SCOTUS rules on Bostock v Clayton County

[Libertarian01]

I am somewhat surprised that I haven't seen this posted elsewhere. I search the General Political and Breakroom - nada.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

On Monday the Supreme Court ruled 6 - 3 that gays and transgenders are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What I found interesting was the Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.

What I love is that Kavanaugh dissented. If I understand correctly he wanted the legislature to address this. However, he actually tweeted out that he disagreed, but did congratulate the LGBTQ community for their victory. I like that. He lost but is a Gentleman congratulating his opponents.

Personally, IF we're going to have a law saying we can't fire someone on certain grounds THEN I'm all for just saying you can't fire anyone without just cause! White folks, black folks, Lutherans, Methodists, gay, straight whatever. Just show up, do your job well the way it's meant to be done and your employer can't screw with you. This presumes a law at all.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

I am somewhat surprised that I haven't seen this posted elsewhere. I search the General Political and Breakroom - nada.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

On Monday the Supreme Court ruled 6 - 3 that gays and transgenders are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What I found interesting was the Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion.

What I love is that Kavanaugh dissented. If I understand correctly he wanted the legislature to address this. However, he actually tweeted out that he disagreed, but did congratulate the LGBTQ community for their victory. I like that. He lost but is a Gentleman congratulating his opponents.

Personally, IF we're going to have a law saying we can't fire someone on certain grounds THEN I'm all for just saying you can't fire anyone without just cause! White folks, black folks, Lutherans, Methodists, gay, straight whatever. Just show up, do your job well the way it's meant to be done and your employer can't screw with you. This presumes a law at all.

Regards,

Doug

It's been discussed in one thread or other. I don't think I've seen a thread devoted just to this.

But about the ruling... The ruling was based on a the idea that being gay or trans involves the sex of the person, which is already protected by the CRA. But it's not really. It involves a behavior. No one is firing them because they are one or the other biological sex. And that's what the law said. I think Gorsuch is kinda full of **** on this one.

 

[Ark]

So the Roberts court won't defend the 2A at all because he doesn't want the court to be "political", but he's okay with the court legislating gay marriage into being from the bench and minting a massive new protected group without Congress?

I'm okay with the protections, but the hypocrisy is infuriating. Creating new rights that don't appear anywhere in the constitution while refusing to defend one at the top.

 

[Twangbanger]

Most of the country is already subject to "at will" employment laws. The real intent here is to make sure those laws are not construed as denying certain groups grounds for a lawsuit under existing statute.

This decision creates a new revenue stream for lawyers.

Leadeye...over to you.