SCOTUS ruling: workers can’t be fired for being gay and transgender

Duh. Protected by civil rights law.

6-3

Allan

2 Likes

Gorsuch comes though for the majority.

Allan

3 Likes

It was delivered in the middle of LGBT Pride Month.

Most important SCOTUS ruling come in June.

Allan

1 Like

What you are seeing is the begining of a new “switch in time that saved nine.”

The Justices are trying to head off an expansion of the Supreme Court by a Democratic President and Congress.

The ruling is morally correct.

Legally, it is, at best, a stretch.

But I fully understand that Roberts was not interested in commiting judicial suicide.

5 Likes

Ironically, come January, President Biden could have signed a new civil rights law granting that protection.

Can we stop pretending the court isn’t just as political as everyone else now?

7 Likes

the court still should be expanded.
the GOP can not be allowed to get away with stealing a justice like they did with gorsuch
at teh minimun 2 new justices should be appointed to blunt the GOP theft

3 Likes

Yep much like Brown this is a moral decision rather than a legal one. But the predictions about Gorsuch I think are slowly becoming true.

No.

If anything, the court should be reduced to seven Justices. Expansion is simply stupid, PARTICULARLY when it is not necessary.

1 Like

What predictions?

3 and two oracles. :wink:

The court declined all ten gun cases.

The switch is clearly on.

Figures.

On the other hand, they also turned down all the available qualified immunity cases.

1 Like

Congress will likely deal with that in 2021.

S.C. defies Constitution, mocks oath of office, creates singular rights for sexual deviants

See: Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects LGBTQ workers

June 15, 2020,

“The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status, a major victory for advocates of gay rights — and a surprising one from an increasingly conservative court.
In decisions on two separate cases, the court said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person’s sex, among other factors, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.”

What the majority members [GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined] on our Supreme Court fail or refuse to establish is, the authority under our federal Constitution delegating power to Congress to prohibit by legislation [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] that a business owner is prohibited to make distinctions based upon sex, or, legislate in a manner which impinges upon the inalienable right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations.

In fact, the 14the Amendment, which allegedly grants such power, turns out to be a fabrication created by those who have been unable to amend our Constitution to accommodate their desires.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads:

”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:

  1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The amendment then goes on to declare:

  1. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

This wording forbids every State from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be “citizens of the United States”! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.

The amendment then continues with:

  1. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

This wording applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and It expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.

This section of the Amendment then concludes with:

  1. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, but whatever laws are adopted by a State, the State may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The law must be enforced equally upon every “person” and does not apply to “identifiable groups”.

So where in our federal Constitution has a power been delegated to authorize our federal government to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex, or more important, to prohibit citizens to make distinctions based upon sex which would impinge on the fundamental right of people being free to mutually agree in their contracts and associations?

Is it not a fact that the 15th Amendment was adopted to prohibit a new type of discrimination? Discrimination at the voting booth —forbidding discrimination at the voting booth to be based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“, while gender, and in particularly females, were not yet included in the protection?

The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg in the infamous VMI case] but only extended the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, which a majority on our Supreme Court now seems to contend, including distinctions based upon sexual deviant identifications, then why were the above mentioned amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?

Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as the Court’s majority now contends?

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

1 Like

At least Cowpasture was decided accordingly to the law

That he is going to be muddled in the middle ruling on both sides of aisle.

1 Like

Thanks.

They are more concerned about image and legacy than the law.

1 Like