Supreme Court rules LGBT workers
are protected from job discrimination
New York Post, with Wires,
by
Mark Moore
Original Article
Posted By: Ribicon,
6/15/2020 10:53:44 AM
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that existing civil rights legislation protects gay, lesbian and transgender people from discrimination in employment.
The court’s 6-3 decision, written by Trump appointee Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, said a provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, also covers gay and lesbian workers.
The court’s four liberal justices – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Bryer – agreed.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanugh dissented.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 6/15/2020 10:59:09 AM (No. 445250)
Looks like the court took the Clinton precedence to heart. It all depends on the meaning of 'sex'. Guess the 5 liberals and wannabe invited to all the cool cocktail parties Gorsuch beleive sex is an activity, not a biologically determined fact.
6 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
spacer 6/15/2020 11:02:07 AM (No. 445255)
Christian churches are 1st on the list gorsuch just created. If America is to survive, it will require force.
12 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Ribicon 6/15/2020 11:16:00 AM (No. 445279)
Does this wise ruling by our Gay Supreme Court cover straight people who get marginalized or even fired from work for failing to fully celebrate Pride Month festivities? Any company of a certain size pushes this filth hard each June, and it's absurd that in a nation that pretends to cherish free speech, any objection to celebrating deviant sex in the workplace is met with quick condemnation from the Diversity and Inclusion Committee. The Orwellian dystopia is now.
26 people like this.
Lawyers rejoice! Another money spigot just appeared.
16 people like this.
Roberts is more like Souter every day.
24 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Subsuburban 6/15/2020 11:28:48 AM (No. 445301)
A hypothetical: I, as an orthodox Christian, believe homosexuality is a sin, therefore decline to participate in my employer's "Gay Pride Month" celebration. Am I immune from firing? If so, then this ruling can be used to foster a return to normality, could it not?
18 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
zephyrgirl 6/15/2020 11:39:15 AM (No. 445315)
I'm glad I'm retired. When I was working, Black History Month was bad enough. I don't want to think about what horrors could result from Gay Pride Month. It certainly won't be the truth about all the pathologies in the gay community.
9 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
sciteach 6/15/2020 11:44:04 AM (No. 445320)
First it was fake marriage. And now the perverts win again.
9 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
czechlist 6/15/2020 11:44:04 AM (No. 445321)
I am in favor of equal rights, it is special rights which are abhorrent regardless of the reason. Equal everything for those who are qualified and demonstrate merit. It is why I have always been anti-union.
15 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
msjena 6/15/2020 12:12:22 PM (No. 445341)
I used to be a dumb idealist who believed that judges, or at least conservative judges, would follow the law as written. But now, with another bad decision from the allegedly conservative majority SCOTUS, I see even Supreme Court “strict constructionalists” can’t help bending to the will of the liberal media and their own biases. Discrimination based on sex means discrimination based on being either male or female. If Congress had wanted to include gays and transgendered, they could have. Very disappointed in Gorsuch. Roberts appears to have crossed over to the liberal side. Would he vote against gay marriage if the case were before the Court today?
7 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
MindMadeUp 6/15/2020 12:29:17 PM (No. 445352)
How about conservatives. The Left can fire, abuse, discriminate, insult, and torment us all they want, apparently.
8 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
kono 6/15/2020 12:30:30 PM (No. 445353)
Our society's general discomfort with the concept of sex motivated its shift to the use of 'gender', which led us to this point, where it is subject to being defined and understood in a completely relative way. Every one of us is unique, so maybe I'll file for inclusion by exclusion -- LGBTQXK -- I am konosexual. Now let me have my way in everything, or else you are discriminating against my sexuality.
9 people like this.
#6 I saw this play out at my company in MS. An employee disagreed because of religious convictions to participate in the June LGBT activities our company was forced to comply with. The main company sent a representative from California to have a meeting with this employee and ultamatives were given. He had to comply or lose his job. This was 10 years ago. The Calfornia corporate made us remove our nativity scene etc. At Christmas. Their pressure is immense.
11 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Zarin 6/15/2020 1:24:24 PM (No. 445388)
Does this mean they can cross dress if they work for a funeral home?
3 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
DVC 6/15/2020 1:27:59 PM (No. 445394)
Bad news. I am glad I am out of the work force, don't have to deal with these folks any more.
4 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Namma 6/15/2020 1:50:29 PM (No. 445419)
sexual orientation has no place in the business world. Being qualified for a job is what SHOULD be the qualifying factor. Not who a person has sex with.
3 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
lakerman1 6/15/2020 1:57:19 PM (No. 445429)
chief Judas John Roberts didn't surprise me on this decision.
gorsuch did, however. I expected more from him.
10 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
RuckusTom 6/15/2020 2:32:34 PM (No. 445444)
We've come a long way since 2014 when homosexual and lesbian marriage was legalized. Naw, there no such thing as a slippery slope.
10 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 6/15/2020 3:24:30 PM (No. 445477)
I find myself living in strange times.
4 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
agrunt 6/15/2020 3:43:10 PM (No. 445489)
Change the law and the protection goes away.
1 person likes this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
lakerman1 6/15/2020 3:52:29 PM (No. 445500)
2nd post apologies, but, #20, applying the drug addled legal reasoning of Chief Judas John Roberts, the Court would likely ignore the clear language of a new law, just as the majority ignored the clear language of Obolacare.
Further, since the Court has essentiallyy created a new set of protected classes of employees, will affirmative action be required for the LBGTQ crowd? and how would an applicant prove that he or she or whatever is a member of that class? By offering to perform a sex act on the HR manager??
There is great mischief attached to this decision.
5 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
Truth Czar 6/15/2020 4:13:28 PM (No. 445518)
Once again the Supreme Court authors legislation from the bench as it extends a law to cover a group that is not even mentioned in the text of the law. It is the job of Congress to write/change/amend legislation. It is the Supreme Court's job to call balls and strikes.
3 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
Foont 6/15/2020 6:17:30 PM (No. 445606)
This will be used to attack Christian churches . It will be used to further silence and punish Christians in the work place. It will be used to force sexual deviants into jobs in day care centers and K-12 schools both public and, since the government schools are no doubt already harboring these people and perfectly willing (eager, in fact) to take on more, private schools as well (especially Christian schools). Drag Queen Story Hour will become the new normal all across what passes for education in this sorry cesspool of a culture. Churches that refuse to accept the perverted as employees will be bankrupted by lawsuits. It will be interesting, and horrifying, to watch what develops from this as there is apparently no bottom to what these deviants desire or are willing to do in pursuit of gratification of their lust.
4 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
anniebc 6/15/2020 6:19:51 PM (No. 445610)
What in the world would we do without turncoat "conservatives"? I'd make a better justice than the six who voted for this.
1 person likes this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
udanja99 6/15/2020 6:37:31 PM (No. 445622)
Unless the employee has a five o’clock shadow and a deep voice and is wearing a dress, how would anyone know what someone’s sexual orientation is unless the that person broadcasts it to the rest of the office? How about, instead of illegal legislation from the SCOTUS, everyone just keep their sexual preferences to themselves? I don’t feel the need to go around telling everyone that I’m heterosexual.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Ribicon"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Whee. Entire article is above.