U.S. Supreme Court Endorses Gay, Transgender Worker Protections (reuters.com) 421
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered a watershed victory for LGBT rights, ruling that a landmark federal law forbidding workplace discrimination protects gay and transgender employees. From a report: The 6-3 ruling represented the biggest moment for LGBT rights in the United States since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015. In the new ruling, the justices decided that gay and transgender people are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, color, national origin and religion. Workplace bias against gay and transgender employees has remained legal in much of the country, with 28 U.S. states lacking comprehensive measures against employment discrimination. The rulings -- in two gay rights cases from Georgia and New York and a transgender rights case from Michigan -- recognize new worker protections in federal law.
Victory! (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a very important victory, almost as important as 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges.
Next up: Smackdown of Pence's anti-trans HHS directive.
Re: (Score:2)
Above got voted "Troll"? Slashdot never disappoints.
Re:And a defeat of them Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
So a victory for LGBT and a sad defeat for the Constitution and the American system. Another step toward dictatorial /oligaricharchial control by nine unelected people.
There was a sad defeat for the Constitution today, but this LGBT decision wasn't it. Rather, it was the SCOTUS ruling, in the face of a nationwide firestorm over bad police procedure, to let qualified immunity stand. This is the doctrine that literally has let police get away with murder, on many different occasions, totally aside from any issue of race.
Gorsuch wrote the opinion (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically the ruling came down to this: Trump's lawyers said that back when the law that was passed that forbade discrimination by sex, they didn't really define what "sex" was so therefore obviously didn't mean to include anything to do with orientation or trans or anything else right wingers consider icky.
Gorsuch applied the textual approach and basically said that the written law is the law and what people say about it then or now isn't relevant. It doesn't matter if you are considered mainstream or a freak. "Sex" means whatever condition or activity humans have that are sexual in nature.
Kavanaugh's (beer) dissent was basically yeah that's all true bro but this really should be the job of congress not us. I can't speak to whether that is right nor not but even if it is right is sounds like a big cop out and he dissented mainly because he wanted to suck up the the guys who got him confirmed.
It really should have been 9-0. But I'll take it. It is a victory for all of us not just the icky people.
I really would like responses to this post pointing out where I got it wrong if I did.
Re: (Score:3)
Kavanaugh's (beer) dissent was basically yeah that's all true bro but this really should be the job of congress not us. I can't speak to whether that is right nor not but even if it is right is sounds like a big cop out and he dissented mainly because he wanted to suck up the the guys who got him confirmed.
Kavanaugh's confirmation focused on sexual assault, which unfortunately distracted from the fact that he isn't good at law, logic, or writing, or being a judge. He would make a fine politician.
Re: (Score:3)
Kavanaugh's confirmation focused on sexual assault, which unfortunately distracted from the fact that he isn't good at law, logic, or writing, or being a judge. He would make a fine politician.
Probably why he got nominated and confirmed as a Supreme Court Judge by this Administration and GOP-controlled Senate.
Re:Gorsuch wrote the opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
That's some very tortured reasoning there. Judges are not allowed to define the terms; congress does that.
To the contrary. Unless Congress defined the terms in the text of the law, judges are not only allowed to define the terms, it is their job to defined the terms, in that they are the ones who are given the task to figure out what the terms mean in their legal sense.
If the congress wanted the terms to be defined differently, they could have written that definition into the law.
Re: (Score:2)
That is incorrect. They interpret the definition given by congress and decide if certain circumstances meet that definition. When no definition is given, or the definition is "too vague," it is unenforceable by the courts. Still unconstitutional.
But there's nothing "too vague" about this definition. The court interpreted the definition and found that consideration of sex applies in any instance of sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination, and since Congress didn't say "sex only applies to biological sex", then it's within that definition.
Re:Gorsuch wrote the opinion (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, you sweet summer child. That's not how it works [georgetown.edu], that's not how any of it works.
Congress no more has to give a definition than you had to define the term "definition" when referring to one. "Courts generally assume that the words of a statute mean what an 'ordinary' or 'reasonable' person would understand them to mean." There can be plenty of room to argue what the ordinary or reasonable person understands a particular word to mean, and courts are loath to declare a statute unenforceable -- especially a civil statute -- because Congress passed it, a President signed it, and it damn well better mean something or you have the judicial branch "unconstitutionally" nullifying a determination of the other two branches. Yeah, that's right, I can "unconstitutional" your claims of unconstitutionality, especially if I step down to the low standard with which you apply that word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You are arguing from feeling, not logic.
