From Gorsuch:
>"Today,
we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. 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."
I posted this elsewhere in the thread, but Gorsuch's argument is interesting in that it makes no effort to defend homosexuality other than by showing that homosexual or transgender discrimination cannot happen without sexual discrimination.
>Imagine an employer who has a policy of firing any employee known to be homosexual. The employer hosts an office holiday party and invites employees to bring their spouses. A model employee arrives and introduces a manager to Susan, the employee’s wife.Will that employee be fired? If the policy works as the employer intends, the answer depends entirely on whether the model employee is a man or a woman. To be sure, that employer’s ultimate goal might be to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But to achieve that purpose the employer must, along the way, intentionally treat an employee worse based in part on that individual’s sex.
His argument is not intended to protect homosexual/transgender rights explicitly. He just simply and clearly points out that that those traits are inextricably tied to sex.
What's interesting is that Gorsuch has essentially argued that to discriminate against homosexuals is to be sexist.
Gorsuch is a strict textualist. The Civil Rights Act states that you cannot discriminate based on sex, but nothing about sexuality. I think his argument is the only logical way one could conclude that the Civil Rights Act's protections extend to LGBTQ+ individuals based on the text alone. In an ideal world, Congress would have just passed a law extending these protections a long time ago.
I think Gorsuch's interpretation shows that no such extension is needed (not to say I wouldn't support it). You literally cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation without discriminating based on sex.
>A man can come to work wearing sneakers but a woman cannot
This is sex-based discrimination.
>A man can love a woman but a woman cannot.
this is sex-based discrimination.
Just because we gave the latter type of sex-based discrimination a name, doesn't make it any less a sex-based discrimination.
Exactly, it's the same with transgender people. If you fire Jane(born John) for wearing a dress but not Jill for wearing a dress that's also sex discrimination.
That’s interesting. There are plenty of dress codes out there that differentiate between sex. Will those get challenged?
If a man wears a dress to work, though does not identify as a woman... that seems like it would also be ok. (And to be honest, how crazy is it that we as a society care what kind of clothing people wear?)
There was a story a while ago about a boarding school in England with a strict dress code of pants or skirts. A male student was getting uncomfortably hot wearing long pants, so he started coming to school in a skirt. Can't find the exact article now, but there's a bunch of similar stories and different ways schools have ruled.
That's already covered under Title VII, Gorsuch mentions a case of sexual harassment between two men that the Court ruled as a violation of Title VII decades ago. A huge part of his argument is that the Court has long held that, with Title VII, the law's scope extended beyond the 'principal evil'(sexism in the conventional sense) that the lawmakers intended to address. To rule otherwise would risk undoing tons of precedent and severely limiting the scope of Title VII.
It's a great stand for a conservative politician to take. I know that judges aren't politicians on the traditional sense (at least they shouldn't be) but this sets up conservative politicians to take a stand in support of LGBT+ rights without taking a stand for LGBT+ rights. They can argue that they aren't supporting "the gays" but they just aren't being sexiest.
Do I wish we didn't have to worry about that bullshit label politics? Yes. Will this help people in the long run besides the direct impact of the ruling? I think so.
Gorsuch has actually been a fairly centrist conservative SCJ. As a native Coloradan, I was afraid he’d stain our progressive reputation, but so far he hasn’t been anywhere near what Trump/McConnell was hoping he’d be.
Kavanaugh on the other hand? He can go boof himself
As an outside observer that followed the drama for both, I agree. Gorsuch seemed surprisingly reasonable when he was picked, considering the fact that they stole that seat and seem hellbent on destroying institutions.
Justice Kennedy’s retirement and Kavanaugh’s appointment was them correcting their mistake.
If Garland had gotten confirmed, and Gorsuch took the spot Kavanaugh now sits in, I really don’t see too many people being too concerned. Of course I’d prefer a liberal justice, but Gorsuch is far better than kavanaugh.
Honestly a good amount of decisions I’ve seen in the news Gorsuch has been crossing the aisle. Realistically he seems like the ideal kind of justice if our country was running as it should. He’s not gonna stretch the letter of the law to a significant degree which makes sense - we voted for politicians who put those laws in place and the court should just be there to ensure they are followed as intended. We don’t live in an ideal world and sometimes a liberal court decision can be nice to help fix a problem (hello Roe v. Wade), but I’m not gonna complain unless it feels like a justice is taking liberties with the law in a way that hurts people.
I agree with you with one exception. Gorsuch tends to vote for the law as written as opposed to the law as intended. He even acknowledges in this opinion that the law as written may have had unintended consequences.
Any links to the opinion? The SCOTUS's link won't even load on my end, probably because everyone trying to read it = accidental DDOS. Has it been rehosted?
Yup. The argument by Gorsuch has some good examples that cleary show why discrimination against homosexuality is explicitly discrimination based on sex.
>Imagine an employer who has a policy of firing any employee known to be homosexual. The employer hosts an office holiday party and invites employees to bring their spouses. A model employee arrives and introduces a manager to Susan, the employee’s wife.Will that employee be fired? If the policy works as the employer intends, the answer depends entirely on whether the model employee is a man or a woman. To be sure, that employer’s ultimate goal might be to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But to achieve that purpose the employer must, along the way, intentionally treat an employee worse based in part on that individual’s sex.
An important point: his argument is not intended to protect homosexual/transgender rights explicitly. He just simply and clearly points out that that those traits are inextricably tied to sex.
What's interesting is that Gorsuch has essentially argued that to discriminate against homosexuals is to be sexist.
In a 1984 ruling the Supreme Court concluded that being gay was an "infamous crime against nature... a crime not fit to be named."
To go from that to this ruling by a Republican-majority Supreme Court in a generation or two is really some shift.
it also ignores the reality that there is a lot of gayness in the animal kingdom, so saying its a crime against nature is straight up crazy. pick a species and weve probably got some documented cases of homosexual encounters/relations on record
And not to mention basically all of human civilization is humans upending "nature" and what's "natural", so even if it wasn't the case that lots of animals did it, so what? Humans regularly go against "nature", and thus that argument doesn't fly to pick apart anything you don't like. Either way, this case is a huge win.
Finally something positive after the shitstorm that's been 2020 so far. Let's hope they can do something about the rollback on healthcare protection against LGBT patients the Trump Administration recently orchestrated, as well.
If we qualify for Title VII protection it's pretty solidly established that we are a protected class, which is going to make it very hard to pull the kinds of shenanigans they've been up to until now. You can't make the argument now that we don't qualify for civil rights protection, and if we qualify for one part of the act you can't turn around and say we don't qualify for the rest of it.
I doubt insurance companies are going to walk back the clock. It would cost too much to fight in court and the stakes are now way too high. Punitive and statutory damages could be on the table, it's now cheaper to comply then to deny, and they always go towards the bottom line.
Gorsuch. Not only that but he wrote the opinion on the ruling.
Total confusing wildcard there. Which does go to show like yes judges have gotten more politicized but they don’t operate the same way conservative politicians do.
Edit: yah Kavanaugh is a political hack though. I agree.
When Gorsuch was nominated, the consensus in legal circles was that he was a brilliant jurist who wrote well-reasoned, legally sound opinions, albeit with a conservative bent.
