Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender, Supreme Court rules

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Creep Thumper

The Supreme Court has reduced itself to deciding things that society would iron out itself. They need to be "hands off" with minor society issues, just like they are with radicals taking over a section of Seattle.

And yet, you regularly applaud SCOTUS decisions when they go your way.

The Constitution is clear. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is clear. Your posts are typically "law and order" based ... but not this time?

Odd.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Its that whole "legislating from the bench" thing.

Courts interpret based on the spirit of the law. Mostly because no law can encompass everything. The spirit of the Civil Rights Act seems, to me, to be that you cannot discriminate against people for "what" they are. You have to determine that "who" they are is worthy of it, and that is fine. I.e., a gay man (what he is) should not be discriminated against. A violent person, however (be it physical or verbal), regardless of any "what" they may be, has shown that "who" that are is not worth interacting with.

I support the spirit of that kind of interpretation wholly.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Gorsuch is a strict constructionalist though. The restriction on discrimination by sex means that factor cannot be a factor in different outcomes of law.

I made the same argument for marriage equality. A marriage is a contract offered by the State. The State cannot specify the sex of parties to a contract, because the State cannot discrimnate based on sex. (And I would argue that goes back to at least the Fourteenth Amendment if not the Fifth.)

A strict constructionist (Gorsuch I think even calls himself a "textualist") looks at the word for what it meant at the time.

Sex in 1964 refers to biological charateristics loosely divided into male and female.

A bi/gay man/woman is different from a straight man/woman because of the sex of the focus of their desire/love/emotional attachment etc.

A trans person identifies as a sex other than the one they were assigned at birth.

In both cases, the focus of difference is sex. Sexual orientation is a way we refer to the sex of the focus of attraction, gender identity deals with feeling that their assigned sex is different (or the same) as their real sex.

The law says sex. There has been plenty of precedent at the State and Federal level that under Title VII any and all discrimination against sex is illegal.

I don't see this as imposing a new law, but interpreting what the law orginally said, and making it formal.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Creep Thumper

Not down the toilet at all.

The law that was interpreted by the Supreme Court here was passed by Congress in 1964.

Congress passed the law.

SCOTUS interpreted it in the judicial process.

System working as intended.

They used designations not based on science and biological fact. There are two sexes - male and female.

The term "gender" has been hijacked by an interested subculture to define spurious sexual/gender designations not grounded in science or biology.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

...I'm not sure how the facilities for mensturating humans differ from standard facilities.

You don't specifically ask, and you probably really don't want to know, so I won't go into any of the gritty details unless you do ask

However, since that is the issue you have offered as an example, would you say that transmen should have to use the Ladies facilities?

Short answer: I'm not sure what to think about this. Long answer: My initial kneejerk reaction is "Please please please do!" because I worry about them in the men's bathroom. But that's really not my decision to make for them. I think I need to hear more from both men and the women who identify as men. I do not want to exclude them from the ladies' room, because depending on their stage or extent of transition, they may need the ladies' room. And perhaps the ladies in there who would almost certainly be more helpful than men! At the same time, it may at some point be appropriate to exclude them from the ladies room, if their increased testosterone makes them the same problem that men are: too aggressive, predatory, strong and violent. (Unfortunately, I am hearing that this is happening. To what extent I do not know).

My suggestion is and has been that public facilities (like bathrooms, showers, etc.) that provide facilities for very private needs should be private. These spaces should not be communal for multiple reasons, mostly privacy and safety.

Would that we could!!! That would definitely be the ideal, and perhaps possible in limited places and situations. There are plenty of people who don't feel safe or comfortable doing some things even in same sex facilities. I'm one who would prefer the privacy and comfort of my own bathroom/home in any/all such situations!

I think, at this point, third spaces -- mixed or unisex -- are going to be the most practical approach going forward. And even then, it won't be perfect. There will still be someone(s) whose needs are not satisfactorily met.

(And our past conversations have helped me arrive at that conclusion, btw.)

That's pretty cool to hear -- thank you! -- and I can say the same for you.

But (dammit!!!) you're making it very difficult for me to be difficult and disagreeable... hrmph!

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Creep Thumper

Not down the toilet at all.

The law that was interpreted by the Supreme Court here was passed by Congress in 1964.

Congress passed the law.

SCOTUS interpreted it in the judicial process.

System working as intended.

They used designations not based on science and biological fact. There are two sexes - male and female.

The term "gender" has been hijacked by an interested subculture to define spurious sexual/gender designations not grounded in science or biology.

RIght the word "sex" is the operant focus here in Title VII.

Gay people: distinction is based on sex of their attractions.

Trans people: distinction is based on a difference in their assigned sex and their actual gender.

Both categories focus on sex, which cannot be discriminated against until Title VII.

originally posted by: Boadicea

That's pretty cool to hear -- thank you! -- and I can say the same for you.

But (dammit!!!) you're making it very difficult for me to be difficult and disagreeable... hrmph!

That's because you and I discuss facts and opinions directly based on facts. And we're not asses.

