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

[moonshine]

Gays aren’t deviants

[conan]

Right…

[johnwk2]

@Nemesis

I am interested to know what our conservative friends think of Gorsuch’s decision on this?

More important is the dissenting opinion:

Today, many Americans know individuals who are gay, lesbian, or transgender and want them to be treated with the dignity, consideration, and fairness that everyone deserves. But the authority of this Court is limited to saying what the law is .

• The Court itself recognizes this:*

“The place to make new legislation . . . lies in Congress. When it comes to statutory interpretation, our role is limited to applying the law’s demands as faithfully as we can in the cases that come before us.” Ante , at 31.

• It is easy to utter such words. If only the Court would live by them.*

• I respectfully dissent.*

Justice Alito

We have been duly warned about arbitrary acts of power:

“When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___The Old Guard, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.

JWK

”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

[Apocalypto]

I don’t get it. What is it about homosexuality that gets many trump supporters riled up?

[LucyLou]

@conan

Lets put it this way. SCOTUS now puts sexual deviants in same category as Blacks and other racial minorities.

Think about that for moment.

This is hilarious.

But I’m afraid YAS GOT NUTHIN! HEAR THAT!

[fallenturtle]

This makes sense to me. Both of these come down to expectations based on sex. If a worker is sexually attracted to men and whether you fire them is whether or not they are a man or a woman, is based on sex. If a worker’s gender is female and whether you fire them is based on whether or not their biological sex is male or female is also based on sex.

[Jamerican]

Well, this ruling has some folks triggered.

[DougBH]

@moonshine

@Safiel

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.

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

If the Court should be expanded, lets do it right now.

That’s a game that can be played to eternity. How about a Supreme Court with more members than the House?

[Sknyluv]

@conan

Lets put it this way. SCOTUS now puts sexual deviants in same category as Blacks and other racial minorities.

Think about that for moment.

lol. Sexual deviants.

[JayJay]

What new and expansive rights do gays/transgender have here that others do not?

Bonus points for answering in 20 words or less.

[DougBH]

I agree that it is wrong to fire people because they may be homosexual. I do not agree that is in the Constitution or any current law.

[biggestal99]

@DougBH

I agree that it is wrong to fire people because they may be homosexual. I do not agree that is in the Constitution or any current law

The current law is the 1964 civil rights law.

The majority thinks it applies in this case.

If you don’t like the ruling there is always the amendment process.

Allan

[DougBH]

@biggestal99

@DougBH

I agree that it is wrong to fire people because they may be homosexual. I do not agree that is in the Constitution or any current law

The current law is the 1964 civil rights law.

The majority thinks it applies in this case.

If you don’t like the ruling there is always the amendment process.

Allan

It doesn’t bother me, it is just made up to fit the mood of the moment instead of the law. That really isn’t even unusual.
If Trump doesn’t like it, he clearly doesn’t have to amend anything. Just expand the court as some are advocating be done.

[johnwk2]

@biggestal99

@DougBH

I agree that it is wrong to fire people because they may be homosexual. I do not agree that is in the Constitution or any current law

The current law is the 1964 civil rights law.

The majority thinks it applies in this case.

If you don’t like the ruling there is always the amendment process.

Allan

Oh, but the Constitution was never amended to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex excepting with respect to voting…

In fact, 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 our federal Constitution already prohibits distinctions based upon sex?

JWK

[JayJay]

A lot of people who were against the ERA (count me in as one) make the argument it’s not needed precisely because it’s superfluous.

[biggestal99]

@DougBH

It doesn’t bother me, it is just made up to fit the mood of the moment instead of the law. That really isn’t even unusual.
If Trump doesn’t like it, he clearly doesn’t have to amend anything. Just expand the court as some are advocating be done

Of course that would take congress to pass the legislation and given the current split that won’t happen.

However if the dems control the 2 branches of congress and the White House.

I am against packing the court.

I was also against the Republican senate tabling Garlands nomination.

So I really understand the angst.

I am still against court packing.

Allan

[johnwk2]

@JayJay

A lot of people who were against the ERA (count me in as one) make the argument it’s not needed precisely because it’s superfluous.

And why is there no amendment needed to forbid distinctions based upon sex? Why was the 19th Amendment necessary if your “superfluous” argument is correct?

JWK

[JayJay]

@johnwk2

@JayJay

A lot of people who were against the ERA (count me in as one) make the argument it’s not needed precisely because it’s superfluous.

And why is there no amendment needed to forbid distinctions based upon sex? Why was the 19th Amendment necessary if your “superfluous” argument is correct?

JWK

I would have made the argument that the 19th Amendment was not necessary either because the 14th Amendment clearly states this:

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.

Laws that prohibited women from voting clearly violated this language.

[mobulis]

@johnwk2

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:

2. “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:

3. “… 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:

4. ”…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

What singular rights?

[johnwk2]

@JayJay

@johnwk2

@JayJay

A lot of people who were against the ERA (count me in as one) make the argument it’s not needed precisely because it’s superfluous.

And why is there no amendment needed to forbid distinctions based upon sex? Why was the 19th Amendment necessary if your “superfluous” argument is correct?

JWK

I would have made the argument that the 19th Amendment was not necessary either because the 14th Amendment clearly states this:

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.

Laws that prohibited women from voting clearly violated this language.

Your argument is without merit!

”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:

2. “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:

3. “… 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:

4. ”…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?

JWK