Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 27136
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5976

Post by RTH10260 »

Addie wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:18 am
:clap:
NBC News: Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects gay and lesbian workers

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.
adding from the NYT news alert
The case concerned Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex.

The vote was 6 to 3, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch writing the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14009
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5977

Post by Notorial Dissent »

I have to say that was a flat out shock, I was expecting a 5-4 on that one. I 'm looking forward to seeing the opinion, particularly since Gorsuch wrote it.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11058
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5978

Post by Chilidog »

Mother has to be furious.

User avatar
fierceredpanda
Posts: 2980
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:04 pm
Location: BAR Headquarters - Turn left past the picture of King George III
Occupation: Criminal defense attorney - I am not your lawyer, and my posts do not constitute legal advice

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5979

Post by fierceredpanda »

Every once in a while, Gorsuch seems bent on reminding everyone that there is such a thing as principled legal conservatism; i.e., the law means what the law says. Entirely too many conservative legal types have essentially embraced the model of a la carte textualism, abandoning their strict interpretation of the law just exactly when a group they happen not to like is asking for something to be strictly interpreted. Along the way, the conservative legal establishment (read: the Federalist Society) has essentially taken this for granted and more or less boiled their argument down to: "Yeah, Title VII says sex discrimination is verboten, but trans people are are gross, so fuck them." Well, Gorsuch, at least on this occasion, wasn't willing to toe the line, and neither was Chief Justice Roberts.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton


User avatar
bob
Posts: 28924
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5980

Post by bob »

GreatGrey wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:22 am
Has Gorsuch gone rogue?
Gorsuch wrote the opinion, joined by the Chief and the liberal wing. So 6-3.

It is a consolidation of three cases, two about sexual-orientation discrimination. The 2d and the 11th had come to opposite conclusions. SCOTUS agreed with the 2d and overruled the 11th.

The third case was about trans discrimination, and SCOTUS upheld the 6th Circuit's ruling.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11058
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5981

Post by Chilidog »

So does this mean that Trump's rule change on health care for Trans people is history?

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28924
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5982

Post by bob »

Chilidog wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:47 pm
So does this mean that Trump's rule change on health care for Trans people is history?
It certainly doesn't help his position, but not necessarily.

Today's decision was about Title VII, which governs employment discrimination. So those who support the executive order will argue today's SCOTUS case applies only to the employment context.

The rule concerns the interpretation of section 1557 of the ACA. Section 1557 doesn't expressly reference Title VII. But it would be a big surprise if this kind of hair-splitting survived judicial review.
Edit: Different kind of executive action.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14009
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5983

Post by Notorial Dissent »

bob wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:52 pm
Chilidog wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:47 pm
So does this mean that Trump's rule change on health care for Trans people is history?
It certainly doesn't help his position, but not necessarily.

Today's decision was about Title VII, which governs employment discrimination. So those who support the executive order will argue today's SCOTUS case applies only to the employment context.

The executive order concerns the interpretation of section 1557 of the ACA. Section 1557 doesn't expressly reference Title VII. But it would be a big surprise if this kind of hair-splitting survived judicial review.
I 'm surprised no one has file suit to block it yet. It certainly should be.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Jcolvin2
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5984

Post by Jcolvin2 »

Interesting shout out at end of Justice Kavanaugh's dissent:
Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. 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.

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28924
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5985

Post by bob »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:45 pm
I 'm surprised no one has file suit to block it yet.
The rule was finalized on Friday, and won't go into effect until August. So I expect lawsuits by then.

* * *
Kavanaugh wrote: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.
Meh; it was an eye toward how history will read this decision. "I wasn't supporting segregation, I was supporting the states' right whether to segregate."
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14009
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5986

Post by Notorial Dissent »

bob wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:14 pm
Notorial Dissent wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:45 pm
I 'm surprised no one has file suit to block it yet.
The rule was finalized on Friday, and won't go into effect until August. So I expect lawsuits by then.

* * *
Kavanaugh wrote: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.
Meh; it was an eye toward how history will read this decision. "I wasn't supporting segregation, I was supporting the states' right whether to segregate."
Oh, I thought it was for immediate consumption. As to all the rhetoric that is flying around now, if you could go back to when Brown struck down segregation you'd see almost exactly the same excuses/justifications, just replace gay with black. Hypocrites then, hypocrites now.