In Article III, Sections 1 and 2, the constitution grants the courts judicial power. This literally means that the Supreme Court and ONLY the Supreme Court can legally decide what is and is not constitutional.
In other words, it is physically impossible for the Supreme Court to make an 'unconstitutional' ruling.
You may disagree with what SHOULD be constitutional and unconstitutional, and you may some time be correct (even a stopped clock is right once a day). But t
Re: (Score:2)
And yet just days ago.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, US politics these days seems more like a game of whack-a-mole to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And yet just days ago.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on exactly what the law said. Some of the justices are constructionists: they're not making rulings based on protecting or not protecting a particular group, but ruling on interpreting exactly of what the law says, relating to what the constitution allows.
Re:And yet just days ago.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution was written to restrict the power of government over the people. It was born from direct experience of an unaccountable government run amuck. Witness the separation of Church and State. Direct experience with England showed what happens when Church and State are entwined. As Roger Williams once wrote, "If the Church can dictate to the State, the State can dictate to the Church".
This is why Madison (and Jefferson and many others) were so adamant not only in the their words but also in their deeds that the government and religion should not mix. Madison vetoed several bills which came before him which asked public money to be used for religious purposes. He explicitly cited the First Amendment, saying the bills were violations thereof.
Then of course there is the 9th Amendment, the catch-all which essentially says, "Just because we didn't put it in here doesn't mean you don't have it."
The problem is these so called "originalists" have gone 180 degrees from the original meaning. Whereas the Founding Fathers wanted to restrict what the government can do, these folks have said it's acceptable and permitted for the government to expand itself at the expense of the people. Whether First Amendment violations, Fourth Amendment, or essentially ignoring the Ninth Amendment, the true meaning, the original meaning, has been abandoned in favor of ideological leanings rather than upholding the Constitution's original intent and purpose.
Re: (Score:3)
Props to the USSC (Score:2)
A small step toward making America part of the civilized world.
Re: (Score:2)
A civilized world is one where the rules are written in a way understandable by all. If it takes a half dozen lawyers to tell the nation how to read an English sentence then perhaps it is the lawyers that are wrong.
If that were the case you would not need a judicial branch at all. When I think of places fitting that description, none are places I would want to live.
I'm surprised this needed clarification (Score:2)
I'm surprised this needed clarification. Just don't discriminate based on things unrelated to the job.
As for the differences of opinion based on the law as written, I think reasonable minds can differ as to what the law as written means.
Re: (Score:2)
Just don't discriminate based on things unrelated to the job.
That would make a much better law,
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would not. Then every asshole wanting to fire a LGTBQ worker would argue that their presence is somehow impairing their business - "he looks too weird to be in customer service" et al.
The reason this needs clarification is the same reason it was needed back in the days of the women's rights movement.
Re:This was an obvious decision (Score:5, Funny)
Don't they wish.
Re: (Score:3)
Religious rights end where the rights of others begin. Libertarians can get fucked
The libertarian viewpoint should be in line with your first statement, although in practice it isn't always the case. Too many people feel you are attacking their rights if you prevent their "right" to discriminate against others. This is where I feel many libertarians fall short when they complain about other groups fighting for their rights since that usually requires others to change their discriminatory behavior. It isn't a universal libertarian problem though; hypocrisy is rampant in all political ideo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> Life is about survival, and what you can protect and what you can take.
Many animals live in herds and work to the benefit of the herd there by increasing survivability for any one member of the herd. Primates, including ourselves, work the same way. Having laws which garauntee protections, is simply the herd working to the benefit of itself, ensuring greater survivability for any one member, just scaled up to the complexities of humanity.
Re: (Score:3)
But there are plenty of examples of cooperation in the natural world. Chimpanzees and horses don't function the way you say they should. Social species are, well, social, and work together for protection and propagation. The natural world does not function as you imagine it does. We are not lone wolves.
