Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
Take that, Trump! (lawyers for the Trump admin had argued against the rights of the gay people)
|
The government lawyers were not arguing against the rights of gay people, they argued that the court should respect the plain meaning of the word "sex" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1
Good for Gorsuch! No one should lost their livelihood because of their sexual orientation.
|
I agree, no one should lose their livelihood because of their sexual orientation, but it should be up to people to elect legislators that pass those laws. It should not be up to SCOTUS to rewrite laws for the legislature. I am beyond shocked that two men who built their entire legal careers against judicial activism (Roberts & Gorsuch) now have become judicial activists and super legislators.
I think this ruling alone will cause Trump to lose reelection. One motivation for the base to turn out was to return sanity to the SCOTUS. If textualists and originalists become activists once they are on the court, there is no reason to bother voting any more. For anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanv3
I certainly don't want a man turned woman teaching at my elementary school. I hope the employers still have their freedom in hiring, even though it potentially paves way for the "Social justice" discrimination law suits against them.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
How would you know that it's a "man turned woman"? That's just silly no one does an examination of a persons genitals when they hire them, so you probably should get a grip and realize that there are trans people teaching school right now and no child has been harmed by them.
|
I think the issue is that Mr. Johnson, your 3rd grader's, 6'2", 240 pound teacher can leave school Friday as Mr. Johnson and then Monday show up in a dress and announce to the class to call him/her Miss Delilah now.
What if Mr. Johnson is your son's middle school PE teacher? When he becomes Miss Delilah, can he still go into the boys locker room?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
I think SCOTUS has realized that it needs to show independence from Trump unless it wants to lose all credibility.
|
It is not the job of SCOTUS to show "independence" from anyone. It is their job to rule on laws as written, not rewrite ones they disagree with
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
So that's a reason not to legislate it? It's the same thing with discriminating against disabled people, if they show up for an interview in a wheelchair you just screen them out and I'm not so naive that I don't expect that to happen to LGBTQ people, but in this case Gerald Bostock had been hired and was doing his job to the satisfaction of his employer (Clayton County Georgia) until he was fired after a co-worker revealed that he was on a gay softball team. That is why this is not just a 'feel good thing'
|
I think it is wrong Bostock was fired, but it is more wrong for the SCOTUS to rewrite Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and make the word "sex" into something it has never meant. The original meaning and text both refer merely to male and female. The law was written to prohibit that discrimination. If the court felt Bostock had been wrongly fired, they could have said so in fiery denial of the case.
Justice Potter Stewart said it best in dissent in Griswold, a philosophy all but abandoned by our newest legislative branch. He said in part, "But we are not asked in this case to say whether we think this law is unwise, or even asinine. We are asked to hold that it violates the United States Constitution. And that I cannot do."
"But it is not the function of this Court to decide cases on the basis of community standards. We are here to decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.' It is the essence of judicial duty to subordinate our own personal views, our own ideas of what legislation is wise and what is not. If, as I should surely hope, the law before us does not reflect the standards of the people of Connecticut, the people of Connecticut can freely exercise their true Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights to persuade their elected representatives to repeal it. That is the constitutional way to take this law off the books."
In this case it would be the constitutional way to put a law on the books, but the principle remains the same.
Someone mused why we needed Congress, I would muse, why do we need states? If SCOTUS is going to remove all state prerogatives by judicial ukase, what is the point of states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41
Some will, yes. Most won't. Most will seek to maximize profits, and exposing themselves to costly lawsuits is going to be far more detrimental than their petty rejection of talent because of orientation or transgenderism ever was.
|
Most, maybe all, big companies already policies against discrimination on sexual orientation. Who this effects is the small business, who may have only 10 or 20 employees that they work in close contact with. A Muslim business owner who thinks homosexuality is against God's will would be forced to hire and forbidden from firing a gay employee and therefore forced to work with them.
More to the point, your suggestion - that such a law will have no effect and so is not worthy or irrelevant - is nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41
People speed. Espionage happens. People steal. Rape happens. People murder. You're aware that all of those things are illegal, right? I wonder if you fail to grasp the concept of deterrence, or if you're just reaching for some spin to dismiss a just and decent ruling that makes you unhappy.
|
What if a not too distant SCOTUS decides that attraction to children (pedophilia as we call it) is a sexual orientation, not a sexual deviance? Or less drastic, that speeding laws violate some heretofore unknown constitutional right. Do you want to have the SCOTUS determining the quality of life laws in your city and state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
Actually, a persons' sexual orientation is none of a companies' business. All the court did was reaffirm that.
|
That is not what they did. They rewrote a law passed in 1964. The Employment Non Discrimination Act (ENDA) has been proposed in every Congress since 1994 and it has not passed, not even in years when one party controlled the House, Senate (with a veto proof minority) and presidency. If the people's elective representatives didn't see fit to change Title VII (which EVERYONE recognized what the words meant), who is the SCOTUS to legislate?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenBouy
As a private business I don’t have to disclose why someone isn’t hired. This is a moral victory nothing more.
|
I guess it has depended on the size a company, but my company has to report to the EEOC on who is hired and who is not. When I am interviewing to hire I have to fill out forms noting each person I interview's sex, race, age and a box to fill in the disposition of the interviewee (i.e. moving on in process, not qualified, etc).
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill
WE agree -- it shouldn't be a big deal. But it could have been if the Surpreme Court had decided a company could fire someone for being gay. That's the thing -- most 'equal rights' aren't a BIG deal - or SHOULDN'T be......but the fact some individuals have to take the matter to the Supreme Court for a decision suggests that it still is for some.
|
What is a big deal is this is legislating. The U.S. Congress has considered passing laws on discrimination against LBGT people and not passed the laws. If the people's elected representatives chose not to pass the law, the SCOTUS is wrong for rewriting the law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheepie2000
HOORAY!!! No, the Christian Left believes in equal rights for everyone. Jesus never fired anyone for being gay and never withheld medical care from trans people. This is a win for Christianity!!!
|
To the woman caught in Adultery, Jesus said, 10“Woman, where are your accusers? Has no one condemned you?” 11“No one, Lord,” she answered. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Now go and sin no more.”
Jesus didn't say, "it's okay, party on girlie!", he said “Now go and sin no more.”
Grace isn't the same as Approval.
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.