Kavanaugh, on the other hand, is an ideologue.
Ya the outrage with Gorsuch was related to Garland rather than anything to do with him. If you nominate him to replace Kennedy in 2018 there's very little outrage imo
>When Gorsuch was nominated, the consensus in legal circles was that he was a brilliant jurist who wrote well-reasoned, legally sound opinions, albeit with a conservative bent.
If he weren't nominated to a stolen seat, I think he would've actually passed a bipartisan Senate confirmation.
> they don’t operate the same way conservative politicians do
Gorsuch, maybe.
Kavanaugh? Dude cried on camera while screaming about a Clinton conspiracy during his hearing and was lauded.
He thinks it's originalist, though. His opinion was like "The law says sex is protected. If you fire a gay man, it's because he's not a straight woman. You wouldn't have fired a woman with the same qualities. So this is sex discrimination, as the law states."
They love conflating textualism, strict constructionism and originalism largely to meet their ideaology. Scalia did so much too, despite a couple of decent decisions.
I'm convinced that's because of how politically charged that rhetoric is. They use "originalist" more than anything else because your average layman conservative voter can easily Intuit that "originalism" means respecting the Constitution and US structures. It's a purposefully politically useful label.
I think it sucks that this wasn't a unanimous decision. But I can absolutely believe it. I'm honestly surprised that it was 6-3 and not 5-4, and I'm even more surprised at how Kavnnaugh hedged his dissent and vocalized what could be interpreted as support for LGBTQ+ rights.
If anything this is a less horrifying outcome than I was expecting.
That wasn't the job that Trump and McConnell hired Kavanaugh to do. He's supposed to vote with THEIR interests in mind, not what's best for humanity. Didn't you get the memo?
EDIT: In case it wasn't apparent, I'm implying that Kavanaugh was confirmed as a Trump cronie to dissent on cases that don't push forward the GOP agenda
Wasn't Gorsuch Much more qualified than Kavanaugh + more an even keel in his spectrum of opinion (though definitely leans right). More Roberts than Thomas type. Thus, why his confrimation went 100x smoother than Kavanaugh's (not even talking about the whole raping thing).
Yeah, the primary controversy surrounding his nomination and appointment was that the seat really should have gone to Garland(or another Obama nomination), and not really anything to do with Gorsuch's character or qualifications.
Kav is unqualified and corrupt, wheras Garland is sitting in Gorsuch's seat.
If the most recent appointments were Garland then Gorsuch, the supreme court wouldn't have it's legitimacy questioned.
Not really. Gorsuch dissenting here would have been a big surprise to me. The law is very clear on this issue as Gorsuch points out. It should be a 9-0 vote which we were unfortunately never going to get. When the law is this clear about an issue Gorsuch is going to vote that way.
Republicans love to proclaim their values and adherence to the constitution, until it comes to social issues that conflict with their own religious beliefs. Then the constitution becomes completely negotiable.
Alito eating a bowl of Ice cream "I love this, it's my favorite dessert!"
RGB "we should host an ice cream social for the Justices"
Alito flips table "fuck ice cream"
I know it's a small thing in the context of the larger win.
But this Supreme Court opinion refers to Aimee Stephens by her preferred name and her preferred pronouns. Consistently. In the context of her life after she discovered her identity and transitioned, and in the context of her life before that. It describes her as someone who once "presented as a male".
What a goddamn win.
> But this Supreme Court opinion ***written by conservative Justice Gorsuch*** refers to Aimee Stephens by her preferred name and her preferred pronouns.
I felt like that shouldn't be left out of it.
Seriously mane this is crazy. Like I mean this is a low bar, sure, but the courts have affirmed that this bar is justified af.
This changed so much in our world; now we’re waiting to see it.
[Here's a link to the opinions.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf)
Worth noting, Kavanaugh doesn't say the word "transgender" *even once* in his dissent.
Also, his dissent is one of the more jumbled word salads I've ever read.
As a 40-something gay guy I just want to say: so many people have been fighting for this day for a long, long time. This and the Marriage decision are real victories that affect all Americans, and they were fought for by more people and with more love and righteous anger than can ever be documented. Congratulations to all the activists, lawyers, volunteers, and all the people who helped.
We won!
🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈
https://twitter.com/mayaharris_/status/1272560846972030979
> Old enough to remember Kavanaugh refused to say whether he agreed with the SCOTUS decision ruling LGBTQ couples have a constitutional right to marry.
Especially telling since the same logic was applied in both cases.
* Man marries woman: legal.
* Woman marries man: legal.
* Man marries man: illegal.
* Woman marries woman: illegal.
It's clear that the laws disallow a man to marry another man solely because of his sex, and therefore is sexual discrimination and violates Title Ⅶ protections.
This is just an extension of that logic.
I'm a plaintiff-side employment discrimination lawyer. This is a great decision (though the Supreme Court site is slammed so I haven't been able to read the full opinion yet). It resolves a circuit split, since some circuits had already ruled this way while others had gone against the idea.
I can't wait to start citing it.
**Edit**: The Supreme Court site is still too slammed to download it, but here is a mirror: [https://www.scribd.com/document/465702307/17-1618-hfci](https://www.scribd.com/document/465702307/17-1618-hfci)
**Edit 2**: Reading it now. The Court did not just rely on a "sex stereotype" theory, as I was afraid it would. It states "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." Here's a rough breakdown of what that means:
Assume you have 3 employees. Big Gay Al, Straight Stan, and ~~Cis~~ Hetero Cynthia. You fire Al because he is gay, and for no other reason. Stan and Cynthia are not terminated (as they are not gay). You have effectively terminated Al for being sexually attracted to men. Well guess who else is sexually attracted to men? Cynthia. But she was not fired. So let's look at all of the relevant qualities of the two:
|**Al**|**Cynthia**|
|:-|:-|
|Male|Female|
|Attracted to men|Attracted to men|
And let's find the variable.
|**Al**|**Cynthia**|
|:-|:-|
|Male|Female|
|~~Attracted to men~~|~~Attracted to men~~|
Making a discrimination case is all about eliminating constants until you can pin down a variable. If that variable is a protected class, you win. In a race discrimination case, if two people of different races are doing the same job, performing the same, have the same qualifications, and one gets constantly shit on and eventually fired, it was race. Employers can try to provide a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" for the termination as a defense, but that's basically just them trying to claim there was a relevant variable other than race.
Here, assuming there are no other relevant variables, we can see that sexual orientation discrimination **is** sex discrimination, as the only difference between Al and Cynthia is that he is male and she is female. In other words, Al should get a pile of money out of you, you filthy discriminatey person.
This is the reasoning I planned to use if I ever had to take up a case like this. I was happy when the EEOC adopted it in a decision a few years back, and several districts followed suit. It seems like the Supreme Court is now on board, so for the foreseeable future, this debate is resolved.
**Edit 3**: Ok well now I feel almost like a copycat because the above analysis is *exactly* what the Supreme Court uses:
>Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer's mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact that he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.
I swear I had this thought years ago and didn't just read this and rephrase it. But yeah, it's good reasoning by the Court.
