't take a self-proclaimed Constitutional lawyer to know the SC interprets the law. It doesn't take one to know that Supreme Court Justices disagree on the correct interpretation. I know and you should know that judges accuse other judges of legislating from the bench, as happened in this case. You simplistically call everything 'interpreting.' Have it your way.
Question, does anybody know if religious institutions are exempt? It didn't seem clear. Would churches get in trouble if they refuse to hire a transgender priest? It would be dumb if they were to lose their tax exempt status if something contradicts their beliefs.
Every Supreme Court decision creates dozens of new decisions by lower courts. I believe that other courts have already held that religious institutions are exempt, but the Supreme Court may have to clarify that in future.
It is akin to the infamous Roe v. Wade: that decision was based on a 'right to privacy' implied by the Fourth Amendment. There is no specific 'right to privacy' spelled out by the Constitution.
The Roe v. Wade decision has resulted in literally hundreds of lower court decisions regarding the right to privacy, from health records to the internet.
It is why I often argue that the Supreme Court simply can't 'overrule' Roe v. Wade. It would throw into question every subsequent case involving 'privacy'.
At most, the Court may 'chip away' at Roe, without overturning it.
It is an odd situation: many people proclaim their 'right to privacy', without knowing where that right came from.
Indeed, in the days of our Founders and Framers, there was no philosophical discussion about a 'right to privacy'. It was unheard of. Yes, the Fourth Amendment reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Do you see 'privacy' in that clause? No, but it can be reasonably interpreted as granting a 'right to privacy', which Roe recognized.
Also apparently Title VII doesn't apply to employers with less than 15 employees. But it also technically means a black business for example can fire someone for being white?
Question, does anybody know if religious institutions are exempt? It didn't seem clear. Would churches get in trouble if they refuse to hire a transgender priest? It would be dumb if they were to lose their tax exempt status if something contradicts their beliefs.
First of all why would a church have to hire a transgender person? No one has to hire a transgender person. There is not quota you need to follow. If a transgender person applies for a job you can say no. You just cannot use the fact they are transgender as the reason.
Also apparently Title VII doesn't apply to employers with less than 15 employees. But it also technically means a black business for example can fire someone for being white?
No a black business cannot fire a white person just for being white. Its a civil rights law, not a black rights law.
And although Title VII only counts for employers with 15 or more employees many state and local laws include smaller employers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
