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  
•       •       •

6662 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 10:55:23 AM  
At issue: the text of a 1964 civil rights law barring employment discrimination based on sex, and whether that term should be understood to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

"The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed," Alito said. "The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."


In case anyone wondered how you could not vote for this.  Apparently it said you cannot discriminate based on sex.  So now it has been decided that that also means the sexual intercourse that you have.  Which is...well...whatever.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:35 AM  

Grungehamster: 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.


No, you don't get it.  Trump can rule as he wishes.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:38 AM  

GhostOfSavageHenry: 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.


Yep.  I had an acquaintance that was conservative that would rail on any ruling that he didn't like as the liberals "legislating from the bench!"  but any ruling he liked, regardless of how out of whack it was in regards to the law or common sense was just undoing all of the "judicial activism"

I don't talk to him anymore because while he's a smart guy in his field and generally a good person, he had the conservative kool aid injected directly into his veins.   Also it was funny how quick his views on women who got pregnant out of wedlock changed when his daughter got pregnant in college...
 
2020-06-15 10:55:53 AM  
Huh. Gorsuch. I was not expecting that.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:56 AM  
Three of nine people in the highest court of our nation think the US Constitution doesn't apply to people that don't love like they do. Funny how that 33% keeps popping up. Basically it seems our country is populated by one-third bigots, racists, and assholes.
 
2020-06-15 10:56:06 AM  
Does this apply to military service?
 
2020-06-15 10:56:54 AM  

BMFPitt: 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.


The poor bastards should be allowed to retire. So much of our future hinges on RBG's pancreas. It's medieval.
 
2020-06-15 10:57:22 AM  

Demetrius: In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.


BroKav tried to cover it by saying "durr that's congress's job" completely forgetting how things end up in front of the supreme court in the first place.
 
2020-06-15 10:57:28 AM  

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


Actually, his was a rather weasely dissent.  Basiclaly, he agreed with the outcome, but felt it was up to Congress to re-write the law to explicitly cover gays/transgenders.
 
2020-06-15 10:57:48 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.


Well, Trump does idolize Andrew Jackson, who apocryphally said "the Supreme Court has made their decision, let them enforce it" about making being Native Americans on American soil illegal being completely unconstitutional.
 
2020-06-15 10:58:13 AM  
Wrong decision for good reasons.  Congress should have passed a law.

On the other hand, there are only so many words you can redefine based on changes in public perception over time,  so it seems unlikely thst this will lead to a slew of new bad decisions.

But it ranks up with Kelo in judicial overreach.
 
2020-06-15 10:59:28 AM  
The 6-3 holding, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative appointed by President Donald Trump

That was a nice middle finger to Donnie*.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:19 AM  
Please understand that this does not mean one cannot be fired for being toxic, disruptive, what have you.  Divas and drama queens, be they straight/gay/transgender, can always be shown the door.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:22 AM  

NotThatGuyAgain: 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.


A white teacher in KC won a lawsuit alleging a black principal racially discriminated against her. She won $4.3 million in her lawsuit.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:33 AM  

New Farkin User Name: Hell yeah. GFY Kavanaugh


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:00:36 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.


sex and sexual orientation are not exceptionally different ideas, other than how people have used the words colloquially. the dictionary and the thesaurus  do not list sex and gender as synonyms, and the only time they relate is when talking about how they play a role in each other.

In fact the definition lists sex as 2 MAJOR forms, not all forms, but it also lists behavioral characteristics of the organism, not just physical characteristics of the organism.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:38 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


If it was that obvious, we wouldn't have needed this case to tell us so.  You can look around the country and find a number of states and cities that have updated their anti-discrimination laws to have a bigger list of protected classes.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:00 AM  

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

According to the dissent they though congress needed to amend the law to add sub classes of sexes to not be discriminated against apparently.


Well, now they don't have to.

And it's not legislation from the benc, to determine how laws apply to the american people. That's literally the job of the courts. These three farks just didn't want to give gay and trans people legal protections.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:06 AM  
Once in a while, Roberts doesn't want to be remembered as a bigot for the rest of history.
It's nice.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:11 AM  

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

Please elaborate.


it's pretty obvious, right? Title VII in no way covers sexual preference or LARPing preference. See Kavanagh's magisterial dissent.

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

This is a satire account, right? I just can't tell any more.


What if the account is honest, but reality is a sad satire? <galaxy brain>

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

Goresuch knows that Trump will not be president forever, or even for very much longer.