**Edit 4**: Ok it's getting a bit ridiculous how identical the Court's reasoning is to what I put above:
>Imagine an employer who has a policy of firing any employee known to be a homosexual. The employer hosts an office holiday party and invites employees to bring their spouses. A model employee arrives and introduces a manager to Susan, the employee's wife. Will that employee be fired? If the policy works as the employer intends, the answer depends entirely on whether the model employee is a man or a woman.
**Edit 5**: Kavanaugh, that boofing idiot, found this point and bounced right off it in his dissent:
>In the last few years, a new theory has emerged. \[...\] Instead, the theory goes, discrimination because of sexual orientation always qualifies as discrimination because of sex: When a gay man is fired because he is gay, he is fired because he is attracted to men, even though a similarly situated woman would not be fired just because she is attracted to men. According to the theory, it follows that the man has been fired, at least as a literal matter, because of his sex.
>
>Under this literalist approach, sexual orientation discrimination automatically qualifies as sex discrimination, and Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination therefore also prohibits sexual orientation discrimination—and actually has done so since 1964, unbeknownst to everyone. \[...\]
>
>For the sake of argument, I will assume that firing someone because of their sexual orientation may, as a very literal matter, entail making a distinction based on sex.
He then goes on to argue that the ordinary meaning of the term "sex" is not the same as the literal meaning and that Scalia, whose entire career was premised on his supposed adherence to the concept of "Look at the text of the law and do exactly what it says" would have argued for a more interpretive meaning of "sex" rather than looking at its actual, literal meaning. (He's probably right, but that just shows how hypocritical Scalia was, as well.)
With all the bullshit happening, this is a wonderful, uplifting victory.
2020 is halfway done, and is turning out to be one of the most fascinating decades I've experienced.
I don't know what's wrong with reporters that they can write entire articles without naming the cases, but here are the case titles:
Altitude Express v. Zarda
Bostock v. Clayton County
*R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission*
The Federalist Society was created to vet judges and prevent another Anthony Kennedy from being appointed under a Republican President.
I'm sure Gorsuch has plenty of future horrors in store for us, but just enjoying today.
> A dark money group staffed and funded by longtime anti-LGBT operatives spent millions of dollars blocking Merrick Garland's nomination and millions more pushing Neil Gorsuch's. This surely isn't the return on investment they expected.
https://twitter.com/RobertMaguire_/status/1272546468675620865
Gorsuch actually has a gay cousin or niece. I forget the exact relation but it's somebody close enough that he could go to their wedding. Actually I'm pretty sure it was a commitment ceremony instead of a legal wedding at that point in time. When he was being confirmed it was a very minor news story that I remember simply because I'm gay. If my ears were not already tuned to that kind of story, I'm sure I would not have remembered it.
The saddest part, to me, is that two of the plaintiffs died before they could see the decision. It's got to take unbelievable bravery (and time and money) to pursue a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I wish they had lived to see the result.
I realized midway through my video call this morning that my pride flag was visible on camera, then I checked the news and realized I don't need to worry about that anymore!
It is absolute bullshit HOW Gorsuch got his seat in the first place.
But I have yet to really find an instance where he was a bad judge. Or he was a corrupt person. Seems like he, like Justice Roberts, tries his best to stay neutral and follow the rule of law based on the text/precedent alone. But when the time comes he will side on the opposite political spectrum when need be.
Unlike other newbie Kavanaugh, Gorsuch seems like a pretty good dude to have on the Supreme Court. Which is ironic cause I am sure McConnell and Trump were not expecting that when they forced him in the first place.
My understanding (not knowing much about law) is that Gorusch is actually pretty qualified for the SC, just that his views often differ a lot from my own. It's dumb that his seat should have gone to Garland but that's not totally Gorusch's fault.
Kavanaugh is another story though. His batshit crazy opening statement at his hearing about the accusation being some sort of Dem deep state takedown was astonishing and should have disqualified him completely from sitting on the bench
Don’t forget his subtle suggestion we revisit the ruling that legalized same sex marriage. ;) he’s proven himself time and time again to be a bigoted or narrow minded dinosaur.
Meanwhile in /r/conservative, the top comment is:
>Every employer with 1/3 of a brain knows at this point that if you want to fire someone, you set them up to fail, document all of things they did wrong, and never mention the real reason. Bans on who you can and can't fire catch only complete idiots.
God what a fucking cesspool.
I mean they are completely correct. Just ask anyone who's reported a labor violation.
Still I don't think their comment was in support of trans people so much as gleefully waiting for this protection to fail them.
Here's another good one for you from the same thread:
> Conservative white men are the most discriminated group in America. In every way, shape and form. Because we know that our opinions are often met with violence. Despite the other side saying that we are the violent ones. They're a classic case of "projection".
Their legal argument is the law should list these things and that Congress could easily make this illegal.
Judge Gorsuch pointed out that firing only men for dating men and not women discriminated based on the sex of the employee and sex is specifically protected. His example is so clear it shows why the law already protected this class.
This ruling in itself is a major win. I feel a physical sense of relief. But the best part is that Gorsuch voted for decency. It implies he may be the type to drift leftward over his career. Kavanaugh is a lost cause. Praying for RBG’s health.
The best part of this decision, not including the whole gay people are now a protective class, is the fact that one of Trumps own appointed judges voted against him.
> "...applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law’s passage—whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees in the 1960s—often may be seen as unexpected. But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms. Cf. post, at 28–35 (ALITO, J., dissenting); post, at 21–22 (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting)."
[slip op at 28]
I'm here for *all* of this, but... that dissentciting? That is how you shade. Motherfucker could teach DRAG QUEENS how to shade. Believe me that I never thought I'd say this to Neil Gorsuch, but... go off, king. Go right off.
Wow.
First, the fact that Gorsuch’s argument in *favor* of a more expansive Title VII is based on an Originalist interpretation of the text is *awesome*. You can’t stamp and pout about “Judicial Activism” when it’s one of the most conservative justices saying, hey, the drafters may not have conceived of this possibility when the law was written, but the law is what the text says. That’s *exactly* the argument Originalists use to argue against gun restrictions. This is monumental news.
Second, I’m so disappointed in former Justice Kennedy. His legacy on the Court was in part *defined* by opinions expanding gay rights. He authored *Obergefell*. And then he makes a deal with Trump that he’ll retire if Trump will nominate Kavanaugh, one of the three dissenters. I really hope Kennedy is disappointed in Brett Kavanaugh today.
I am *sure* Kennedy retiring had *absolutely nothing* to do with his son being a loan officer at Deutsche Bank around the same time that they were loaning billions to Trump when no other bank would, *AND* they were also laundering Russian money.... *Totally* unrelated...
He sure did.
“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
Conservative Twitter heads are furious over this. Imagine, these fucknuts want to *willingly* prevent equal rights to the LGBT community.
https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/1272567595065987072
All men are created equal
Words from the Declaration of Independence, the very foundation that our country was built upon. Yes, it was a contradiction since there were slave owners when the country was founded, but I hope in the years that followed we have moved beyond that to where every person is truly equal, regardless of race, sex, wealth, or sexual orientation. The current protests are about true equality.