Re:This was an obvious decision (Score:4, Interesting)
But there are plenty of examples of cooperation in the natural world. Chimpanzees and horses don't function the way you say they should. Social species are, well, social, and work together for protection and propagation. The natural world does not function as you imagine it does. We are not lone wolves.
It's not even limited to vertebrates or single species. There's amazing footage of an octopus and grouper working together to hunt. And various species of fish will form an orderly queue to be cleaned by a shrimp. The fish and shrimp will let humans join the queue.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have a single inalienable right: the right to choose.
This does not necessarily mean that you have the right to *effect* your choice in any way, but you still have the right to make that choice. For example, you can choose to have inner peace about your position in life or you can choose to be dissatisfied. You can choose to forgive someone who has wronged you, or you can choose to hold a grudge. You can choose to love someone, or you can choose to despise them.
The right of choice is unavoida
Re:This was an obvious decision (Score:4)
As the philosopher once said:
If choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!
The right to choose may exist, it's not protected (Score:2, Insightful)
Humans have a single inalienable right: the right to choose.
Really? Then this ruling is in opposition of that. This ruling says employers cannot choose to fire people over their homosexual or transgender status.
What I'm seeing all too often is people proclaiming loudly on one's right to choose, and then berate people that choose different than them. It's like saying you can have any color of Ford Model T you like, so long as you like black.
Re: (Score:2)
Humans have a single inalienable right: the right to choose.
Really? Then this ruling is in opposition of that. This ruling says employers cannot choose to fire people over their homosexual or transgender status.
Sure they can make that choice, providing they're willing to pay the price. Just like all the other people who make the choice to act like assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
And to that point, you do have the right to choose to fire someone over their homosexual or transgender
Re:This was an obvious decision (Score:4, Insightful)
"Rights" are an entirely human construct.
Yes, AC, they are, they are.
And today, some high-ranking humans reaffirmed that an entire class of humans has certain 'rights'. Someone else doesn't like that? Tough.
Re: (Score:2)
I have always found these so called "Evangelicals" an odd bunch. I am a religious person, but I have found that it takes a lot of effort to make sure I am a good person, if I were to put effort in pushing my religion to others, that would only distract me from my ability to stay a good person.
Besides we all have our own unique sets of daemons. My method to help work on mine, won't work on others.
When ever I see people who out in the public try to convert everyone, and tell everyone how bad they are. I fe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, this means that of the five conservatives on the SCOTUS, Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts have a spine
Maybe...
The rule in the Supreme Court is that the seniormost justice in the majority (or the Chief Justice, if they're in the majority) decides who writes the opinion. It's not unheard of for this to be used strategically, where a justice will join in order to narrow the scope of the majority opinion. It's possible that the opinion would've been better but for Roberts' involvement.
But I haven't had time to read it yet, so I can't say that it's been hobbled.
Re: (Score:2)
I did read the opinion. I don't think it was hobbled in any way. They very strongly and clearly rejected all of the defendants' arguments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Court rulings shouldn't be based on beliefs.
By voting against that, they basically say that the US law allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By looking at Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it seems these 3 judges are right.
As much as I support gay rights, I do not support juges changing the law. The solution here is to have the elected lawmakers to change the law to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Re:Bu ... but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Employee: "I want to marry man."
Employer: "You're fired."
Employee: "Why?"
Employer: "Because you're a man."
Discrimination based upon sex. End of story.
Those three justices are trying to split hairs by saying that the employee is not being fired due to "sex" -- being a man -- but due to something else -- for example, expectations that men will marry women -- that is not sex. Here's Alito's logic in all its glory:
That's bunk. The employer presumably wouldn't fire a woman for marrying a man. The employer is firing a man for marrying a man. The variable is sex. Reframing the circumstances is like reframing the physics of a murder. "I didn't shoot the victim, your honor, he recklessly ran into my stationary bullet."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Employee: "I am a woman."
Employer: "But you have a penis."
Employee: "Even so, I am a woman."
Employer: "You're fired."
Employee: "Why?"
Employer: "Because you're insane."
Re: Bu ... but ... (Score:3)
SCOTUS (to employer): If this person is competent and performs their function acceptably, ... why do you care? Where does your obsession with poking your nose into everybody else's underwear to do a penis inspection come from?