More's the pity. If Trump had handled Covid-19 better, this 'social justice' nonsense would never have taken root, and he'd be romping to a win. As it is he's a coin toss. Although in a better world, he'd be down in the polls against "Iron" mike Bloomberg...

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

You could always pray for their swift deaths


That seems unreasonable. They could just resign, take Kagan, Ginsburg, and Solomeyer with them, so Trump/Pence/McConnell can appoint their replacements with true, constitutional jurisprudence.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:28 AM  

sprag: GhostOfSavageHenry: 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.

Yep.  I had an acquaintance that was conservative that would rail on any ruling that he didn't like as the liberals "legislating from the bench!"  but any ruling he liked, regardless of how out of whack it was in regards to the law or common sense was just undoing all of the "judicial activism"

I don't talk to him anymore because while he's a smart guy in his field and generally a good person, he had the conservative kool aid injected directly into his veins.   Also it was funny how quick his views on women who got pregnant out of wedlock changed when his daughter got pregnant in college...


Hypocrisy is a Conservative value.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:33 AM  

dkulprit: 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.


or having those precedents reversed...
 
2020-06-15 11:01:36 AM  

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


That Congress should have changed the law explicitly and the Court should not rewrite law for Congress.  They did not think that the 1964 law as written included sexual orientation and gender, which I think it not unreasonable given the culture and law of the U.S. in the 1960's.  I like the outcome, and think we all should, but I do think Congress should have dealt with this long before now.  Part of the reason the Supreme Court has become such a hot button politically is because people now expect them to do things Congress should be doing but won't.  So, good for equality, but definitely gives Congress more of an excuse to not act on things, which is not good. The law of unintended consequences and all that.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:44 AM  

bluorangefyre: 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.


Gorsuch is a corporatist; his past controversial rulings confirmed that. Gorsuch is no David Souter, who had more of a moderate record.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:18 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"


"Congress should be stepping up to do this instead of relying on us to do their job" is a valid point. The same was true of ending DOMA and the reversal of same-sex marriage bans.

However, valid or not, the argument is coming from a man that has had no issue overriding these protections in the past so any assumption of good faith is lost before its ever considered.

In short; fark off and get your shine box, Kavanaugh, you disingenuous twunt.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:18 AM  

lincoln65: The poor bastards should be allowed to retire. So much of our future hinges on RBG's pancreas. It's medieval.


I'm not even worried about her pancreas right now.  I want her behind like 3 layers of isolation with everyone in between wearing full biohazard suits.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:26 AM  

This text is now purple: 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.


Ayup.  Until now, they could say, "We're not firing you because you are a [man|woman], we're firing you because you are a [woman|man] fraudulently claiming to be a [man|woman]"
 
2020-06-15 11:02:40 AM  

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.


Pretty much this. I was not at all expecting an affirmative ruling. This feeling I'm feeling right now isn't triumph or jubilation; it's more like a slight loosening of the muscles in my shoulders for a few minutes while I wait to see whether my governor caves to DeVos and signals that trans rights can be ruled back if its expedient, which would be a big step backward for this state.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:40 AM  

Animatronik: Wrong decision for good reasons.  Congress should have passed a law.


They did in 1964, that was the entire point of the case.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:48 AM  
Every major advance of society in human history has been opposed by conservatives.  From voting rights for blacks, for women, for anti-slavery legislation, to emancipation, to the American experiment itself.  Conservatives oppose, and have opposed progress of every society at all turn in all eras throughout history.

Conservatives stand for war, hatred, violence, and oppression, period. They stand against learning, education, knowledge, progress, and personal freedom.  "Conservative" is a bad word, and should not be uttered without shame and personal depression.  It is an insult, to call someone a conservative, not a point of pride. There is nothing good to be had by claiming to be a 'conservative'.
 
2020-06-15 11:03:02 AM  

Khellendros: 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.


Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.
 
2020-06-15 11:03:25 AM  

flondrix: Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?


Yes.

Even the "at will" states can't fire you for your race or religion or sex.  They can invent other non-protected reasons, though... or even no reason at all.

- What's your favorite MLP character?
- What?
- Did I stutter?
- What?
- Say what one more time, motherfarker!
- What?
- you're fired.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:04 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


I always thought this.

"I am romantically attracted to men."
"That is not OK."
"Would it be OK if I were a woman?"
"Of course. That would be fine"
"So it is not OK because I am a man?"
"That's the long and short of it, yes."

Clear cut case of discrimination on the basis of gender.
How is this not already being enforced?
 