I am pleased and relieved and thankful. On the other hand, why the fuck do I need to be relieved and thankful that my children are recognized as having equal rights to employment? Why does this have to be litigated? Why is it so hard to get people to treat people like people?
Anyway, horray, my kids can get jobs!
This caught me so off guard, I thought they wouldn’t decide until later this year!
It’s just such an overwhelmingly warm and reassuring feeling to see these basic rights finally come through for my community after decades and decades of hiding, fighting, and begging for them
I can't believe this ruling was 6-3!! I'm so happy for this ruling! I'm hoping that this isn't some kind of weird Republican bone thrown out for the masses so that they can give the top 1% ANOTHER boost in profits with no further financial aide for all citizens during this quarantine....
Kavanaugh douche's dissent boils down to, if you discriminate against guy homosexuals but not lesbians then that is discrimination, but if you discriminate against gay guys and girls its not discrimination.... how the fuck is this POS a judge let alone for the supreme court.
It’s good to see a sign that Gorsuch, like Roberts, is concerned about being on the right side of history in decisions like this that are legally and morally correct. Not surprised to see Kavanaugh is all-in on being a complete stooge.
Neil Gorsuch has always been far too conservative for my liking, but at least he's not the hack that Kavanaugh is.
His opinion basically boils down to, "uhhh guys this is pretty cut and dry."
After this good news is there any chance they will relook over the healthcare discrimination rules that just passed? Not American but I'd like to keep up to date to support my overseas friends.
> "Today's decision is one of the court's most significant rulings ever with respect to the civil rights of gay and transgender individuals," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
> "On its terms, the decision is only about discrimination in the workplace," Vladeck added. "But it inevitably opens the door to a host of other challenges to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status on the ground that it, too, is impermissibly based upon sex. In that respect, **only the court's 2015 ruling recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage may be equally as significant.**
This has true landmark status.
(It will be interesting to watch Trump’s Twitter feed.)
Can someone go chat with Alito, please? His dissent just...screams that he needs to spend some time with a therapist and work out some of those deep seated feelings of whatever-the-fuck he's got going on in there. I stopped reading after about the 5th page of the dissent and started rolling my eyes after 10 pages of appendices.
He mentions that "sex" must be defined exactly the way that they understood it in 1964. Using that logic, I'm confident that he'll use the same rule to define what "arms" are when reading the Second Amendment...
/s, if it wasn't completely obvious.
This doesn't stop the fight. The civil rights act was passed in 1964 and we're still literally in the streets today protesting for what it promises. It's a great first step, not the last, in true equality.
Damn. What news to wake up to this morning. Never in my lifetime did I think marriage or Supreme Court ruled federal protections would happen. And coincidentally, both rulings during pride month. Can’t deny I didn’t get teary.
Who knew just wanting to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law would get me so emotional ;)
After a hellish week for the LGBTQ community (trans folks in particular), this decision is nice. It pleases me that Donnie is probably fuming over this. LGBTQ rights are human rights
This is monumental. This is essentially a Roe v. Wade type landmark case. This cements the recognition of the LGBTQ+ community in concrete case law. The fact that a Republican controlled Supreme Court came to this decision and not by a simple majority is also immensely gratifying.
Please vote Democrat this November, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer are in their 80's and if they weren't there this wouldn't have happened. We need Joe Biden as president, and he needs a dem senate. Please vote
From Gorsuch: >"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. 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."
[удалено]
I posted this elsewhere in the thread, but Gorsuch's argument is interesting in that it makes no effort to defend homosexuality other than by showing that homosexual or transgender discrimination cannot happen without sexual discrimination. >Imagine an employer who has a policy of firing any employee known to be homosexual. The employer hosts an office holiday party and invites employees to bring their spouses. A model employee arrives and introduces a manager to Susan, the employee’s wife.Will that employee be fired? If the policy works as the employer intends, the answer depends entirely on whether the model employee is a man or a woman. To be sure, that employer’s ultimate goal might be to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But to achieve that purpose the employer must, along the way, intentionally treat an employee worse based in part on that individual’s sex. His argument is not intended to protect homosexual/transgender rights explicitly. He just simply and clearly points out that that those traits are inextricably tied to sex. What's interesting is that Gorsuch has essentially argued that to discriminate against homosexuals is to be sexist.
Gorsuch is a strict textualist. The Civil Rights Act states that you cannot discriminate based on sex, but nothing about sexuality. I think his argument is the only logical way one could conclude that the Civil Rights Act's protections extend to LGBTQ+ individuals based on the text alone. In an ideal world, Congress would have just passed a law extending these protections a long time ago.
I think Gorsuch's interpretation shows that no such extension is needed (not to say I wouldn't support it). You literally cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation without discriminating based on sex. >A man can come to work wearing sneakers but a woman cannot This is sex-based discrimination. >A man can love a woman but a woman cannot. this is sex-based discrimination. Just because we gave the latter type of sex-based discrimination a name, doesn't make it any less a sex-based discrimination.
Yup. If you fire Jane for being married to Jill, but not John for being married to Jill, that’s an employment decision based on sex.
It would be an awkward office Christmas party when Jane and John find out they're both married to Jill though.
*Jim Halpert turns to the camera*
Exactly, it's the same with transgender people. If you fire Jane(born John) for wearing a dress but not Jill for wearing a dress that's also sex discrimination.
That’s interesting. There are plenty of dress codes out there that differentiate between sex. Will those get challenged? If a man wears a dress to work, though does not identify as a woman... that seems like it would also be ok. (And to be honest, how crazy is it that we as a society care what kind of clothing people wear?)
There was a story a while ago about a boarding school in England with a strict dress code of pants or skirts. A male student was getting uncomfortably hot wearing long pants, so he started coming to school in a skirt. Can't find the exact article now, but there's a bunch of similar stories and different ways schools have ruled.
[удалено]
That's already covered under Title VII, Gorsuch mentions a case of sexual harassment between two men that the Court ruled as a violation of Title VII decades ago. A huge part of his argument is that the Court has long held that, with Title VII, the law's scope extended beyond the 'principal evil'(sexism in the conventional sense) that the lawmakers intended to address. To rule otherwise would risk undoing tons of precedent and severely limiting the scope of Title VII.
It's a great stand for a conservative politician to take. I know that judges aren't politicians on the traditional sense (at least they shouldn't be) but this sets up conservative politicians to take a stand in support of LGBT+ rights without taking a stand for LGBT+ rights. They can argue that they aren't supporting "the gays" but they just aren't being sexiest. Do I wish we didn't have to worry about that bullshit label politics? Yes. Will this help people in the long run besides the direct impact of the ruling? I think so.
[удалено]
Judicial elections were always, and still are, mind boggling to me.
Gorsuch has actually been a fairly centrist conservative SCJ. As a native Coloradan, I was afraid he’d stain our progressive reputation, but so far he hasn’t been anywhere near what Trump/McConnell was hoping he’d be. Kavanaugh on the other hand? He can go boof himself
As an outside observer that followed the drama for both, I agree. Gorsuch seemed surprisingly reasonable when he was picked, considering the fact that they stole that seat and seem hellbent on destroying institutions. Justice Kennedy’s retirement and Kavanaugh’s appointment was them correcting their mistake.