Agreed. Same thing if they're in the KKK. If someone insists on being called "Grand Wizard" by his coworkers that shouldn't matter. As long as they're competent and perform their function acceptably, why do you care?
Re:Bu ... but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The employee will announce it loudly and dare anyone to complain. Even after the first 100 times he announces he, he'll never shut up. Just telling him "we don't care, get back to work" is illegal discrimination and grounds for termination.
You see, it's not gender, it's about power. You will be made to care. You will be made to bend the knee.
Re:Bu ... but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Employee: "I want to marry man." Employer: "You're fired." Employee: "Why?" Employer: "Because you're a man."
There was a similar situation in court in the UK thirty years ago. The bosses wife was very jealous, which is why he couldn't hire a female secretary. So he hired a man instead. Until the wife found out that man was gay, so he got fired.
Court said "Being gay is not protected, tough for you". (That was thirty years ago). Next higher court said "wait a second... He got fired because the bosses wife is jealous. If he was a lesbian woman, he wouldn't have been fired because lesbian women don't have affairs with their male bosses. So he was fired because he was a man. Illegal."
Re: (Score:3)
This sounds like a repeat of some legal arguments regarding segregation and miscegenation laws. "We're not denying anyone their rights! Everyone has the right to marry their own race, so everyone is equal."
Re: (Score:2)
Well at least that makes some sense, thanks. But I still think it's quite far-fetched, and would be much simpler to just change the law to make it explicit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Employee: "I want to marry man."
Employer: "You're fired."
Employee: "Why?"
Employer: "Because you're a man."
This is an argument made from ignorance. And I mean ignorance as defined...
"noun - the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc."
https://www.dictionary.com/bro... [dictionary.com]
First, let me say that the below is not a critique on whether or not gay/lesbian/trans employees should or should not be protested. It is simply my view on why the court's ruling was technically incorrect.
In Title VII, the term "sex" does not refer to the intimate act between Person A and Person B. That act
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read the majority opinion rather than response to yourself on /.
Re: (Score:2)
I want to make it clear that this post is stating only the facts pertaining to LAW. It has nothing to do with whether I am FOR or AGAINST LGBTQ+ rights -- just addressing the law as written....
I think the part you may have missed is in bold below:
"(k) The terms "because of sex" or "on the basis of sex" include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the opinion (which I did, all the way through) the justices strongly belabour how exactly Title VII is applicable to orientation and gender identity. Really, the opinion goes on for way longer than I would think it would take to strongly make the point.
Alito's dissent (Thomas tagging along) tries to claim that sex and orientation/identity aren't linked, but the argument feels weak, especially after reading majority opinion.
Kavanaugh's argument was even weaker, claiming that because orientation a
Re:Bu ... but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
America stopped working like that when the SCOTUS decided Roe v Wade. The old rules were the law. Now it's Calvinball, and the law means whatever's convenient for the prevailing winds of social belief.
The whole point of a Constitution in a democracy is to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. That's history now. We have no such protection. We're about halfway through the checklist of horrors in 1984 now, as a result. I don't think we'll pull back from the brink. I think deplatforming and prosecution of thoughtcrime will continue until it makes the Inquisition blush. Whatever the majority agree is true, you're not allowed to even discuss it. Oh, well, the change it slow enough that I won't live to see the conclusion, so there's that.
Re:Bu ... but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There can be no "sexual orientation" without consideration of sex, by definition. That's exactly what Gorsuch said. Same of course for transgender. The decision is obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
ok... but can I still fire people for having anal or oral sex?
Re: (Score:2)
ok... but can I still fire people for having anal or oral sex?
Sure, if they do it at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Sex doesn't includes sexual orientation. When I fill a form, I never answer "heterosexual" when asked what my sex/gender is.
The solution is simple. Just modify the law to make it explicit. Add another point, to this list:
Race.
Color.
Religion.
Sex (including gender and pregnancy).
National origin.
Re: (Score:3)
Oddly, the Supreme Court just ruled on this, and you are mistaken according to of the court.
Sexual orientation cannot even be defined or discussed without explicit consideration of sex. You can keep stomping your feet over it, but you are very clearly wrong. Even dissenting judges disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Court rulings shouldn't be based on beliefs.
