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  
•       •       •

6667 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 10:45:03 AM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size


Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:03 AM  
Trump's OWN COURT PICK wrote the majority decision!

media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:45:19 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


Precedent in further published court cases defined it.  In the latr 70's a gay man was fired and a court found that it wasn't defined that vii covered sexual orientation, just what you got between your legs is what mattered.  Then further court cases said your gender identity had nothing to do with sex so it trans people didn't get the protections either.

So vii would require congress to specify what they meant by sex and modify it to specifically mentioned sexual orientation and identity and not just sex.  Because as it's written now sex is what you were defined at birth, so even if you were a trans man or trans woman you weren't fired for being your birth sex...  So unless they could claim they were fired because of their original sex, not what they "transitioned" to it didn't hold water.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:32 AM  

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

So, Thomas, Alito, and who else?


Beer O'Rape-a-clock.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:41 AM  
I hope I get to keep reposting this today.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:45:46 AM  

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


And now they can't be fired for sucking it in their private lives.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:08 AM  

Russ1642: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

Probably that if you can't fire someone for being gay then you can't fire someone for running around naked and masturbating into the eggplants. They just can't imagine that a gay person could be 'normal'.


Louie CK likes this.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:13 AM  

Sir Paul: Don't worry bigots, they're going to make sure that a religious person can fire people over sincerely held beliefs in future rulings.


This ruling makes that extremely difficult.  While this was in limbo, the sincerely held religious belief argument can be used.  But with this ruling in place, the immediate counter argument is "can you fire someone for being black because of your sincerely held religious belief?"

The bigots haven't been able to climb that hill.  And if they can't, the legal equivalency created by this ruling takes all of the air out of that one.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:16 AM  

shastacola: I'm beginning to think the Supreme Court can see the "wrong side of history" a little more clearly now.


About 10 years too late.

There's also the abortion case, I think. And definitely the Trump taxes case, which is interesting because when a President makes this kind of suit, they get their asses handed to them (Nixon, Clinton, and Obama). If that's not 9-0, we know we're farked.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:21 AM  
Good
 
2020-06-15 10:46:23 AM  
Prank Call of Cthulhu:

Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.

And no teeth this time, Brett.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:46:32 AM  

FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?


I started trying to correct all the things that are wrong in your post, but then I figured you wouldn't want to read and comprehend any of it, anyway.
 
2020-06-15 10:47:02 AM  

Wave Of Anal Fury: Great news, but sad that we needed a Supreme Court ruling on this.


It's great to see that bigotry is still unacceptable, despite a bigoted demagogue President.
 
2020-06-15 10:47:04 AM  
It's about time
Do equal rights, and protect black people, POC, and affordable housing for the millions of people who are struggling. That's more than half the country, total.
Oh, and health care be a required basic need and right?
 
2020-06-15 10:47:19 AM  

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

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


Two out of three ain't bad.

s/Gorsuch/I Like Beer/
 
2020-06-15 10:47:27 AM  
EVERYONE KNOWS UOU CAN ONLY BE GAY WHEN YOU'VE KICKED KEG NUMBER SEVEN AND YOU MISJUDGE WHAT YOU'RE GROPING

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:47:40 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.


I pretty much agreed with your pre-ruling assessment of how the justices would go, although I had higher odds that Kavanaugh would go for the protections than Gorsuch. Alito and Thomas were never in play.
 
2020-06-15 10:47:52 AM  

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


And yet he was the deciding vote in the case where Georgia can no longer copyright the law.

That was a strange bedfellows case.
 
2020-06-15 10:47:59 AM  

Flappyhead: markie_farkie: So what will this do to Dump's EO that removed LBGTQ rights to healthcare under the ACA?

Nothing.  But Joe can shred it after he's sworn in.


Wow, you think it won't be thrown out long before that?  Are you expecting every federal judge to get the Rona in the next few weeks?
 
2020-06-15 10:48:06 AM  

Herbie555: Wowza. Pleased as punch about the results, slightly shocked at the 6-3 split.

Happy Pride Month, everyone!


I think Proud To Be An American should be rerecorded as a gay anthem
It would only need to be like 6-9% more gay than it already is


Reported
 
2020-06-15 10:48:40 AM  

Russ1642: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

Probably that if you can't fire someone for being gay then you can't fire someone for running around naked and masturbating into the eggplants. They just can't imagine that a gay person could be 'normal'.


Big Train - Work Place W@nking
Youtube VKH9ECC_Qa4
 
2020-06-15 10:48:44 AM  

Khellendros: 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.