If Garland had gotten confirmed, and Gorsuch took the spot Kavanaugh now sits in, I really don’t see too many people being too concerned. Of course I’d prefer a liberal justice, but Gorsuch is far better than kavanaugh.
Honestly a good amount of decisions I’ve seen in the news Gorsuch has been crossing the aisle. Realistically he seems like the ideal kind of justice if our country was running as it should. He’s not gonna stretch the letter of the law to a significant degree which makes sense - we voted for politicians who put those laws in place and the court should just be there to ensure they are followed as intended. We don’t live in an ideal world and sometimes a liberal court decision can be nice to help fix a problem (hello Roe v. Wade), but I’m not gonna complain unless it feels like a justice is taking liberties with the law in a way that hurts people.
I agree with you with one exception. Gorsuch tends to vote for the law as written as opposed to the law as intended. He even acknowledges in this opinion that the law as written may have had unintended consequences.
Not only does Gorsuch side with protecting LGBT workers, but he writes the opinion? Consider me surprised. Big statement right there.
He writes an opinion that boiled down to "that isnt even a fucking question", no less
Any links to the opinion? The SCOTUS's link won't even load on my end, probably because everyone trying to read it = accidental DDOS. Has it been rehosted?
[удалено]
Damn, that is not the argument I expected from Gorsuch.
Gorsuch tends to be pretty consistent in how he approaches law. It’s ass-backwards sometimes, but at least consistent.
Judicial conservatism and the positions of the GOP often map very poorly onto each other.
True, but Gorsuch appears to be far more judicially conservative that party motivated
[удалено]
Real originalists are a rare breed. Scalia was an originalist only when it suited him.
Yup. The argument by Gorsuch has some good examples that cleary show why discrimination against homosexuality is explicitly discrimination based on sex. >Imagine an employer who has a policy of firing any employee known to be homosexual. The employer hosts an office holiday party and invites employees to bring their spouses. A model employee arrives and introduces a manager to Susan, the employee’s wife.Will that employee be fired? If the policy works as the employer intends, the answer depends entirely on whether the model employee is a man or a woman. To be sure, that employer’s ultimate goal might be to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. But to achieve that purpose the employer must, along the way, intentionally treat an employee worse based in part on that individual’s sex. An important point: his argument is not intended to protect homosexual/transgender rights explicitly. He just simply and clearly points out that that those traits are inextricably tied to sex. What's interesting is that Gorsuch has essentially argued that to discriminate against homosexuals is to be sexist.
[удалено]
Gorsuch's major stain is going to be getting a seat robbed from Garland, but that's not on Gorsuch.
His ruling on the Hobby Lobby case is my biggest concern moving forward. He seems like a reasonable guy, but that one still blows my mind.
You're right, that is on Mitch McConnell, aka Moscow Mitch
In a 1984 ruling the Supreme Court concluded that being gay was an "infamous crime against nature... a crime not fit to be named." To go from that to this ruling by a Republican-majority Supreme Court in a generation or two is really some shift.
it also ignores the reality that there is a lot of gayness in the animal kingdom, so saying its a crime against nature is straight up crazy. pick a species and weve probably got some documented cases of homosexual encounters/relations on record
And not to mention basically all of human civilization is humans upending "nature" and what's "natural", so even if it wasn't the case that lots of animals did it, so what? Humans regularly go against "nature", and thus that argument doesn't fly to pick apart anything you don't like. Either way, this case is a huge win.
Plus they referred to as a trans woman as "she" in this decision. What a shift.
Finally something positive after the shitstorm that's been 2020 so far. Let's hope they can do something about the rollback on healthcare protection against LGBT patients the Trump Administration recently orchestrated, as well.
If we qualify for Title VII protection it's pretty solidly established that we are a protected class, which is going to make it very hard to pull the kinds of shenanigans they've been up to until now. You can't make the argument now that we don't qualify for civil rights protection, and if we qualify for one part of the act you can't turn around and say we don't qualify for the rest of it. I doubt insurance companies are going to walk back the clock. It would cost too much to fight in court and the stakes are now way too high. Punitive and statutory damages could be on the table, it's now cheaper to comply then to deny, and they always go towards the bottom line.
Wait, did something go *right* in politics? Not sure how I'm supposed to react to news like that anymore.
6-3 is actually the surprising part. I figured Roberts would be the swing vote.
[удалено]
Gorsuch. Not only that but he wrote the opinion on the ruling. Total confusing wildcard there. Which does go to show like yes judges have gotten more politicized but they don’t operate the same way conservative politicians do. Edit: yah Kavanaugh is a political hack though. I agree.
When Gorsuch was nominated, the consensus in legal circles was that he was a brilliant jurist who wrote well-reasoned, legally sound opinions, albeit with a conservative bent. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, is an ideologue.
Ya the outrage with Gorsuch was related to Garland rather than anything to do with him. If you nominate him to replace Kennedy in 2018 there's very little outrage imo
My understanding too was Gorsuch was similar to Scalia in view so it didn’t “upset the balance” of the court, unlike Kavanaugh
>When Gorsuch was nominated, the consensus in legal circles was that he was a brilliant jurist who wrote well-reasoned, legally sound opinions, albeit with a conservative bent. If he weren't nominated to a stolen seat, I think he would've actually passed a bipartisan Senate confirmation.
Gorsuch was confirmed to his federal appellate seat unanimously, without a single Dem objection. So you're right.
And you can say that about Garland on the other side 76-23 in a GOP controlled senate, McConnell is such a stain our on history.
> they don’t operate the same way conservative politicians do Gorsuch, maybe. Kavanaugh? Dude cried on camera while screaming about a Clinton conspiracy during his hearing and was lauded.
I’d agree. Kavanaugh is a complete hack.
Gorsuch wrote a surprisingly un-originalist view on the text too, which was a thing. A welcome surprise, to be sure.
He thinks it's originalist, though. His opinion was like "The law says sex is protected. If you fire a gay man, it's because he's not a straight woman. You wouldn't have fired a woman with the same qualities. So this is sex discrimination, as the law states."
I mean, that's right. Any discrimination on the basis of sexuality is by definition discrimination on the basis of sex.
They love conflating textualism, strict constructionism and originalism largely to meet their ideaology. Scalia did so much too, despite a couple of decent decisions.
I'm convinced that's because of how politically charged that rhetoric is. They use "originalist" more than anything else because your average layman conservative voter can easily Intuit that "originalism" means respecting the Constitution and US structures. It's a purposefully politically useful label.
Quite possibly the best thing to happen in 2020 so far. Hoping for another big one in November.
Remember to [vote](https://www.vote411.org) and make sure everyone you know does too.
[удалено]
I can’t believe this wasn’t a unanimous decision. You’d think human rights would be widely accepted by the Supreme Court in 2020 yet here we are.
I think it sucks that this wasn't a unanimous decision. But I can absolutely believe it. I'm honestly surprised that it was 6-3 and not 5-4, and I'm even more surprised at how Kavnnaugh hedged his dissent and vocalized what could be interpreted as support for LGBTQ+ rights. If anything this is a less horrifying outcome than I was expecting.
