Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC) NewsFlash SCOTUS rules 6-3 that workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender   (cnbc.com) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, Homosexuality, Sexual orientation, Gender, Supreme Court, Transgender, sexual orientation, Donald Zarda, LGBT  
•       •       •

6668 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 15 Jun 2020 at 10:20 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

728 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-06-15 10:36:32 AM  
But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".
 
2020-06-15 10:36:43 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


Since 1776, 'equal protection' doesn't actually  apply to anyone but white men.


It's the same argument over and over.  They just keep adding qualifiers like "straight," and other bullshiat they pull out of their ass to get around the plain motherfarking text.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:16 AM  
"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender," Gorsuch wrote. "The answer is clear. 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."


Damn
 
2020-06-15 10:37:18 AM  

Unright: sprag: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

Interesting.  One has to wonder if BEER! would have voted the other way if it had been a closer decision.  Being split like this would make it "safe" for him to dissent without changing the outcome.

It's a lifetime appointment. Why would he have to worry about playing it "safe"?


True that, but everyone knows he's a hack that never should have made it to the court.  By playing the middle like this he's trying to remove the shiat that's all over him from his appointment -- he congratulates the LGBT+ community while at the same time he's saying he doesn't approve of judicial activism.

Of course, he's still a rapey drunken bastard that shouldn't be representing himself in small claims let alone the supreme court.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:22 AM  

dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch


Gorsuch was on our side 0.o wut?
Also fark you Kavenaugh, you should know better.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:32 AM  

eiger: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

This is just me bullshiatting, so take it with a huge grain of salt and go read the decision when it comes out and expert analysis, but I suspect they made a lot of legislative intent since  those who originally passed the law did NOT intend to protect LGBTQ people.


I read through the first few paragraphs, and this seems to be exactly the basis.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:53 AM  

dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch


Thomas (duh) Alito (another duh) Kavanaugh. Thinks its congresses role to determine who should be afforded protection from discriminatory employment practices.

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. 172 pages.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:55 AM  
Phew. Dodged a bullet.

Of course, there are a bunch more chambers in the gun...
 
2020-06-15 10:38:05 AM  
Don't worry bigots, they're going to make sure that a religious person can fire people over sincerely held beliefs in future rulings.
 
2020-06-15 10:38:09 AM  
The dissenters didn't say it should be ok to fire someone because they are gay.  They answered the question, does Title 9 protect them?  The answer is no because it doesn't.  They furthermore said it should be re-written to include that language and protect them.

SCOTUS answers specific questions.  If you ask it the wrong way you can get an answer you don't like.
 
2020-06-15 10:38:18 AM  

New Farkin User Name: Hell yeah. GFY Kavanaugh


Looks like the blackmail "forever-lock" that Trump and the Boys has on associate Justice Kegger is very potent.
 
2020-06-15 10:38:38 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh.  Kav wrote the dissenting opinion.  Giant PDF Warning
 
2020-06-15 10:39:06 AM  
Sounds like...
Hey, we all know this is going to pass, right? Right!
OK, new guy, take one for the team. Vote against, and use it as an opportunity to biatch at Congress for yet again forcing us to do their jobs for them. What is it they do over there again?!
 
2020-06-15 10:39:06 AM  

madgonad: I was suspecting a 5-4. Roberts is conservative, but he is cognizant of how his role in history will play out and knows which way the wind is blowing. Gorsuch was a bit of a surprise.


Gorsuch is by no means, 'not a conservative' but he seems to be a wildcard on a strange set of particulars.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:09 AM  

dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch


dababler: dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Gorsuch was on our side 0.o wut?
Also fark you Kavenaugh, you should know better.


Aye.
I was expecting a 5-4 split, with Roberts realizing what this meant for his legacy.
Gorsuch being on the right side... I am wondering a bit.
I *know* there are Republicans throwing crap right now.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:38 AM  

Grungehamster: [Fark user image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)


Close your quotes, you goat farking child molester.

/Sorry
 
2020-06-15 10:39:42 AM  

Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?


So, Thomas, Alito, and who else?
 
2020-06-15 10:39:45 AM  
The punted on qualified immunity.