As well it shouldnt.

Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.


No, science does
 
2020-06-15 10:48:46 AM  

Another Government Employee: So, Goresuch is the wild card these days? Interesting.


Not really a wildcard. He's generally predictable, but not necessarily along a party line paradigm. He's consistently good on civil rights issues and consistently errs on the side of businesses with chevron deference issues. He appears to be reliable in applying a consistent philosophy and reasoning, and coming to the logical conclusion of that process rather than starting with a desired outcome and backfilling a justification for it. There will be results you like and results you don't, but it at least appears to be an intellectually honest approach.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:03 AM  

Grungehamster: [pbs.twimg.com image 601x559]

Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.


media.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:49:25 AM  

johnny queso: [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/i9_hCjcF​NO0] positive baby steps

fark you, justice rapey.


He still won't hear.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:27 AM  

sprag: 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.


And by 'Judicial Activism' they basically mean "not ruling how I want". That's the only way I can take it when the people throwing that line around are the same ones who supported making corporations equivalent to people (minus the negatives of course) which was never a thing until they made it one. It's a bad faith argument from the get go.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:32 AM  

Destructor: Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?


I've actually seen it happen, although of course it wasn't the 'official' reason for termination.  The reality of it is that if management wants you gone, no matter how valid or invalid the reason, they'll find a way.

Pick two demographics and I've seen people from demographic A unfairly fire people from demographic B.

Pick one demographic and I've seen people from that demographic unfairly protect people from that demographic.

/Life isn't fair.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:41 AM  
Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?
 
2020-06-15 10:49:55 AM  

thaylin: 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


Sex != gender.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:59 AM  

FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?


In short, the 3 side of the Court put forward a separation of powers reasoning.  They argue that the Civil Rights Act, as written, is not specific enough to be interpreted as including sexual orientation or trans people.  By deciding that the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation, they are legislating from the bench.  The proper remedy: It is the job of Congress to be clear, and not SCOTUS to find a way to make it clear.  

In another timeline, where Congress isn't run by howler monkeys benefiting from gerrymandering, I'm actually in agreement with that reasoning.  But we don't live in that kind of rational and fair timeline, so I'm happy for whatever little bits of justice arise from wherever they do arise.
 
2020-06-15 10:50:52 AM  

Myrdinn: 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.


Gorsuch has broken off a few times already. Do a quick search for gorsuch deciding vote and I think you'll be surprised.
I haven't quite figured out what his angle is, but it seems to be he has some level of bullshiat detector that supercedes ideology.
A lot of the Supreme Court cases really are made up of legal details that define the decision, and I think it takes a little bit of bullshiat sniffing to say "hmm, even with all the details, there is still a right and wrong answer here."
 
2020-06-15 10:50:53 AM  

danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously


I'm actually fairly impressed by Gorsuch. He's been a fairly consistent socially moderate/liberal swing vote in these cases.

Same goes for Roberts
 
2020-06-15 10:50:54 AM  

Khellendros: 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.


So the idea is that if you would fire me (a guy) for being married to a guy, but you wouldn't fire a woman for being married to a guy, then my sex enters into your decision-making impermissibly.

So sex and sexual orientation aren't the same thing, but they're interrelated.

/Not the argument I'd make, but I'll take it.
//This seems to make lgbt a quasi-protected class
///Three for traditions' sake
 
2020-06-15 10:51:00 AM  
Gorsuch is going to give Trump an anyeurism.  

Karma's a MItch.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:08 AM  
"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.

I like that.

I now wish for all of Trump's staff to present as the opposite sex.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:21 AM  

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


Yeah. They can't be fired for it now.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:21 AM  

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"


Kavanaugh's excuse is analogous to Southerners' claim that "the Civil War was about States Rights, not slavery!"

He's (of course) claiming that he totally, totally supports gay rights, b-b-but Congress should be the one to change it, not me!!!
 
2020-06-15 10:51:36 AM  
The reality is people will probably still be fired because of their sexual orientation.  The difference now is, your employer can't say it is because of sexual orientation.  Or something like that.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:51 AM  
Blog seems to indicate a 7-2 decision in the Appalachian Trail case (Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association)

The theoretical case - Can the Forest Service do stuff on the trail if the trail also counts as a national park and therefore hypothetically exempt from a non national parks agency doing stuff

The practical case - Forest Service wants to drill baby drill..