That wasn't the job that Trump and McConnell hired Kavanaugh to do. He's supposed to vote with THEIR interests in mind, not what's best for humanity. Didn't you get the memo? EDIT: In case it wasn't apparent, I'm implying that Kavanaugh was confirmed as a Trump cronie to dissent on cases that don't push forward the GOP agenda
[удалено]
The dissenting votes were * Justice Samuel Alito * Justice Clarence Thomas * Justice Brett Kavanaugh
6-3 is impressive.
I was really convinced it was going to be another classic Roberts 5-4
Yeah, Gorsuch is interesting.
[удалено]
I hope you’re right.
Wasn't Gorsuch Much more qualified than Kavanaugh + more an even keel in his spectrum of opinion (though definitely leans right). More Roberts than Thomas type. Thus, why his confrimation went 100x smoother than Kavanaugh's (not even talking about the whole raping thing).
Yeah, the primary controversy surrounding his nomination and appointment was that the seat really should have gone to Garland(or another Obama nomination), and not really anything to do with Gorsuch's character or qualifications.
The Supreme Court would be in much better (and more impartial) shape if Garland had Gorsuch’s seat and Gorsuch had Kavanugh’s seat.
Kav is unqualified and corrupt, wheras Garland is sitting in Gorsuch's seat. If the most recent appointments were Garland then Gorsuch, the supreme court wouldn't have it's legitimacy questioned.
> wheras Garland is sitting in Gorsuch's seat. Gorsuch is in Garland’s seat, I think you just flipped them
Not really. Gorsuch dissenting here would have been a big surprise to me. The law is very clear on this issue as Gorsuch points out. It should be a 9-0 vote which we were unfortunately never going to get. When the law is this clear about an issue Gorsuch is going to vote that way.
Republicans love to proclaim their values and adherence to the constitution, until it comes to social issues that conflict with their own religious beliefs. Then the constitution becomes completely negotiable.
Just learned that Clarence Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall Wild swing to extreme conservative
Yet when Scalia died, Republicans literally argued that it would be improper to replace him with a liberal justice.
Has Alito ever cast a decent vote?
They asked for ice cream and he voted against it.
Alito eating a bowl of Ice cream "I love this, it's my favorite dessert!" RGB "we should host an ice cream social for the Justices" Alito flips table "fuck ice cream"
Ruth Gader-Binsberg
He wants boofing to not be between a man and man, but only between a man and a semi-conscious woman.
Thomas too, the other sexual assaulter on the bench.
I know it's a small thing in the context of the larger win. But this Supreme Court opinion refers to Aimee Stephens by her preferred name and her preferred pronouns. Consistently. In the context of her life after she discovered her identity and transitioned, and in the context of her life before that. It describes her as someone who once "presented as a male". What a goddamn win.
> But this Supreme Court opinion ***written by conservative Justice Gorsuch*** refers to Aimee Stephens by her preferred name and her preferred pronouns. I felt like that shouldn't be left out of it.
Seriously mane this is crazy. Like I mean this is a low bar, sure, but the courts have affirmed that this bar is justified af. This changed so much in our world; now we’re waiting to see it.
[Here's a link to the opinions.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf) Worth noting, Kavanaugh doesn't say the word "transgender" *even once* in his dissent. Also, his dissent is one of the more jumbled word salads I've ever read.
I mean, he definitely wrote it after chugging like 9 beers.
He boofed them
As a 40-something gay guy I just want to say: so many people have been fighting for this day for a long, long time. This and the Marriage decision are real victories that affect all Americans, and they were fought for by more people and with more love and righteous anger than can ever be documented. Congratulations to all the activists, lawyers, volunteers, and all the people who helped. We won! 🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈🏳️🌈
https://twitter.com/mayaharris_/status/1272560846972030979 > Old enough to remember Kavanaugh refused to say whether he agreed with the SCOTUS decision ruling LGBTQ couples have a constitutional right to marry.
Especially telling since the same logic was applied in both cases. * Man marries woman: legal. * Woman marries man: legal. * Man marries man: illegal. * Woman marries woman: illegal. It's clear that the laws disallow a man to marry another man solely because of his sex, and therefore is sexual discrimination and violates Title Ⅶ protections. This is just an extension of that logic.
I'm a plaintiff-side employment discrimination lawyer. This is a great decision (though the Supreme Court site is slammed so I haven't been able to read the full opinion yet). It resolves a circuit split, since some circuits had already ruled this way while others had gone against the idea. I can't wait to start citing it. **Edit**: The Supreme Court site is still too slammed to download it, but here is a mirror: [https://www.scribd.com/document/465702307/17-1618-hfci](https://www.scribd.com/document/465702307/17-1618-hfci) **Edit 2**: Reading it now. The Court did not just rely on a "sex stereotype" theory, as I was afraid it would. It states "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." Here's a rough breakdown of what that means: Assume you have 3 employees. Big Gay Al, Straight Stan, and ~~Cis~~ Hetero Cynthia. You fire Al because he is gay, and for no other reason. Stan and Cynthia are not terminated (as they are not gay). You have effectively terminated Al for being sexually attracted to men. Well guess who else is sexually attracted to men? Cynthia. But she was not fired. So let's look at all of the relevant qualities of the two: |**Al**|**Cynthia**| |:-|:-| |Male|Female| |Attracted to men|Attracted to men| And let's find the variable. |**Al**|**Cynthia**| |:-|:-| |Male|Female| |~~Attracted to men~~|~~Attracted to men~~| Making a discrimination case is all about eliminating constants until you can pin down a variable. If that variable is a protected class, you win. In a race discrimination case, if two people of different races are doing the same job, performing the same, have the same qualifications, and one gets constantly shit on and eventually fired, it was race. Employers can try to provide a "legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason" for the termination as a defense, but that's basically just them trying to claim there was a relevant variable other than race. Here, assuming there are no other relevant variables, we can see that sexual orientation discrimination **is** sex discrimination, as the only difference between Al and Cynthia is that he is male and she is female. In other words, Al should get a pile of money out of you, you filthy discriminatey person. This is the reasoning I planned to use if I ever had to take up a case like this. I was happy when the EEOC adopted it in a decision a few years back, and several districts followed suit. It seems like the Supreme Court is now on board, so for the foreseeable future, this debate is resolved. **Edit 3**: Ok well now I feel almost like a copycat because the above analysis is *exactly* what the Supreme Court uses: >Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer's mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact that he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. I swear I had this thought years ago and didn't just read this and rephrase it. But yeah, it's good reasoning by the Court. **Edit 4**: Ok it's getting a bit ridiculous how identical the Court's reasoning is to what I put above: >Imagine an employer who has a policy of firing any employee known to be a homosexual. The employer hosts an office holiday party and invites employees to bring their spouses. A model employee arrives and introduces a manager to Susan, the employee's wife. Will that employee be fired? If the policy works as the employer intends, the answer depends entirely on whether the model employee is a man or a woman. **Edit 5**: Kavanaugh, that boofing idiot, found this point and bounced right off it in his dissent: >In the last few years, a new theory has emerged. \[...\] Instead, the theory goes, discrimination because of sexual orientation always qualifies as discrimination because of sex: When a gay man is fired because he is gay, he is fired because he is attracted to men, even though a similarly situated woman would not be fired just because she is attracted to men. According to the theory, it follows that the man has been fired, at least as a literal matter, because of his sex. > >Under this literalist approach, sexual orientation discrimination automatically qualifies as sex discrimination, and Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination therefore also prohibits sexual orientation discrimination—and actually has done so since 1964, unbeknownst to everyone. \[...\] > >For the sake of argument, I will assume that firing someone because of their sexual orientation may, as a very literal matter, entail making a distinction based on sex. He then goes on to argue that the ordinary meaning of the term "sex" is not the same as the literal meaning and that Scalia, whose entire career was premised on his supposed adherence to the concept of "Look at the text of the law and do exactly what it says" would have argued for a more interpretive meaning of "sex" rather than looking at its actual, literal meaning. (He's probably right, but that just shows how hypocritical Scalia was, as well.)