Congress could easily fix that issue through legislation. I am 100% certain they will not.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:45 AM  

danvon: dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Thomas (duh) Alito (another duh) Kavanaugh. Thinks its congresses role to determine who should be afforded protection from discriminatory employment practices.

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. 172 pages.


Or congress' role, for that matter.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:57 AM  

Grungehamster: [Fark user image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)


Eric Erickson is a joke.

I met him at a hotel bar in Austin.  I was in town at the same time as one of his Red State events and they had it in the Sheraton I was staying in.  It was funny, I was chatting with "the dude next to me at the bar" and after a spell introduced my self.  "Hey, I'm me, what's your name?"  He seemed a little put off that I didn't know who he was.

Since he's on the local news radio here I can say one thing:  He doesn't like Trump.

/Seems his show comes on when I'm gloved up and putting a finish on a woodworking project and can't change the station
//If Rush comes on I'll happily waste 80 cents of gloves to change the station
///The Mark Arum show is good stuff.  Funny as all hell.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:24 AM  

MythDragon: But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".


This has always been the Achilles' heel of anti-discrimination law; it can be very hard to prove that the intent for the firing is due to the fact that an employee is a member of a protected class.  Meanwhile, if your read the employee's handbook for your job, you'll find tons of petty rules that pretty much every employee routinely violates.  So all you have to do is assemble a dossier of those violations, fire the employee when you have enough, then present it if they do sue you.

I mean, that's what HR is for at any company of any size.  They sure as shiat aren't on your side.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:28 AM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>


This is a satire account, right? I just can't tell any more.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:32 AM  

Sidepipes: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.  'Nuff said.


Ah, that figures.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:38 AM  
Why is this still up for debate?
 
2020-06-15 10:40:51 AM  
The freepers are handling with the expected class.

Won't paste anything they said here. But LOL they mad.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:11 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.


They might enjoy that
 
2020-06-15 10:41:17 AM  
it's somewhat comforting to know that the folks who would vote for full on fascism are in the minority. unfortunately that breaks less favorably for us on the issue of regular ol corporate corruption, and greed.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:22 AM  

FormlessOne: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

So, Thomas, Alito, and who else?


Kavanaugh.

Thomas and Alito on the three thousand page angry scream into the darkness.

Kavanaugh on the "I'm voting dissent because this really isn't our job, but good on you guys for winning" so you know marginally not as bad.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:22 AM  

jake_lex: Justice I LIKE BEER is delivering as best he can, it appears.

Trump can't be given another chance to put someone else like him on the Supreme Court.


Agreed, since he put someone like Gorsuch on the Court.  THAT may have just cost Il Douche reelection.  The base is not going to be pleased about that.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:42 AM  

NoahFenze: Why is this still up for debate?


Because freedom to discriminate is one of the most American and fundamental freedoms. Duh.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:45 AM  

NotThatGuyAgain: Grungehamster: [Fark user image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)

Eric Erickson is a joke.

I met him at a hotel bar in Austin.  I was in town at the same time as one of his Red State events and they had it in the Sheraton I was staying in.  It was funny, I was chatting with "the dude next to me at the bar" and after a spell introduced my self.  "Hey, I'm me, what's your name?"  He seemed a little put off that I didn't know who he was.

Since he's on the local news radio here I can say one thing:  He doesn't like Trump.

/Seems his show comes on when I'm gloved up and putting a finish on a woodworking project and can't change the station
//If Rush comes on I'll happily waste 80 cents of gloves to change the station
///The Mark Arum show is good stuff.  Funny as all hell.


Erik Son of Erik was briefly a never-Trumper until Fox News stopped calling him, and he got back on board.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:50 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


They are not enumerated protected classes.  Legally, it's a lot more of a leap of logic for the 6.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:51 AM  

jake_lex: MythDragon: But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".

This has always been the Achilles' heel of anti-discrimination law; it can be very hard to prove that the intent for the firing is due to the fact that an employee is a member of a protected class.  Meanwhile, if your read the employee's handbook for your job, you'll find tons of petty rules that pretty much every employee routinely violates.  So all you have to do is assemble a dossier of those violations, fire the employee when you have enough, then present it if they do sue you.

I mean, that's what HR is for at any company of any size.  They sure as shiat aren't on your side.


