Jump to content

Archived

This thread has been closed to further replies because it was not updated for 12 months. If you wish to have this thread reinstated, please contact an administrator.

Ruthless Love

JUST IN: SCOTUS rules existing civil rights law protects LGBT workers

Recommended Posts

190929-lgbt-supreme-court-cs-955a_ca89c3

Quote

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.

The ruling was a victory for Gerald Bostock, who was fired from a county job in Georgia after he joined a gay softball team, and the relatives of Donald Zarda, a skydiving instructor who was fired after he told a female client not to worry about being strapped tightly to him during a jump, because he was "100 percent gay." Zarda died before the case reached the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration had urged the court to rule that Title VII does not cover cases like those, in a reversal from the position the government took during the Obama administration.

"The ordinary meaning of 'sex' is biologically male or female; it does not include sexual orientation," the Justice Department said. "An employer who discriminates against employees in same-sex relationships thus does not violate Title VII as long as it treats men in same-sex relationships the same as women in same-sex relationships."

The case came to a court that no longer includes Anthony Kennedy, who wrote all of the court's significant gay rights decisions. He was succeeded by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is generally more conservative.

NBC News

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Darth Sidious said:

But Roberts and Gorsuch didn’t — that’s very interesting.

yeah but don't praise them yet. I'm sure they'll do more snake decisions down the road juicy1

but hopefully this opens the road for more protections.  Happy Pride!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Infrared said:

yeah but don't praise them yet. I'm sure they'll do more snake decisions down the road juicy1

but hopefully this opens the road for more protections.  Happy Pride!

Oh, I’m not. I’m quite sure that their reasoning has nothing to do with solidarity with the community. 
 

It does tickle me that Gorsuch is turning out to be not as bible thumping as the hicks thought he might be. Conservatives must be furious ari3

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Infrared said:

yeah but don't praise them yet. I'm sure they'll do more snake decisions down the road juicy1

but hopefully this opens the road for more protections.  Happy Pride!

Ikr eve1 they will side with liberals to give the impression of an unpartisan court, but then fold like a cheap tent when it truly matters (like ruling on a presidential election) eve1 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gilly said:

can someone educated us more on this bill? im not too familiar with it 

The Administration tried to argue before the Court that Title VII protections didn’t apply to LGBT Americans. If the Administration had won here, it would essentially allow employers to fire LGBT employees for the simple fact that they are LGBT. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Gilly said:

can someone educated us more on this bill? im not too familiar with it 

What’s more, considering that there are few states that previously protected employees on the basis of their sexual orientation — this ruling will now have the blanket effect of proving federal protection to all 50 states.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarence Thomas is a joke of a SC judge.

On another note, happy pride! I high-key thought this court was gonna be super Republican with two Dump appointees but so far, it's not that baf. However, Conservatives are fuming and that makes me happy. Civil rights WON.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ruthless Love said:

The Trump administration had urged the court to rule that Title VII does not cover cases like those, in a reversal from the position the government took during the Obama administration.

"The ordinary meaning of 'sex' is biologically male or female; it does not include sexual orientation," the Justice Department said. "An employer who discriminates against employees in same-sex relationships thus does not violate Title VII as long as it treats men in same-sex relationships the same as women in same-sex relationships."

Poor Drumpf, maybe he'll have another stroke tumblr_oduq9r9OBG1v91fhyo8_400.gif.7c6ca

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

The Administration tried to argue before the Court that Title VII protections didn’t apply to LGBT Americans. If the Administration had won here, it would essentially allow employers to fire LGBT employees for the simple fact that they are LGBT. 

 

2 hours ago, Ruthless Love said:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (via United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

 

 

2 hours ago, Darth Sidious said:

What’s more, considering that there are few states that previously protected employees on the basis of their sexual orientation — this ruling will now have the blanket effect of proving federal protection to all 50 states.

the way we WON oprah15 happy pride girlies 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14
  • Created
  • Last Reply

  • Browsing now   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×