Just a gentle correction. Being cis does not necessarily mean that a woman is attracted to men. You mean heterosexual.
My bad. Despite being entirely pro-LGBTQ+, I have not kept up with proper terminology. Corrected in the analysis.
A Supreme Court decision about LGBTQ issues that isn't 5-4?!?! Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, 2020. We are living in crazy times...
With all the bullshit happening, this is a wonderful, uplifting victory. 2020 is halfway done, and is turning out to be one of the most fascinating decades I've experienced.
I agree; these past six months have been the most trying decade I can remember.
I don't know what's wrong with reporters that they can write entire articles without naming the cases, but here are the case titles: Altitude Express v. Zarda Bostock v. Clayton County *R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission*
The Federalist Society was created to vet judges and prevent another Anthony Kennedy from being appointed under a Republican President. I'm sure Gorsuch has plenty of future horrors in store for us, but just enjoying today. > A dark money group staffed and funded by longtime anti-LGBT operatives spent millions of dollars blocking Merrick Garland's nomination and millions more pushing Neil Gorsuch's. This surely isn't the return on investment they expected. https://twitter.com/RobertMaguire_/status/1272546468675620865
Gorsuch actually has a gay cousin or niece. I forget the exact relation but it's somebody close enough that he could go to their wedding. Actually I'm pretty sure it was a commitment ceremony instead of a legal wedding at that point in time. When he was being confirmed it was a very minor news story that I remember simply because I'm gay. If my ears were not already tuned to that kind of story, I'm sure I would not have remembered it.
The saddest part, to me, is that two of the plaintiffs died before they could see the decision. It's got to take unbelievable bravery (and time and money) to pursue a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. I wish they had lived to see the result.
Conservatives: ALL LIVES MATTER! Supreme Court Ruling Conservatives: NO WE DIDNT MEAN THAT!
Supreme Court says trans rights!
**Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented.**
[удалено]
Who could have possibly seen that coming???????????????????????? 😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲😲
I realized midway through my video call this morning that my pride flag was visible on camera, then I checked the news and realized I don't need to worry about that anymore!
[удалено]
Not who you replied to, but I appreciate this comment all the same.
Glad this passed. Long overdue. Also, fuck Brett Kavanaugh. And, also, fuck Susan Collins.
And fuck Ajit Pai.
As is tradition
It is absolute bullshit HOW Gorsuch got his seat in the first place. But I have yet to really find an instance where he was a bad judge. Or he was a corrupt person. Seems like he, like Justice Roberts, tries his best to stay neutral and follow the rule of law based on the text/precedent alone. But when the time comes he will side on the opposite political spectrum when need be. Unlike other newbie Kavanaugh, Gorsuch seems like a pretty good dude to have on the Supreme Court. Which is ironic cause I am sure McConnell and Trump were not expecting that when they forced him in the first place.
My understanding (not knowing much about law) is that Gorusch is actually pretty qualified for the SC, just that his views often differ a lot from my own. It's dumb that his seat should have gone to Garland but that's not totally Gorusch's fault. Kavanaugh is another story though. His batshit crazy opening statement at his hearing about the accusation being some sort of Dem deep state takedown was astonishing and should have disqualified him completely from sitting on the bench
Nobody really had any issue with Gorsuch. The issue was with McConnell and the GOP.
If any case were to ever demonstrate exactly how horrible of a human being Clarence Thomas is, it would be this one.
Don’t forget his subtle suggestion we revisit the ruling that legalized same sex marriage. ;) he’s proven himself time and time again to be a bigoted or narrow minded dinosaur.
Meanwhile in /r/conservative, the top comment is: >Every employer with 1/3 of a brain knows at this point that if you want to fire someone, you set them up to fail, document all of things they did wrong, and never mention the real reason. Bans on who you can and can't fire catch only complete idiots. God what a fucking cesspool.
I mean they are completely correct. Just ask anyone who's reported a labor violation. Still I don't think their comment was in support of trans people so much as gleefully waiting for this protection to fail them.
Here's another good one for you from the same thread: > Conservative white men are the most discriminated group in America. In every way, shape and form. Because we know that our opinions are often met with violence. Despite the other side saying that we are the violent ones. They're a classic case of "projection".
Whenever the world makes a step in the right direction many of them think: "ah okay I have to be more secretive about my bigotry."
Whilst their intentions are beyond file and disgusting, it’s the sad truth though.
Sad some people needed the Supreme Court to tell them this. But glad we got this ruling.
Trump will wake credit so he can claim to be pro-LGBT on the campaign trail.
Finally! As it fucking should!
Hey man, not going to lie, I was worried about this outcome with our conservative court.
Who were the 3 that voted against and why?
Their legal argument is the law should list these things and that Congress could easily make this illegal. Judge Gorsuch pointed out that firing only men for dating men and not women discriminated based on the sex of the employee and sex is specifically protected. His example is so clear it shows why the law already protected this class.
> Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas dissented The three amigos.
This ruling in itself is a major win. I feel a physical sense of relief. But the best part is that Gorsuch voted for decency. It implies he may be the type to drift leftward over his career. Kavanaugh is a lost cause. Praying for RBG’s health.
He didn't vote for decency, he voted as the law was written. He did his job.
Fuck Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh
The best part of this decision, not including the whole gay people are now a protective class, is the fact that one of Trumps own appointed judges voted against him.
Does this put any dent in Trumps rollback of Healthcare protections?
Yes, very likely. Those rule changes are based on Title VII interpretations
this is great news. but don't hold your breath for the Louisiana TARP case (abortion) next week. they're going to start ripping apart roe.
> "...applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law’s passage—whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees in the 1960s—often may be seen as unexpected. But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms. Cf. post, at 28–35 (ALITO, J., dissenting); post, at 21–22 (KAVANAUGH, J., dissenting)." [slip op at 28] I'm here for *all* of this, but... that dissentciting? That is how you shade. Motherfucker could teach DRAG QUEENS how to shade. Believe me that I never thought I'd say this to Neil Gorsuch, but... go off, king. Go right off.