You probably mean on faith. It's virtually impossible to not base court rulings on beliefs [stanford.edu]...unless you flip a coin or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Court rulings shouldn't be based on beliefs.
You probably mean on faith. It's virtually impossible to not base court rulings on beliefs [stanford.edu]...unless you flip a coin or something like that.
Really? It is impossible to reach the conclusion that everybody is equal under the law except gay people because it says in a bronze age scroll written by the prophets of a supernatural being nobody can prove exist, that gay people should not be equal to everybody else?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how this is in any way related to what I said...? If a judge makes a decision based on his conviction that the decision he makes is the right one, that conviction is a belief and that decision is made based on that belief. Whatever bronze age scrolls say or don't say has no bearing on the fact that court decisions are being made based on what the judge presiding the case believes to be the right thing to do (i.e., in his mind his decision is the correct one).
Also, even if whatever you're saying
Re: (Score:2)
Many forget those same "scrolls" also say that the second most important law is to love your neighbor as yourself.
The SCOTUS ruling is fine for those of us who believe that treating people kindly, even if they do things on which moral beliefs differ, is more important than moral compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
You then made the claim that it is impossible to avoid basing your rulings on your beliefs, that it is impossible to come to the conclusion that law overrides scripture when ruling in a court case. I have issues with that idea for the simple reason that two conservative SCOTUS judges just proved you wrong.
No, they didn't. The "two conservative SCOTUS judges" didn't rule anything. A minority opinion is not a ruling. Aside from that, there is nothing in the written opinions that would support an assertion that the justices were basing their opinions on religious belief or the contents of bronze age scrolls; that's just what you believe.
Re: (Score:2)
I meant personal values/opinion. Yes you can include faith into that, but it's more than that.
If I am a judge and I think that homosexuality should be forbidden, and the law doesn't say so, then I *MUST* say it's permitted in my cases. Otherwise, I am not doing my job.
Re: (Score:2)
Court rulings shouldn't be based on beliefs.
Quite right! The Court's explanation of relevant law and the interpretation that resulted in its ruling is called an opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Court rulings shouldn't be based on beliefs.
Laws should be weighed against the founding documents of our country, which were at least somewhat based on their beliefs and experiences with the British Empire.
By voting against that, they basically say that the US law allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.
You just said they should NOT make rulings based beliefs, then went on to imply they should 'believe' that there are non-biological genders and make laws protecting those?
We ALREADY have a law against discrimination based on sex. Sexual orientation, if anything, should be viewed as a subdivision of sex. Maybe what they are saying is the law already
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't, because your argument assumes that "approval ratings" are the only determining factor.
We can always count on you, SuperKendall, to offer the most transparently ignorant, partisan, and divisive comments. How does that Trump loss taste to you? Suck it.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? They sure fooled me [congress.gov] on that one.
Re: (Score:2)
Who were "the guys who wrote and passed the laws" and were they infalliable?
Re: (Score:3)
In this case "the laws" do what "the guys" intended so what's the complaint, comrade?
Re:Time to abolish the Civil Rights Act (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no argument supporting the ban on discrimination in the workplace, that would not also apply to, for example, dating.
So you are essentially saying that businesses can put up signs saying: "No Negroes" then. Do I have to remind you that personal dating preferences are not the point of this case or the Civil Right Act in regard to businesses and workplace protections.
Re:Time to abolish the Civil Rights Act (Score:5, Interesting)
So you are essentially saying that businesses can put up signs saying: "No Negroes" then.
It's basically the same logic as "taxation = theft", the moment the government imposes a burden on you it's inherently wrong and the whole of society should be based exclusively on voluntary cooperation with personal veto rights for everyone about everything. Often in black and white opposition to a world where you can be turned into Soylent Green for the greater good. I'm not saying you're wrong - it's an accurate description - but I don't think it matters to those who make the argument. They've usually decided having extreme personal freedom is more important than the ugly ways some will choose to use it.
P.S. In practice it'll be more like might makes right with relatively little freedom for most. But everyone likes to think they'd be on top.
Re: (Score:3)
The First Amendment most likely would support a business putting up a sign saying "We don't like Negroes". Expression is protected.
