Huge Victory for Gay and Transgender Rights in the Workplace

Mish

In a landmark ruling, the top court affirmed LGBT rights.

Based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Supreme Court Rules for Gay and Transgender Rights.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts in addition to the four more-liberal members of the court. “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” the opinion said.

For all its cultural and political controversy, Monday’s case was simple, Justice Gorsuch found. He focused on the text of the statute Congress passed in 1964, forbidding workplace discrimination against an individual “because of…sex.”

There was no getting around it, he said: “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it wouldn’t have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

In dissent, however, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, called the majority’s reasoning “preposterous.” Rather than strictly reading the statute, he wrote, “there is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.”

Preposterous?

Yes, of course. 

The minority opinion was preposterous.

Gorsuch upheld the spirit and the letter of the 1964 law, no more no less.

Trump Disagrees

The Trump administration argued that the 1964 law doesn’t cover LGBT workers. That position ran counter to the views of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which argued that Title VII forbids any employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

Once again Trump appeals to his base for the nth time. 

Activist Court

Republicans and Democrats alike want the law to be upheld (except when they don't).

Today, Trump and the Republicans want an activist court to rule on something other than the law says. Most of the time Republicans bitch about the activist court.

This is a losing issue for Trump. Those who agree with him will never vote for anyone other Trump, ever.

Mish

Comments (54)
No. 1-13
Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

This goes to show that the Republicans nominate whomever they want but even social conservatives like Gorsuch have no choice when it comes to actual rights for all human beings in America.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

By the way the other case that the court refused to take up today was protection for cops, and other public officials who have laws protecting them in the coarse of doing their jobs. Only Sotomayor and Clarence Thomas (the two obvious non-caucasian members of the court), voted to take up this case. It is telling the others did not because it means they are in favor of protections for all public employees.

Zardoz
Zardoz

So what ever happened with the trump tax return case they took up a few weeks back?

Stuki
Stuki

"

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” the opinion said.

"

Of course what it didn't say, is that anyone forbidden from hiring and firing whomever he pleases, on account of whatever weirdo superstitions he may or may not hold, no longer enjoys even the remotest trappings of anything even resembling freedom. No even possibly legitimate law, of any kind, takes it upon itself to have any idea whatsoever, about neither what "sexual orientation" some individual has; nor who is, or is not, "hired" nor "fired" by whom. Insetad, inserting itself into entirely private matters, is the sole and exclusive domain of the totalitarian juntas running entirely totalitarian hellholes.

This sort of nonsense is, unsurprisingly, par for the course in a totalitarian dystopia where the overriding, and largely only, goal; is to ensure every single action, from drinking a glass of milk on upwards must, at the point of all of the juntas guns, cut ambulance chasers, apparatchiks and other negative-value-add rabble in, to the greatest extent possible, of course.

DBG8489
DBG8489

Funny thing:

In the majority opinion, Gorsuch writes:

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in the opposite sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision..."

Put simply: If you can't fire a woman for having sex with men, you can't fire men for having sex with men - and vice versa. If you can't fire a woman for dressing and acting like a woman, you can't fire a man for dressing and acting like a woman - and vice versa.

This is, in fact, a plain reading of the law.

Which means that the court delivered it's decision to protect LGBT rights based solely on the existence of biological sex regardless of the "traits or actions" in which any member of either sex chooses to engage.

Webej
Webej

BS. Not in the spirit of the law. Nobody in 1964 was thinking about LQBT.

It's a democracy. Nothing impedes passing a law or amendment to make this explicit. As with so many issues, what apparently is impossible to simply state as a matter of law is instead introduced by way of not democratically accountable judicial semantic creep engaged in scholastic exegesis and hermeneutical acrobatics.

davebarnes2
davebarnes2

Fat Donnie™—bigot—will be having a bad day. So sad.
But, hey, at least we are not talking about what a stumblebum he is.

Mr. Purple
Mr. Purple

Glad to see Merrick Garland made it to the court after all.

debracarter
debracarter

Men are "usually, physically stronger than women", as I have proven it, several times, during 2000-2004, on the streets, homeless. If a person is gay, LGBT, trans, Then, if your stronger than me, your going to have a gun in your hands, & defend Americans, the widowed, disabled, blind, elderly, from foreign enemies. End of discussion!

bilejones
bilejones

Employers should be able to hire and fire for any reason or none.

What part of freedom of association are you incapable of understanding?

Montana33
Montana33

This is a great victory for workers and humans. Most Americans didn’t realize that in 27 Republican states, you can fire someone just for being gay. I don’t think the Republican voters are as anti-gay as Trump thinks they are - the party leaders got stuck in the 90s.

Montana33
Montana33

Case study - my gay-hating boss says he’s going to fire me because I am a man married to a man. So... I tell him My husband just had a sex change yesterday so now I’m married to a woman so I’m not a gay man anymore. Can my boss still fire me for being gay? So now he says my spouse is still a man because he was born that way. Ok. New case study. I am a woman married to a woman who was born a man but changed her sex to a woman. The SAME BOSS says he’s going to fire me for being gay. I say - no you can’t because I’m married to someone who was born as a man, so if you only accept someone’s birth sex then I am a woman married to a man. It doesn’t matter that his penis was removed - right? So.... dear horrible evil boss. Which one can you fire and which one do you have to keep? You can’t have it both ways. New case study - I was born with a uterus and a penis. My parents made a mistake and removed my uterus but I know that I’m a woman. The SAME BOSS says he will fire me for being gay but I’m not gay. I was born a heterosexual woman and I am still a woman but my uterus was removed without my consent and I didn’t have my penis removed but I don’t use it. Can he still fire me? IN 27 Republican States he can fire me, until today when everything changed. By the way - in every case I am a top performer in my job which my boss does not deny. I’m the best employee he ever had but he hates gay people.

LexRex1776
LexRex1776

Right up there among the worst decisions in Supreme Court history. The Court just can't help itself; it demands the right to legislate from the bench. What is astounding is that Gorsuch represented himself as an originalist and now we find he has no more judicial restraint than Ginsberg. Since it is so much easier for 5 Justices to push forward major legislative initiatives, we might as well abolish the House and the Senate. And, since the lower courts are determined to over-rule the decisions of the Executive Branch, we might as well abolish it as well. From now on the courts can do it all!


Global Economics

FEATURED
COMMUNITY