Decision 7-2 Thomas wrote the opinion for the court. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Kagan.  The Fourth Circuit's decision is reversed and remanded.

The Court holds in the US Forest Service Case (also known as the Appalachian Trail case) that because the Department of the Interior's decision to assign responsibility over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service did not transform the land over which the trail passes into land within the National Park system, the Forest Service had the authority to issue the special use permit" to Atlantic Coast Pipeline.


And that is the last opinion for the day.

Ruling 1 - No one is allowed to fire you for drilling who you want.
Ruling 2 - Per ruling one we wanna drill mother earth right in her Appalachian Trail.
 
2020-06-15 10:52:12 AM  
No offense, but I can't farking believe you could fire someone for being gay or transgender. "Yo dude, we don't like tailgunners 'round here so GTFO. Sorry, not sorry."

farking really? Really?
 
2020-06-15 10:52:38 AM  

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"


So... he's thrilled he's still on the losing side of the argument because it lost and the LGBT community should celebrate his side being the dissenters?
 
2020-06-15 10:52:44 AM  
This is a kick-back for Trump.  Since it's an election year, the conservative justices needed to throw him a base-charging bone.  Not to mention, Gorsuch's opinion came across as ultra libertarian based.
 
2020-06-15 10:52:54 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does


No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.
 
2020-06-15 10:53:12 AM  

jake_lex: I think that federal judges should get appointed for one, non-renewable, 10 year term.  The exception would be that you can promote judges -- that is,a judge could serve a 10 year term as a district judge, then serve a term on the circuit, then on to the Supreme Court.

But  a disaster of a president like Trump should never be allowed to clog up the court system with judges who are, quite literally, incompetent (a lot of these judges Moscow Mitch is hand-picking for him are not considered qualified by the ABA) for decades after he's tossed out on his ass in shame.


So theoretically, under your system, a two-term Trump would mean he has appointed close to 100% of judges by the end of his term.

I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.
 
2020-06-15 10:53:18 AM  

brantgoose: Good. Maybe shiathead Republican employers will stop firing employees for being black or women or Democrats some day.


They'll just be more careful and weaselly about not stating the reason why they're being fired.
 
2020-06-15 10:54:15 AM  

Krashash: FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?

In short, the 3 side of the Court put forward a separation of powers reasoning.  They argue that the Civil Rights Act, as written, is not specific enough to be interpreted as including sexual orientation or trans people.  By deciding that the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation, they are legislating from the bench.  The proper remedy: It is the job of Congress to be clear, and not SCOTUS to find a way to make it clear.

In another timeline, where Congress isn't run by howler monkeys benefiting from gerrymandering, I'm actually in agreement with that reasoning.  But we don't live in that kind of rational and fair timeline, so I'm happy for whatever little bits of justice arise from wherever they do arise.


It's absolutely clear that discriminating against people based on who they fark is in fact sex discrimination.   Because if they were farking the 'right' sex, they'd still be working.

Let's be very clear, the dissent is a perversion of logic and totally bankrupt as a rationale.
 
2020-06-15 10:54:30 AM  

Buttknuckle: Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.


Just don't be like the young straight bro at the water cooler talking about their "o" face. This transcends all identities.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:54:36 AM  

Grungehamster: [pbs.twimg.com image 601x559]

Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.


It must be ulcer inducing to have to keep swinging from one opinion to the other like that. I'm sure that guy has been confidently boasting about the conservative lock of the SC for months, then one decision comes down and it's straight back to Johnny Reb levels of violent ass hurt.
 
2020-06-15 10:54:46 AM  

Khellendros: Sir Paul: Don't worry bigots, they're going to make sure that a religious person can fire people over sincerely held beliefs in future rulings.

This ruling makes that extremely difficult.  While this was in limbo, the sincerely held religious belief argument can be used.  But with this ruling in place, the immediate counter argument is "can you fire someone for being black because of your sincerely held religious belief?"

The bigots haven't been able to climb that hill.  And if they can't, the legal equivalency created by this ruling takes all of the air out of that one.


The whole idea that deep-rooted delusions exempt a person from civil rights laws is very American, and very insane.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:02 AM  

Herbie555: Wowza. Pleased as punch about the results, slightly shocked at the 6-3 split.

Happy Pride Month, everyone!


You know, say what you will about Gorsuch, but I really would have thought he'd rule in favor of a business of doing whatever it wanted with its chattel, I'm sorry, employees.

He's surprised me on a few of these decisions. Still a corpo-fascist, but not as bad as I thought.
 
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.