Refusing to serve someone because of ethnicity goes way beyond mere expression, and is not protected by the First Amendment. But you know that. You're just stirring the pot.
Re: (Score:3)
That freedom, as stated in the page you linked to, does not apply to commercial organizations or public accommodations. It's right there in your citation.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps she should...if she's a prostitute. Discrimination laws don't apply to "dating" for obvious reasons, namely that the entire purpose of "dating" is discrimination. Duh.
A "business owner" only faces "charges of racism" if there is reason to believe he discriminated. Your hypothetical, by not suggesting that he did, not only fails to make your point but it suggests that you are racist for believing it does.
Re: (Score:2)
It's different for the same, pragmatic reason. It is healthy, on the whole, for people to have the opportunity to work where they want, and to choose the people they want to mate with. It would be nice if they could do away with the specifics (i.e. protected classes), but they seem to be a necessary evil to help deal with employers that are having trouble adjusting to judging people only by their work.
Re: (Score:3)
If a business-owner turning down four Black applicants, then hiring an Asian has to defend himself from charges of racism, why shouldn't a girl rejecting multiple Black suitors to go out with a White be put on the same spot?
Because the two situations differ in certain important aspects. Glad I could help you out.
Re:Time to abolish the Civil Rights Act (Score:5, Insightful)
No, dear, I won't, because the ball isn't currently in my court. Analogies are not arguments.
"If I can shoot a man in a video game, why can't I shoot a man in real life?" "If it's not okay to throw a rock through a window, why is it okay to throw a rock into the ocean?" "If I can eat a hamburger, why can't I eat young children?" See how easy it is to form these confluences of situations which share some but not all aspects, and then act like it's proof of their equivalence?
If you'd like to argue that the two situations you mentioned are identical in all meaningful respects, then go for it, and hopefully you'll find someone with more patience than me to respond. So far you haven't even made the attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
I nominate you for Neck Beard Of The Year and we're not quite halfway through yet.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no argument supporting the ban on discrimination in the workplace, that would not also apply to, for example, dating
Your legal argument is beyond insane. Dating affects you. Law affects everyone. I can choose to not date. I cannot choose to have the law apply to me or not. Also reading your link provided is some fringe "fun". Did you also forget to post your free energy and Illuminati links? Are you seriously reading the things you are posting?
Re: (Score:2)
There is no argument supporting the ban on discrimination in the workplace, that would not also apply to, for example, dating
says the (obvious) non-lawyer.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No we weren't. No one doubted Gorsuch's qualifications for the court, only the criminal means used to get him appointed and the reasons for doing so. This is an obvious case it isn't a surprise that Gorsuch, and Roberts, ruled as they did.
Also, you suggesting that "these justices" have "independent minds" is absurd considering the dissent of senior and junior rapists on the court. The fact that this wasn't a 9-0 decision proves you wrong.
Nice attempt at spin, comrade.
Re: (Score:3)
This will not surprise anyone who has paid attention. Gorsuch has always been a texualist. The law means what it says. And he's always been fairly literal in interpreting what it says.
This ruling is a work of art almost without equal in the history of law, because he ruled against the defendants based on their own definition of sex, and they only way they can argue against it is to completely reverse and attack their own position. (This won't stop them, of course.)
If you would fire a man for wanting to date
Re: (Score:2)
Easy, this one was a slam dunk. There are consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
But they might argue that the role of the judiciary is only to interpret laws, not make them, and they found that the law, as it stands, doesn't cover LGBTQ+ rights.
Even if, in this case I wouldn't believe them!
However a lower court did more explicitly write that they would prefer it if a law existed to protect LGBTQ+ people, but they didn't interpret the existing law that way.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are happy about the result of this decision then it should drive home to point that voting, especially this cycle, matters for generations. If this case took place during a second Trump term we could be looking at a very different result.
I don't like the fact that the court is so "politicized" and we have to consider conservative vs liberal judges but that is the way it currently works. If you are thinking about staying home in November or voting 3rd party remember this decision.
Re:Barely ... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are happy about the result of this decision then it should drive home to point that voting, especially this cycle, matters for generations. If this case took place during a second Trump term we could be looking at a very different result.