Also too, has to do with sloppily/poorly written legislation, if they didn't want a thing to happen they should have said so in the legislation, they didn't, therefore the opening is there. Just because you think the legislation said one thing doesn't necessarily mean it did. The 14th has been around for one hundred fifty odd years, and its meaning keeps advancing with the times. So boo hoo on the originalists.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
tek
Posts: 4527
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:02 pm
Location: Lake Humidity, FL
Occupation: Damned if I know

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5987

Post by tek »

Kinda of interesting..

on one side "If the legislation does not explicitly cover something that didn't exist at the time, then it is up to Congress to update the law to include it"

on the other "if the legislation does not explicitly cover something that didn't exist at the time, then it is up to Congress to update the law to exclude it"

My IANAL reading of Title VII is that it would have covered LGBTQ had that been an issue at the time.

This also lays bare the bullshit of calling any of this "legislating from the bench." You can construct a "textual intent" argument to support any result you want.

/ramble
There's no way back
from there to here

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14009
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5988

Post by Notorial Dissent »

What he said.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
Addie
Posts: 42022
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 6:22 am
Location: downstairs

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5989

Post by Addie »

Talking Points Memo: Why Gorsuch’s Role In Pro-LGBT Ruling Cuts Conservatives So Deep
"The very least you can do in your life is to figure out what you hope for." - Barbara Kingsolver

User avatar
Chilidog
Posts: 11058
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:36 am

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5990

Post by Chilidog »

I heard something today sums up the issue nicely.

Suppose a buisness has two employees that are identical in productivity, skills, etc. In other words, they are identical by all traditional measures of employee evaluation.

Both employees are sexually attracted to men.

One employee is female, one is male.

If you fire the male employee for being gay, you have just discriminated against that employee "because of (their) sex."

Jcolvin2
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:40 am

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5991

Post by Jcolvin2 »

Chilidog wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:57 pm
I heard something today sums up the issue nicely.

Suppose a buisness has two employees that are identical in productivity, skills, etc. In other words, they are identical by all traditional measures of employee evaluation.

Both employees are sexually attracted to men.

One employee is female, one is male.

If you fire the male employee for being gay, you have just discriminated against that employee "because of (their) sex."
That was an example (slightly altered) used in the majority opinion by Justice Gorsuch. In the Gorsuch example, each employee introduced the employer to their wife.

User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 12165
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm
Location: @orly_licious With Pete Buttigieg and the other "open and defiant homosexuals" --Bryan Fischer AFA
Occupation: #StuggersForBiden "Do Nothing Democrat Savage" -- Donald, 9/28/19 and "Scalawag...Part of an extreme, malicious leftist internet social mob working in concert with weaponized, socialized governments to target and injure political opponents.” -- Walt Fitzpatrick
Contact:

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5992

Post by Orlylicious »

What's it going to matter to El Rushbo? Geez. Although hearing him freak out realizing all the hate he's spewed for decades is being thrown in the garbage is nice. All that angst can't be good for his health.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: The Supreme Court yesterday, there were four decisions. And I have to tell you, the conservative intelligentsia is beside itself. The people who have supported The Federalist Society and who supported Kavanaugh, who supported Gorsuch, they’re beside themselves. What happened yesterday at the Supreme Court may be the biggest sellout of conservatism by conservative justices in the history of the Supreme Court on four different issues.

One of them was taking the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and throwing LGBTQ into it. Doing that is what is called textualism. It’s a legal term. And let me see if I can explain it. The Civil Rights Act 1964 is passed, and to understand what was intended by the act, you go back to 1964, ’65, and you ask yourself, “What was sex in 1964, ’65? Was it simply an act between a man and a woman? Was there gay sex involved?”

But one thing that everybody agrees on, in fact, in 1964, ’65, the people that wrote the Civil Rights Act had no intention of including transgenders in it because there weren’t any that anybody knew. And yet justices on the United States Supreme Court decided to include LGBTQ people. So now they can’t be fired, they can’t be — it’s gonna be a mess. It’s an absolute mess. And textualism is the legal theory that allows a sitting judge to go ahead and throw something from 2020 into 1965 legislation, even though there is no way the legislation in ’65, the Civil Rights Act, could have possibly included LGBTQ transgenders and all that. It was not an issue, it was not at the forefront, nobody talked about it. It wasn’t a big deal.

So you throw it in under the evolving, living Constitution. Well, that isn’t how conservatives look at the Constitution. The original intent, if you go back and find original intent, then that’s all you’re supposed to do. So my point here, everybody on the right — I’m gonna share with you some excerpts today from a column by Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review who just nails this and is beside himself with what happened.

And, by the way, he’s right. A Supreme Court decision yesterday upheld sanctuary cities, thanks to conservative votes, upheld the right of cities to be sanctuary and to freeze ICE investigators out of trying to track down illegal immigrants. The liberals did not need to dominate the court for this. They had Gorsuch.

