|
Replies: 11
| visibility 582
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Supreme court issues landmark ruling led by Gorsuch
Jun 15, 2020, 11:03 AM
|
|
and joined by Roberts. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that gays and transgender people cannot be discriminated against in the workplace just because of their sexual identity or orientation. A severe blow to the Trump administration who argued that they can be. The backward, evangelical hard-right takes an assz-whipping on this one.
"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," Gorsuch wrote."
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/supreme-court-lgbtq-employment-case/index.html
|
|
|
|
 |
Hall of Famer [22384]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31280
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Poor Susan Collins just can't catch a break.
Jun 15, 2020, 11:16 AM
|
|
The 3 who said discrimination against LGBTQ persons is cool were Kavanaugh, Thomas and Alito.
Every crazy opinion from Kavanaugh just digs her political grave deeper and deeper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155762]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65771
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Just in case anyone doesn’t make the association,
Jun 15, 2020, 11:17 AM
|
|
You’d better run another yarn string between those two thumbtacks on your basement conspiracy wall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22384]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31280
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Just in case anyone doesn't make the association,
Jun 15, 2020, 11:26 AM
|
|
you might inform those people that we don't call them basements along the coast of South Carolina.
They're called submarines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11627]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9789
Joined: 5/17/02
|
That's a stretch....
Jun 15, 2020, 11:36 AM
[ in reply to Poor Susan Collins just can't catch a break. ] |
|
Reading what I could from the dissent had nothing to do with LGBT rights and more on what laws were in place for this case.
The dissenters wrote that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 encompasses protection based on sex. And 'sexual' orientation' and 'gender identity' are different than sex. Therefore the case argued before them wasn't protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Not that they shouldn't be protected.
Or at least that's what I could find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [48078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 49059
Joined: 5/16/04
|
Re: Supreme court issues landmark ruling led by Gorsuch
Jun 15, 2020, 11:45 AM
|
|
Might be best to just not hire them in certain situations in order to avoid any headaches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [78865]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26422
Joined: 12/6/98
|
does this also affect pimp and madams?
Jun 15, 2020, 1:43 PM
|
|
you would think that they should be exempt
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24730]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42427
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Depends on their clients... No trial; they just get deaded.***
Jun 15, 2020, 6:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13093]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14095
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: Supreme court issues landmark ruling led by Gorsuch
Jun 15, 2020, 2:49 PM
|
|
Examples of the Trump administration arguing that they can be? links?
Anyway, as usual your elementary baiting is tired. The dissent was spot on in my opinion, in that the law does not cover them now. Meaning that congress needs to amend the law to include LBGTs. But God forbid, congress do anything when they expect the courts to legislate from the bench.
But to Felix wants people to think that anyone on the court that ruled against it agreed that you could be fired for being gay. Not the case as usual. The dissent just simply points out that congress needs to change the law.
Felix taking a azz-whipping daily. Prob likes it though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Supreme court issues landmark ruling led by Gorsuch
Jun 15, 2020, 2:57 PM
|
|
Examples of the Trump administration arguing that they can be? links?
Anyway, as usual your elementary baiting is tired. The dissent was spot on in my opinion, in that the law does not cover them now. Meaning that congress needs to amend the law to include LBGTs. But God forbid, congress do anything when they expect the courts to legislate from the bench.
But to Felix wants people to think that anyone on the court that ruled against it agreed that you could be fired for being gay. Not the case as usual. The dissent just simply points out that congress needs to change the law.
Felix taking a ###-whipping daily. Prob likes it though.
As usual, you attack the messenger. A little research would help your overall view. Who do you think was arguing against LGBTQ protection? The Trump Administration. They're the reason it got to the Supreme Court in the first case. Conservative disdain for Gay people seems to be based on religious views. Gay sex is a sin. But that's frankly no one's business but the sinners. "If they don't listen, kick the dust from your feet and move on."- Jesus Christ
Don't you ever tire of being wrong?  ">
"The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to rule that LGBTQ people can be fired because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
Where it stands: The administration's involvement in LGBTQ cases supplements a 2-year White House playbook to undo many protections the LGBTQ community secured under President Obama. One of the cases is the first to ask the court to determine the civil rights of transgender people, per the ACLU."
https://www.axios.com/trump-administration-federal-law-lgbtq-workers-10c1ee34-41e6-4cd0-bc84-5c10ec392398.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13093]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14095
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: Supreme court issues landmark ruling led by Gorsuch
Jun 15, 2020, 4:23 PM
|
|
Oh axiom? It must be true. You like your axiom Writer said that the admin urged the Supreme Court? Where is that document? I would like to read it. Or did they simply state the law doesn’t cover the matter as I and the dissent stated? Why not just change the law to be clear and not wait years in court cases?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I wonder if that refers to behaviors, as well as
Jun 15, 2020, 3:59 PM
|
|
"identity". Like, if a person got fired for homosexual behavior, as opposed to just an "orientation".
I don't question protection against discrimination against people because of some genetic characteristic. But I feel like, if I were a business owner, I would definitely want to, need to, discriminate based on behaviors that are a choice, like religion and sexual behaviors. You'd better bet I would never want to hire a Satanist, for example. And I'd want to fire one if I found out about it. Because they made a choice that indicates they are not going to be the kind of employee I want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 11
| visibility 582
|
|
|
50