I don't like the fact that the court is so "politicized" and we have to consider conservative vs liberal judges but that is the way it currently works. If you are thinking about staying home in November or voting 3rd party remember this decision.
America is kind of unique in having such overtly political courts. Here in Canada, a majority of then and current Supreme Court justices were appointed by former PM Stephen Harper. Nonetheless Harper lost more SSC cases than any PM in recent history. I don't agree with all their decisions, but I'm happy to say at least our court is certainly not made up of lap dogs.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a nice strawman you've got there, it'd be a shame if someone came along and--oh wait, you already knocked it down.
There are actually three barbaric justices on the Supreme Court of the United States that want employers to have the choice to fire someone because of the employee's private sexual preferences.
That doesn't follow from the fact that they're in the minority, nor does it follow from the dissent. Whether you are for or against discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation (and I'd hope most of us are on the side of "against") does not bear on what the law says.
When congress passed the civil rights act, "sex" was a binary term. While I'm certainly in favor of t
Re: (Score:2)
Alito's opinion (Thomas joining) is really the only barbaric one, and it's remarkably tortured in how it tries to somehow claim that orientation and identity are somehow divorced from the person's sex.
Kavanaugh's opinion is the textual one, and is honestly just so childish as to be ridiculous. It's the whole, "if you didn't say exactly those words, then it doesn't count!" argument, and it's so weak as to be laughable.
From the majority opinion:
Nor is there any such thing as a “canon of donut holes,” in which Congress’s failure to speak directly to a specific case that falls within a more general statutory rule creates a tacit exception. Instead, when Congress chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, courts apply the broad rule. And that is exactly how this Court has always approached Title VII.
Kavanaugh would have you believe that the way laws are passed is
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not going to criticize them too hard. Kavanaugh differed with the majority on the matter of whether the courts have a mandate to alter the law. I don't agree with him, but his issue isn't with the substance of the ruling, but whether it was appropriate for SCOTUS to make the ruling. But this, really, is a fundamentally jurist debate over the powers a high court should have and how far reinterpretation should go.
Re:Barely ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be better news if there weren't three justices who disagreed. FFS -- think about it: There are actually three barbaric justices on the Supreme Court of the United States that want employers to have the choice to fire someone because of the employee's private sexual preferences. Three dangerous nut-cases. (I'm just surprised that it wasn't four this time.)
I haven't read the basis for the dissent yet but it probably is along the lines of "That's not what the law as written says".
There's nothing wrong with that view. It doesn't say they are in favor of discrimination. It just says the law says what it says, and it is the job of the legislative branch to write the laws, not the job of the judicial branch. They can always amend the law or write new one.
It is far preferable for rights to be created by the legislative branch. When rights are created by the court another court can just as easily take them away. This reliance on the court to create rights is what has made court nominations so contentious and political.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe you should concern yourself a little less with the state of other peoples' genitalia.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? There could be mentally ill people placed in position where they could be a danger to others and themselve, and you say I should not worry about it, because it's the fad now not to think that way? I have an idea, let's not operate based on fads and approval of SJW on twitter.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should concern yourself a little less with the state of other peoples' genitalia.
Some people can't help themselves. The world is filled with judgmental busybodies who like to make everything their business.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they could be but that is between themselves and their doctor. As far as the government is concerned it is "normal" with normal being a subjective and not legal term.
Re: (Score:2)
mental illness is indeed a legal term; in my state you can't do certain things in that condition.
Re: (Score:2)
And who makes the determination for the government, a doctor just the same. And someone with mental illness, even legally, is entitled to the same protections and rights as anyone else. Something like driving is a "privilege" and thus can be restricted, but even then simply being trans is not grounds to restrict those activities.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not you consider it "normal" is irrelevant. But you, as an employer, cannot discriminate against LGBT people. Don't like it? Move to Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see danger here, that this is an experiment of society that can backfire.
When SSM was legalized in Canada, some predicted societal collapse. In reality it is something nobody really thinks about any more, it's just not a big deal. The same predictions were made when SSM was legalized in the US. But they too were incorrect, life goes on just as always for all but the most obsessed individuals. Many other countries have protections for LBGTQ people. None of them are teetering on the brink of self destruction as a result.
100 years from now today's whiners will be consigned to
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)