Jump to content

SCOTUS rules 6-3 that fired LGBT workers can sue for bias


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Firewithin said:

 

i mean this should be a given on any of the decisions being made.  thats why we are so surprised when a good one actually happens 

 

Yeah but Roberts has a track record of tossing out a decent decision to try to give himself cover for a more important disastrous one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the decision, but I think the minority has a point:  

 

Quote

The political branches are well aware of this issue. In 2007, the U. S. House of Representatives voted 235 to 184 to prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 2013, the U. S. Senate voted 64 to 32 in favor of a similar ban. In 2019, the House again voted 236 to 173 to outlaw employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Although both the House and Senate have voted at different times to prohibit sexual orientation discrimination, the two Houses have not yet come together with the President to enact a bill into law.

 

The policy arguments for amending Title VII are very weighty. The Court has previously stated, and I fully agree, that gay and lesbian Americans “cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.”But we are judges, not Members of Congress. And in Alexander Hamilton’s words, federal judges exercise “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment.”

 

The majority opinion was judicial activism in my view.  Sexual orientation is not sex.  Congress either needs to amend the CRA or they need to pass new legislation that explicitly protects sexual orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

I agree with the decision, but I think the minority has a point:  

 

 

The majority opinion was judicial activism in my view.  Sexual orientation is not sex.  Congress either needs to amend the CRA or they need to pass new legislation that explicitly protects sexual orientation.


Outside of some weird hypothetical that has never been witnessed in reality, it is impossible to extricate sex from discrimination concerning sexual orientation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

I agree with the decision, but I think the minority has a point:  

 

 

The majority opinion was judicial activism in my view.  Sexual orientation is not sex.  Congress either needs to amend the CRA or they need to pass new legislation that explicitly protects sexual orientation.

 

I think he meant to write "fire Bill" not "fire Chuck" but this is a really great distillation of it, from the thread @b_m_b_m_b_m posted:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Interesting perspective in part on why CJR may have joined the majority

 

It will take a few re-readings of this explanation/analysis, but I think I'm following its logic of the ruling being based on the pre-existing 1964 CRA prohibitions against discrimination based on "sex" and not creating a new protected class based on "sexual orientation".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

 

It will take a few re-readings of this explanation/analysis, but I think I'm following its logic of the ruling being based on the pre-existing 1964 CRA prohibitions against discrimination based on "sex" and not creating a new protected class based on "sexual orientation".

SCOTUS getting super woke with their ‘sexual orientation is a social construct’ ruling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

 

It will take a few re-readings of this explanation/analysis, but I think I'm following its logic of the ruling being based on the pre-existing 1964 CRA prohibitions against discrimination based on "sex" and not creating a new protected class based on "sexual orientation".

It does seem to be on line with "the right thing for the wrong reason" a la the Obamacare decisions, for what that's worth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sexy_shapiro said:

Awesome news! I wasn’t optimistic about this ruling but this is great.

 

How does this affect the Trump administration policy from Friday?

It probably doesn't have an immediate direct impact, but it certainly should provide some legal basis for any lawsuits involving Friday's executive order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said:

 

It will take a few re-readings of this explanation/analysis, but I think I'm following its logic of the ruling being based on the pre-existing 1964 CRA prohibitions against discrimination based on "sex" and not creating a new protected class based on "sexual orientation".

 

 

It's certainly a clever argument. I don't think it's a dishonest one. It came down to a judgement call, and, hey, I guess that's what we've got SCOTUS for.

 

If they had ruled against, the outcome would have sucked, but I have to admit I wouldn't have really considered it a partisan hack job.

 

 

I think in general conservative elites have been trying to ease their voting bloc into realizing it is time to move on from this fight. 

 

It may be true Roberts signed on to control the scope of the ruling, but the fact that 2 conservative justices not only got to the right conclusion but made a leap of intepretation to get there suggests to me they want to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

I think in general conservative elites have been trying to ease their voting bloc into realizing it is time to move on from this fight. 

 

You say that, but didn't the RNC literally just reaffirm that they were against em same-sex marriage in their 2020 platform? I mean, they did just copy and paste their platform from 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

The majority opinion was judicial activism in my view.  Sexual orientation is not sex.

While the bolded is true, discrimination based on sexual orientation is also necessarily discrimination based on sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Slug said:

While the bolded is true, discrimination based on sexual orientation is also necessarily discrimination based on sex.

 

This is true, and important. The sex of your partner is just as important (in discrimination) as the sex of the person involved. Otherwise you could fire someone for marrying a black person, even if you can't fire them for being black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...