[H/T Rushlimbaugh.com]
Hey! Don't miss The Fogbow's Favourite TV Show™ starring the titular Mama June Shannon -- "Mama June: Family Crisis!" TVShowsAce featured Fogbow's love 5/26/20: https://bit.ly/2TNxrbS

User avatar
bob
Posts: 28924
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5993

Post by bob »

Limbaugh wrote:One of them was taking the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and throwing LGBTQ into it. Doing that is what is called textualism. It’s a legal term. And let me see if I can explain it. The Civil Rights Act 1964 is passed, and to understand what was intended by the act, you go back to 1964, ’65, and you ask yourself, “What was sex in 1964, ’65? Was it simply an act between a man and a woman? Was there gay sex involved?”

But one thing that everybody agrees on, in fact, in 1964, ’65, the people that wrote the Civil Rights Act had no intention of including transgenders in it because there weren’t any that anybody knew. And yet justices on the United States Supreme Court decided to include LGBTQ people.
For someone who thinks he's so smart, he has it basically backwards.

Reviewing words by the author's intent isn't textualism; textualism is the words mean what they say, regardless of what the author intended.

Limbaugh is actually describing originalism, i.e., words should be interpreted in light of the author's intent.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
MN-Skeptic
Posts: 3520
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 6:36 pm
Location: Twin Cities

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5994

Post by MN-Skeptic »

My husband was a wonderful man, but he liked listening to Rush Limbaugh. That wasn't an issue unless we were in the car together and he was driving. "Sweetie, let's change the channel." "No, let me listen to Rush for just 10 or 15 minutes." Sigh. Ah... but I learned quickly... "Hey Sweetie, look at that tractor out there in the field. What do you suppose that farmer is doing?" And since my husband enjoyed chatting more than anything, the sound of the radio would fade into the background. :lol:
MAGA - Morons Are Governing America

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14009
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5995

Post by Notorial Dissent »

The paradigm shift, as an old and much loathed boss of mine used to say, he was big on buzzwords,

is that sexual identity is now INCLUDED in SEX, as it rightly should be.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 9305
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5996

Post by RVInit »

Chilidog wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:57 pm
I heard something today sums up the issue nicely.

Suppose a buisness has two employees that are identical in productivity, skills, etc. In other words, they are identical by all traditional measures of employee evaluation.

Both employees are sexually attracted to men.

One employee is female, one is male.

If you fire the male employee for being gay, you have just discriminated against that employee "because of (their) sex."
:winner: Nicely done, Chilidog.
"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

jemcanada
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:11 am

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5997

Post by jemcanada »

They keep complaining that this ruling is a sell out of conservatism. Aren’t supreme court rulings supposed to be about the law, not conservative or progressive agendas and who paid for them? I know. I’m naive. :blink: :blink:

User avatar
Notorial Dissent
Posts: 14009
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5998

Post by Notorial Dissent »

jemcanada wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:41 am
They keep complaining that this ruling is a sell out of conservatism. Aren’t supreme court rulings supposed to be about the law, not conservative or progressive agendas and who paid for them? I know. I’m naive. :blink: :blink:
Yabut, NOT when it is one of their issues, then they want doctrine over law. Didn't happen the last two times. They be pissed!!
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 2047
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#5999

Post by neeneko »

jemcanada wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:41 am
They keep complaining that this ruling is a sell out of conservatism. Aren’t supreme court rulings supposed to be about the law, not conservative or progressive agendas and who paid for them? I know. I’m naive. :blink: :blink:
Well, that is the general ethos of the 'law and order' crowd. They barely even pretend to want neutral application of law, but instead feel that the law should be their tool of power.

User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 1143
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 5:54 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Network Engineer

Re: Gay Rights - LGBT - Same Sex Marriage

#6000

Post by noblepa »

Notorial Dissent wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:01 pm
jemcanada wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:41 am
They keep complaining that this ruling is a sell out of conservatism. Aren’t supreme court rulings supposed to be about the law, not conservative or progressive agendas and who paid for them? I know. I’m naive. :blink: :blink:
Yabut, NOT when it is one of their issues, then they want doctrine over law. Didn't happen the last two times. They be pissed!!
Years ago, before Alan Deshowitz lost his mind, he was talking on one of the 24 hour news channels about an upcoming supreme court appointment.

He said that the right claims to not want "activist" judges, but he then pointed out that they really wanted activist judges who supported THEIR positions. IOW, it was okay to be an activist and "legislate from the bench" if the judges activism and "legislation" went in their direction.

Post Reply

Return to “Social Issues”