(Well, you're not, LOL.)

a reply to: Gryphon66

In any event...i cannot find dissatisfaction with people having equal rights to each other.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

In any event...i cannot find dissatisfaction with people having equal rights to each other.

Justice Kavanaugh said the same thing in his Dissenting Opinion.

If you didn't read it, it's rather inspiring.

I keep getting the image of Rev. Jerry Falwell setting his hair on fire.

originally posted by: olaru12
I keep getting the image of Rev. Jerry Falwell setting his hair on fire.

If I believed in Hell, I'd guess it already is.

Has been for a while now.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: olaru12
I keep getting the image of Rev. Jerry Falwell setting his hair on fire.

If I believed in Hell, I'd guess it already is.

Has been for a while now.

Sack cloth and ashes in Lynchburg for a couple of months.

a reply to: olaru12

OH, Jerry Falwell Jr. ?

The one that gave a million dollars to a pool boy?

*snicker*

Not to be "phobic" here, but I feel like you are a human first and your sexual orientation further down the line . So why are we arguing and making it a talking point , when most rational people don't want to talk to strangers especially about that.

I will say, alot of people that are "trans/gay, etc" don't have the mental tools ,support group,and seem to be terrible at prioritizing their problems, so, with the help of media and society, they are telling these disturbed people to give up on their humanity to become a political martyr, so focused on self image actualization, that they have become molded with the industry and are nothing more than shallow, emotional pawns. It's called preying on the weak. The Gov, has learned that people so influenced by emotions that they will "Change gender," are more easy to control than the black community which is collectively waking up for the most part.

I know I drifted, but that being said..
The reason they're getting fired is because their emotionally unstable, or they're lousy workers. I've personally seen alot of them that are under 25, struggling on the streets to make a living because they are so consumed by gender politics and vanity that they are blind to reality, trying to pretend that they are made of gold because snapchat will buy perverted photos of them. Get yourself out of the gutter America! And better yet, go get your fkkn kids and make sure they're not in the gutter.

a reply to: PharoahSpiderMan

Because American law actively made being gay illegal for most of our history.

Because sodomy laws were used almost exclusively against gay men.

Because gays were regularly lobotomized, given electro-shock treatments etc. less than 50 years ago.

Because gays were excluded from equality under the laws thus making them second-class citizens.

That's a start.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just saw this posted elsewhere from November 2019. I hadn't seen it at that time. But I thought you might be interested in yet another perspective (I think quite fair and balanced) on the sex-based spaces:

A Plea for Third Spaces for Transmen and Transwomen

Didn’t realize this wasn’t already something in place. Makes sense, I can’t imagine there’s too many people in opposition of this lol. a reply to: Xcalibur254

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Creep Thumper

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Creep Thumper

Not down the toilet at all.

The law that was interpreted by the Supreme Court here was passed by Congress in 1964.

Congress passed the law.

SCOTUS interpreted it in the judicial process.

System working as intended.

They used designations not based on science and biological fact. There are two sexes - male and female.

The term "gender" has been hijacked by an interested subculture to define spurious sexual/gender designations not grounded in science or biology.

RIght the word "sex" is the operant focus here in Title VII.

Gay people: distinction is based on sex of their attractions.

Trans people: distinction is based on a difference in their assigned sex and their actual gender.

Both categories focus on sex, which cannot be discriminated against until Title VII.

Way to warp what I said. 🙄

This was long overdue. For those bitching, if you can't think of other reasons to fire an emloyee to get around your bigotry and don't have the self control to hide your hate, you're just not very creative and deserve the lawsuit coming your way.

Whether you are gay or trans you should be allowed to make a living just like everyone else. Work is necessary for basic survival, anyone who thinks it's ok to deprive someone of that basic need for things which have nothing to do with the work place, well you're seriously messed in the head.

This ruling was clearly right. Get used to it. It's not like the Supreme court has a democratic majority, and yet it still ruled this way. It's also not legislation from the bench. It's the Supreme's court job to interpret the constitution and how it applies, which is exactly what they did. They made no laws, but as a result some laws have been ruled unconstitutional as a result, as they should have been.

Sometimes I hate being a moderate, so much easier to pick one side and go die hard for it.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 in a landmark decision that gay and transgender employees are protected by civil rights laws against employer discrimination.

A set of cases that came before the court had asked the justices to decide whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of "sex," applies to gay and transgender people.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion for the six-member majority, said that it does.

"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender," Gorsuch wrote. "The answer is clear. 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."

Source

I'm glad to finally see a decision on this. I remember early in in Trump's presidency the DOJ claimed that sexual orientation was not protected by Title VII. Well now, according to the Supreme Court, this administration was wrong.

Really? So because the supreme court ruled in favor of title VII, in the last few DAYS, somehow makes a factual statement made over the last few YEARS incorrect? Sorry but it doesnt work that way. They were correct, if insensitive, in their reading of the law at the time they made those statements (as the court had yet to rule on the decision). If they came out today and said that... well they would be wrong, because they courts have now passed a ruling on the matter.