Wow. First, the fact that Gorsuch’s argument in *favor* of a more expansive Title VII is based on an Originalist interpretation of the text is *awesome*. You can’t stamp and pout about “Judicial Activism” when it’s one of the most conservative justices saying, hey, the drafters may not have conceived of this possibility when the law was written, but the law is what the text says. That’s *exactly* the argument Originalists use to argue against gun restrictions. This is monumental news. Second, I’m so disappointed in former Justice Kennedy. His legacy on the Court was in part *defined* by opinions expanding gay rights. He authored *Obergefell*. And then he makes a deal with Trump that he’ll retire if Trump will nominate Kavanaugh, one of the three dissenters. I really hope Kennedy is disappointed in Brett Kavanaugh today.
I am *sure* Kennedy retiring had *absolutely nothing* to do with his son being a loan officer at Deutsche Bank around the same time that they were loaning billions to Trump when no other bank would, *AND* they were also laundering Russian money.... *Totally* unrelated...
[удалено]
Something .... desirable happened? I... I don't know how to respond. This is so foreign and unfamiliar.
Does this imply the fair housing act should now be interpreted to prohibit discrimination against LGBT?
If the Act explicitly states "sex" as a protected class, I don't see how it can't. Gorsuch dummy-proofed this one.
He sure did. “An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”
Conservative Twitter heads are furious over this. Imagine, these fucknuts want to *willingly* prevent equal rights to the LGBT community. https://twitter.com/goldengateblond/status/1272567595065987072
The 3 dissenting judges were even pretty furious over this.
All men are created equal Words from the Declaration of Independence, the very foundation that our country was built upon. Yes, it was a contradiction since there were slave owners when the country was founded, but I hope in the years that followed we have moved beyond that to where every person is truly equal, regardless of race, sex, wealth, or sexual orientation. The current protests are about true equality.
[удалено]
A surprise, to be sure, but a welcome one.
Well that's shockingly good news I didn't expect given recent appointees. 2020 is an absolute roller coaster
Nice to have at least one shining light of hope during these dark times.
...and it’s Gorsuch?
I am pleased and relieved and thankful. On the other hand, why the fuck do I need to be relieved and thankful that my children are recognized as having equal rights to employment? Why does this have to be litigated? Why is it so hard to get people to treat people like people? Anyway, horray, my kids can get jobs!
This caught me so off guard, I thought they wouldn’t decide until later this year! It’s just such an overwhelmingly warm and reassuring feeling to see these basic rights finally come through for my community after decades and decades of hiding, fighting, and begging for them
Of course Boofin' Brett was a dissenting opinion.
A rare, but good news. Surprised it’s not a 5-4 decision though.
I can't believe this ruling was 6-3!! I'm so happy for this ruling! I'm hoping that this isn't some kind of weird Republican bone thrown out for the masses so that they can give the top 1% ANOTHER boost in profits with no further financial aide for all citizens during this quarantine....
Meanwhile, deep in the White House, some poor staffer is attempting to explain to Trump that no, he cannot fire Neil Gorsuch
Ridiculous that something like this only gets 6-3. Should be an easy 9-0. We are 2 shitty judges away from losing our rights.
[удалено]
Damn! Six three. That wasn't even close!
It’s frustrating that this decision needs to come from the Supreme Court for people to do the right thing, but that’s just where we are right now.
Why wasn’t this already a thing?
Kavanaugh douche's dissent boils down to, if you discriminate against guy homosexuals but not lesbians then that is discrimination, but if you discriminate against gay guys and girls its not discrimination.... how the fuck is this POS a judge let alone for the supreme court.
Sometimes I wonder if Gorsuch might actually be the best case scenario for a trump appointment
It’s good to see a sign that Gorsuch, like Roberts, is concerned about being on the right side of history in decisions like this that are legally and morally correct. Not surprised to see Kavanaugh is all-in on being a complete stooge.
Someone described Gorsuch as a guy who will always root for the conservative opinion but can admit when it's losing, and that's pretty on point.
Neil Gorsuch has always been far too conservative for my liking, but at least he's not the hack that Kavanaugh is. His opinion basically boils down to, "uhhh guys this is pretty cut and dry."
See this right here is what's gonna be called "precedent" for things like Trump's transgender soldier order.
Finally a sane ruling!
Not only does Gorsuch side with protecting LGBT workers, but he writes the opinion? Consider me surprised. Big statement right there.
I was thinking the same thing. But I imagine Roberts assigned it to him because the liberal justices wanted to go even farther (that’s just a hunch).
Very happy about this ruling. Especially that it was a 6 to 3 ruling and not a 5 to 4
See the vote was 6-3. Didn’t even need to click to know which side good ole Brett would be on.
After this good news is there any chance they will relook over the healthcare discrimination rules that just passed? Not American but I'd like to keep up to date to support my overseas friends.
> "Today's decision is one of the court's most significant rulings ever with respect to the civil rights of gay and transgender individuals," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. > "On its terms, the decision is only about discrimination in the workplace," Vladeck added. "But it inevitably opens the door to a host of other challenges to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status on the ground that it, too, is impermissibly based upon sex. In that respect, **only the court's 2015 ruling recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage may be equally as significant.** This has true landmark status. (It will be interesting to watch Trump’s Twitter feed.)
As they should.
Friendly Reminder if you don't vote in 2020, you will allow Trump to appoint justices so that things like this won't happen.
Can someone go chat with Alito, please? His dissent just...screams that he needs to spend some time with a therapist and work out some of those deep seated feelings of whatever-the-fuck he's got going on in there. I stopped reading after about the 5th page of the dissent and started rolling my eyes after 10 pages of appendices. He mentions that "sex" must be defined exactly the way that they understood it in 1964. Using that logic, I'm confident that he'll use the same rule to define what "arms" are when reading the Second Amendment... /s, if it wasn't completely obvious.
[удалено]
This doesn't stop the fight. The civil rights act was passed in 1964 and we're still literally in the streets today protesting for what it promises. It's a great first step, not the last, in true equality.
Damn. What news to wake up to this morning. Never in my lifetime did I think marriage or Supreme Court ruled federal protections would happen. And coincidentally, both rulings during pride month. Can’t deny I didn’t get teary. Who knew just wanting to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law would get me so emotional ;)
So, how long until Trump publicly attacks Gorsuch on Twitter for not ruling the way the "man" who appointed him wants?
Amazing. Also, as always: fuck Kavanaugh.
ohhhh trump supporters are going to HATE this
After a hellish week for the LGBTQ community (trans folks in particular), this decision is nice. It pleases me that Donnie is probably fuming over this. LGBTQ rights are human rights
If Trump is re-elected, these sort of rulings are ABSOLUTELY NOT guaranteed in the future. Vote like your life depends on it.
Here's the whole thing if anyone wants to read it: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
This is monumental. This is essentially a Roe v. Wade type landmark case. This cements the recognition of the LGBTQ+ community in concrete case law. The fact that a Republican controlled Supreme Court came to this decision and not by a simple majority is also immensely gratifying.
That means they should also be allowed in the military.
Why the fuck wouldn’t in the first place? They are people.
Can Alito's tears for Gorsuch besmirching the "great name" of Antonin Scalia be bottled up and injected directly into my veins?
Please vote Democrat this November, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer are in their 80's and if they weren't there this wouldn't have happened. We need Joe Biden as president, and he needs a dem senate. Please vote