2020-06-15 11:04:04 AM  

This text is now purple: 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.


Correct, the law covers sex, the definition of sex covers sexual orientation. If the law stated gender then the law would need to be changed.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:24 AM  
It's interesting how many people would rather make up what they think the rationales for both the decision and the dissent were, instead of, y'know, downloading the PDF and reading it. It's not paywalled or restricted. The big words can be looked up in a dictionary. You don't score points for opining quickly; you don't lose anything by taking a half-hour or so to at least skim the relevant portions to grasp the essence of what's said.

The decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions​/​19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
 
2020-06-15 11:04:41 AM  

SamFlagg: 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.


I think that about sums it up.  John Paul Stevens was the same.  Ford nominated him because he was a reliable "moderate" from the Midwest and he expected that the senate would confirm him easily, which it did.  But Stevens wasn't reliably moderate or conservative or liberal - he was just reliably unreliable.  He really hoed his own furrow, which meant he wrote a lot of concurrences and dissents all by himself.

As an appellate judge, Gorsuch had something of a reputation for being a bit libertarian on social issues.  Usually, that just means that he could be counted on to express "concern" for things like police brutality or discrimination before voting the straight conservative line.  This time, however, he actually lived up to the label, which may bode well for the future.  If you want to see an opinion written by someone who might claim to be libertarian but who is actually a conventional conservative, read Kavanaugh's hand-wringing dissent.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:47 AM  
Oh wow, Alito is just completely melting down.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:59 AM  

Animatronik: Wrong decision for good reasons.  Congress should have passed a law.


We all know the reason Congress didn't pass such a bill even though those bills have been brought up in every Congressional session since 2007: Republicans want gay and trans Americans to be subject to workplace discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
 
2020-06-15 11:05:07 AM  

Troy McClure: 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

If it was that obvious, we wouldn't have needed this case to tell us so.  You can look around the country and find a number of states and cities that have updated their anti-discrimination laws to have a bigger list of protected classes.


clarifying because of obtuse bigots does not mean it should be needed.
 
2020-06-15 11:05:23 AM  

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

According to the dissent they though congress needed to amend the law to add sub classes of sexes to not be discriminated against apparently.


Think about how up their own asses they are.  A woman talks about her marriage to a man, doesn't get fired.  A man talks about being married to a man, gets fired.  That's sexual discrimination, only women are fee to speak openly about their marriage to a man. And vise versa for lesbians and men.
 
2020-06-15 11:05:57 AM  

flondrix: Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?


Yes, it does. They will make up some bullshiat excuse (as they did with the cases were heard). But if you can PROVE you were fired for being gay/trans then you can sue.
 
2020-06-15 11:06:13 AM  

Animatronik: But it ranks up with Kelo in judicial overreach.


There's at least a case to be made that it is a legally sound decision for trans people.  Shaky, but still a case.

Kelo was absolutely without a shred of legal merit.

// I only have my Fark GED in law, but I think I'm close to the top of the class in that
 
2020-06-15 11:07:23 AM  
i.gr-assets.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:07:46 AM  

Gubbo: Imagine being on the side that says, in 2020, of course you can be fired for being gay.

Republicans. Never even once


Then you got the Meghan McCain's saying Republicans don't hate gays IDK why the MSM pushes that Fake News
 
2020-06-15 11:07:57 AM  
America gets slightly better today. Hooray!
 
2020-06-15 11:08:09 AM  
I consider myself a conservative. I'm pretty old school. And I agree with this. The only thing that should be used to keep you from employment is lack of required skills or someone else has more experience etc. Not what color you are. Not whether you're gay or straight. Not whether you're fat or thin etc.
 
2020-06-15 11:08:37 AM  

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


Definitely put in under gender discrimination, which is illegal. I'm not surprised that the three GOP hacks went with the party, while the two more constitutionalist GOP picks just followed the constitution and legal precedent.
 
2020-06-15 11:08:43 AM  

flondrix: Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?


"At will" states do not require any reason for termination of employment.
Much like how all 50 states allow you to quit any time you want for no reason at all.

Which in the end seems fair until you get into bigots then protections are needed.
 
2020-06-15 11:09:02 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: 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.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.


Whoa.  Pretty sweet promotion to God you got there.
 
2020-06-15 11:09:07 AM  

Corn_Fed: 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.


I am surprised that they have not been hiring "experts" to draft custom horoscopes or feng shui diagrams to justify their hiring/firing decisions.

Hired prophets are a long and honorable tradition, after all.
 
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.