"Conservative" SCOTUS Rules LBGT protected by law, but punts gun rights cases

Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
117,672
Bostock v. Clayton County: SCOTUS Rules 6-3 that Gay, Trans Employees Protected by Civil Rights Act

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...rans-employees-protected-by-civil-rights-act/

Breitbart News 15 Jun 2020

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.

The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers.

“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court.

Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.

“The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity,’” Alito wrote in a dissent that was joined by Thomas.

The outcome is expected to have a big impact for the estimated 8.1 million LGBT workers across the country because most states don’t protect them from workplace discrimination. An estimated 11.3 million LGBT people live in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA law school.

The cases were the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement and replacement by Kavanaugh. Kennedy was a voice for gay rights and the author of the landmark ruling in 2015 that made same-sex marriage legal throughout the United States. Kavanaugh generally is regarded as more conservative.

The Trump administration had changed course from the Obama administration, which supported LGBT workers in their discrimination claims under Title VII.

During the Obama years, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had changed its longstanding interpretation of civil rights law to include discrimination against LGBT people. The law prohibits discrimination because of sex, but has no specific protection for sexual orientation or gender identity.

In recent years, some lower courts have held that discrimination against LGBT people is a subset of sex discrimination, and thus prohibited by the federal law.

Efforts by Congress to change the law have so far failed.

The Supreme Court cases involved two gay men and a transgender woman who sued for employment discrimination after they lost their jobs.

The federal appeals court in New York ruled in favor of a gay skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired because of his sexual orientation. The full 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-3 that it was abandoning its earlier holding that Title VII didn’t cover sexual orientation because “legal doctrine evolves.” The court held that “sexual orientation discrimination is motivated, at least in part, by sex and is thus a subset of sex discrimination.”

That ruling was a victory for the relatives of Donald Zarda, who was fired in 2010 from a skydiving job in Central Islip, New York, that required him to strap himself tightly to clients so they could jump in tandem from an airplane. He tried to put a woman with whom he was jumping at ease by explaining that he was gay. The school fired Zarda after the woman’s boyfriend called to complain.

Zarda died in a wingsuit accident in Switzerland in 2014.

In a case from Georgia, the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled against Gerald Bostock, a gay employee of Clayton County, in the Atlanta suburbs. Bostock claimed he was fired in 2013 because he is gay. The county argues that Bostock was let go because of the results of an audit of funds he managed.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Bostock’s claim in a three-page opinion that noted the court was bound by a 1979 decision that held “discharge for homosexuality is not prohibited by Title VII.”

Aimee Stephens lost her job as a funeral director in the Detroit area after she revealed to her boss that she had struggled with gender most of her life and had, at long last, “decided to become the person that my mind already is.” Stephens told funeral home owner Thomas Rost that following a vacation, she would report to work wearing a conservative skirt suit or dress that Rost required for women who worked at his three funeral homes. Rost fired Stephens.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, ruled that the firing constituted sex discrimination under federal law.

Stephens died last month.
 
Supreme Court Rejects Several Gun Rights Cases for Next Term

https://www.breitbart.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-several-gun-rights-cases-for-next-term/

Breitbart News 15 Jun 2020

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday passed up several challenges to federal and state gun control laws, over the dissent of two conservative justices.

Gun rights advocates had hoped the court would expand the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” beyond the home.

Instead, the justices left in place restrictions on the right to carry weapons in public in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey. They also declined to review Massachusetts’ ban on some semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines, a California handgun control law and a half-century-old federal law banning interstate handgun sales.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a dissent in the court’s denial of a New Jersey resident’s appeal seeking the right to carry a gun in public for self-defense. Rather than take on the constitutional issue, Thomas wrote, “the Court simply looks the other way.”
 
Oops, did not see this thread before starting new one:

icon2.png
MAGA: Trump SCOTUS pick delivers historic LGBTQ Civil Rights win


Trump's SCOTUS pick from CFR, Neil Gorsuch, delivers big win for LGBTQ rights and further bolsters domestic/gobal MAGA campaigns for LGBTQ civil rights, diversity is our strength.

5944c7fd2100002a0033cae5.jpeg

Gay Teacher Of The Year Fans LGBTQ Pride In Viral Photo With Donald Trump
Nikos Giannopoulos “celebrates the joy and freedom of gender nonconformity” in a photo with Donald and Melania Trump.

Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers, Supreme Court Rules


The court said the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

June 15, 2020

It was a 6-3 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Gorsuch joining the more liberal side of the court -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer.

"Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result," Gorsuch wrote. "Likely, they weren't thinking about many of the Act's consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees."
"But," he continued, "the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it's no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."

abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-makes-historic-ruling-lgbt-employment-discrimination/story?id=71254749&cid=social_twitter_abcn




Be interesting to see how Christian Conservatives and old Tea Party wing of GOP would respond to this landmark SCOTUS ruling.

icon4.png
LGBT Activists Hate Christianity — and Want to Destroy It

Michele Bachmann Believes God Could Destroy The Nation Over Gay Marriage

30E6D72500000578-0-image-a-60_1455389980254.jpg

Conservative Christian GOP Senator Ted Cruz:
"Donald comes from New York and he embodies New York values." "Everyone understands that the values in New York City are socially liberal, are pro-abortion, are pro-gay-marriage, focused around money and the media."





Related

Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality

Trump administration launches global effort to end AIDS

Donald Trump Jr.‏ Verified account @DonaldJTrumpJr
This is a really big deal and with @Richardgrenell at the helm it will get done!!! Trump administration launches global effort to end criminalization of homosexuality https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-administration-launches-global-effort-end-criminalization-homosexuality-n973081 … via @nbcnews

Trump is selling ‘LGBTQ for Trump’ T-shirts for Gay Pride month


KVPABWNXVJRVM55NVJ6E4KNW6A.jpg

A Milestone: All Of The Walking Dead's Relationships Are Now Interracial Or LGBT
Nov 14, 2018 Forbes


Tucker will be on fire tonight.

Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second"
Feb 28, 2018


 
Last edited:
Neil Gorsuch is a traitor!
Course he is...Nothing new here...they've been playing us for chumps for decades.

I don't see it. The argument brought before the court by the attorneys was whether discriminating against LGBT employees violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. From what I've read, no attorney for either side argued if the Civil Rights Act or Title VII is constitutional. The job of a judge is to interpret the law and rule on the arguments brought by plaintiffs and defendants. If the plaintiffs or defendants don't challenge constitutionality, then it's not within a judge's purview to rule on it.
 
I always knew Neil Gorsuch was a FRAUD and a LIBERAL.

I can assure you, the SCOTUS of 1964 did not mean Transsexuals, Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals
when it used the word "sex" in the Civil Rights Act. It means MALE or FEMALE.

Gorsuch is a liberal progressive activist.

Churches will have to hire trannies or be shut down.

Scalia is rolling over in his grave.
 
“An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court.

Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.

“The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous. Even as understood today, the concept of discrimination because of ‘sex’ is different from discrimination because of ‘sexual orientation’ or ‘gender identity,’” Alito wrote in a dissent that was joined by Thomas.

So if I have sex with my mother, and I brag about it at work and my boss fires me can I sue for discrimination?

Based on this logic I could. Because I wouldn't have been fired if it wasn't my mother, but someone else's.

Likely, the proponents of this logic would disagree, saying "Nice try, that's not the same. It would be equally immoral if instead of YOU having sex with your mother, it was a woman having sex with her mother. That is the difference. If something would be 'ok' with one gender/identity, it should be ok with another gender/identity. That is what the judges here are saying."

But that's just it. Morality is not identity. This clever refutation simply puts morality within the confines of identity which destroys "identity" of others.

In other words, many who identify as heterosexual attach immorality to homosexuality. Laws are passed against homosexuality because society considers the act itself to be immoral. It has nothing to do with Mr. or Mrs. gay person "identifying" as this or that.

For instance, this "just swap the genders" test doesn't even work for the skydiving example (where the guy is fired for telling the woman tandem jumping customer, 'don't worry, it's not weird cuz I'm gay anyway') because it wasn't about the guy being gay. The woman jumper was uncomfortable around a MAN. What about HER identity?

Anyway, still this decision is better than the mumbo-jumbo "identity" laden decision of Obergefell vs. Hodges.

I guess this also settles the bathroom dispute as well. Doesn't matter if 9/10 women don't want a man in the restroom "because you wouldn't care if he was biologically female."

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, you only think something is immoral because you refuse to consider the legitimacy of a world where it is moral.

More simply:

When you think of something bad, think of something good and equate them in your mind.

More direct:

Call evil good.

Unfortunately, those of us who follow Christ are commanded not to do this:

Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
 
Just Jesuits doin' what Jesuits swore oaths to do, right Neil? Move along, nothing to see here folks.
 
Supreme Court Rejects Several Gun Rights Cases for Next Term

https://www.breitbart.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-several-gun-rights-cases-for-next-term/

Breitbart News 15 Jun 2020

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday passed up several challenges to federal and state gun control laws, over the dissent of two conservative justices.

Gun rights advocates had hoped the court would expand the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” beyond the home.

Instead, the justices left in place restrictions on the right to carry weapons in public in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey. They also declined to review Massachusetts’ ban on some semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines, a California handgun control law and a half-century-old federal law banning interstate handgun sales.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a dissent in the court’s denial of a New Jersey resident’s appeal seeking the right to carry a gun in public for self-defense. Rather than take on the constitutional issue, Thomas wrote, “the Court simply looks the other way.”

This is fucked up.

The Supreme Fraud strikes again.

This is literally insane.

So whats the court really saying? Unless you go out and raise hell, nothing changes?
 
Back
Top