HR isn't there to help you. it's to minimize liability exposure for the company.

Never, ever assume HR is there to provide you with help.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:08 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.


In the same sentence they relate sex and sexual orientation - two exceptionally different ideas.  The point is that the flipping of one switch doesn't invalidate your rights to basic protections under the law.

Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:19 AM  

NeoCortex42: They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend


I mean, that's a legitimate view, but that also fundamentally calls to question the role of the Supreme Court. Their whole job is to decide the implications of laws as written. If he feels that way about things like Brown v. Board of Education or Obergefell v. Hodges, cases where law was transformed overnight because of the opinion of learned justices, what is it he thinks the justices are supposed to be doing?
 
2020-06-15 10:42:30 AM  

johnphantom: Walker: "I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
[Fark user image 840x560]

"BUT IF A GAY MAN OFFERS ME A BEER, IT'S NOT GAY TO DRINK IT!"


Schmitts Gay - SNL
Youtube hCOSejS1SSY
 
2020-06-15 10:42:50 AM  

Unright: sprag: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

Interesting.  One has to wonder if BEER! would have voted the other way if it had been a closer decision.  Being split like this would make it "safe" for him to dissent without changing the outcome.

It's a lifetime appointment. Why would he have to worry about playing it "safe"?


They are all playing a dumb political game with the other 8 justices.  It might be a lifetime appointment, but if the other 8 justices don't respect you in the least, you're basically just a benchwarmer.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:51 AM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>


Goresuch knows that Trump will not be president forever, or even for very much longer.
 
2020-06-15 10:43:09 AM  
A joyous day. After Trump's LGBT "regulations" last week, this is welcome news.

I find it fascinating that Kavanaugh refused to join Thomas and Alito and instead wrote his own dissent that, while similar in reasoning, actually quite vocally supports the goal, just not the method. He ends with such a positive endorsement of LGBT rights that I can easily see Republicans being pissed at him for it, only slightly less than Freepers are right now at Gorsuch and Roberts.
 
2020-06-15 10:43:15 AM  

The Bestest: Eclectic: Waiting for this decision has filled me with so much dread for weeks now. I fully expected 5-4 against.

That it wasn't 9-0 "no you can't be bigots" is disgusting, but I'll take the victory.

Nah, I was fairly confident in Roberts at least and sorta expected Gorsuch to come down as he did. I LIKE BEER was my only real question mark (and now I see where he lies), but I also completed expected Alito and Thomas to be farksticks.


My take on Roberts is that if the case doesn't deal with corporate or voting rights, he's more likely to side with the liberals.
 
2020-06-15 10:43:15 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.


Also keep in mind if you do decide to suck it hard, you're legally protected from being discriminated against.  So you got that going for you which is nice.
 
2020-06-15 10:43:54 AM  
The dissenting judges

.
ocregister.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:43:56 AM  

Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.

They've recognized that since deciding Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins back in 1989.


I love it when people say trans people were born that way AND gender is a social construct.
 
2020-06-15 10:44:35 AM  
Great news, but sad that we needed a Supreme Court ruling on this.
 
2020-06-15 10:44:41 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh. And my guess is the real reasoning, regardless of what they said, was 'Telling the Job Creators that they aren't allowed to do something is the WORST form of tyranny!'
 
2020-06-15 10:44:50 AM  

John the Magnificent: The dissenting judges

.[ocregister.com image 482x599]


In their judicial robes...

daily.jstor.orgView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:44:55 AM  

Another Government Employee: OtherLittleGuy: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

I Like Beer was trying the "It's not our job" defense.

He's not completely wrong, but it's obvious Congress wasn't going to do it.


The House could pass the appropriate law, but Moscow Mitch would not let it go to a vote in the Senate.
 
2020-06-15 10:44:59 AM  

thaylin: Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.
What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex


Trumpy decided that having "sex" include people of in-between sex was too complicated, so he removed them from existence.

It was something like that.  I was listening to NPR.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:01 AM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>


You could always pray for their swift deaths
 
2020-06-15 10:45:03 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

I Like Beer was trying the "It's not our job" defense.


Yup. Scalia was a big fan of it, too.
 
Displayed 50 of 728 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.