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  
•       •       •

6617 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 10:29:01 AM  
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?
 
2020-06-15 10:29:08 AM  
This will lead to people hiring turtles and being unable to fire them, you know.
 
2020-06-15 10:29:18 AM  
Thomas of course was no. The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots. They guy literally sleeps on the bench and has had to be woken up by his fellow justices. He's written perhaps two opinions, maybe, and one of them was likely a complaint about coffee. I wish we could fire these asshats. The Supreme Court is a very bad idea imho. America needs an overhaul.

/ Our system is way too old, imperious and subject to the whims of opinion.
 
2020-06-15 10:29:49 AM  
Was expecting 4-5 or 5-4.  Gorsuch is clearly not what conservatives were expecting.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:03 AM  

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.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:16 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)
 
2020-06-15 10:30:17 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.


No arguments there -- Conservatives hate "Judicial Activism" unless it's their side doing it.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:22 AM  
Happy Pride!
 
2020-06-15 10:30:37 AM  
Would the reason for dissent be one of those religious liberty bits?

Honest question.

Having said that - yay!!!
 
2020-06-15 10:30:40 AM  
Chalk me up as another "it should have been 9-0, but I was expecting 4-5, so I'll gladly take the 6-3."
 
2020-06-15 10:30:50 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?


not the Constitution, just the law itself that sets special groups.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:51 AM  

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

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.  'Nuff said.


These 3 farks should spend the rest of their lives in prison getting buttfarked.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:12 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'.


Where do you work that such eggplants a readily available?

Asking for a friend.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:13 AM  

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

kavanaugh ends with:
...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"


Someone needs to explain to Kavanaugh that, even when dissenting, he's still legislating from the bench.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:29 AM  

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


Please elaborate.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:32 AM  
Faith No More - A Small Victory (Official Music Video)
Youtube i9_hCjcFNO0
positive baby steps

fark you, justice rapey.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:33 AM  

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"?
 
2020-06-15 10:31:39 AM  

eiger: This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.


And I could easily have dated Rita Hayworth in my youth,
 
2020-06-15 10:31:43 AM  
So, Goresuch is the wild card these days? Interesting.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:51 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:32:06 AM  
Jushtish Drinky McDrunkerton had a stupid? Was it a regular stupid or was he drunk at the time?

And Justice Ol' Dirty Bastich is still true to his homie Scalia. Every time Thomas works to remove rights he pours one out for his fascist opus dei home boy
 
2020-06-15 10:32:11 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.


Actually, as per the quote above yours, BeerDude doesn't think it's okay.  He just thinks Congress needs to do their job, first.
 
2020-06-15 10:32:21 AM  
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

Fark user imageView Full Size


ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:32:30 AM  

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!"
 
2020-06-15 10:32:32 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.


Yup, the dissent was that they felt it's unconstitutional to rule that the part of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination in the workplace on account of "sex" should be ruled to include sexual orientation and gender identity. . .that Congress in 1964 only meant conventional physical sex and that to deviate from that definition would take a new Act of Congress (meaning approval of Moscow Mitch and the GOP)

What I felt was really a shocker was that Gorsuch of all people joined in the majority.  Trump's handpicked replacement for Scalia wouldn't do as he was told.
 
2020-06-15 10:32:39 AM  
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.
 
2020-06-15 10:32:49 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.


He's not completely wrong, but it's obvious Congress wasn't going to do it.
 
2020-06-15 10:33:12 AM  
How the hell am I supposed to extort my gay employees into covering shifts now?  total BS
 
2020-06-15 10:33:15 AM  
...they say - that America's small heart grew three sizes that day.
 
2020-06-15 10:33:40 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.


Which is kicking the can down the road because they knew congress would never pass an ammendment.  Though now that Mitcheypoo has changed the rules to break a filibuster with 51 votes if democrats take enough seats it won't be a problem.

This "we go high and you go low" shiat or the obverse from republicans "we go low and you go high" shiat needs to stop.  They want to play dirty, we can just use the rules they changed to do the same thing.  fark em.
 
2020-06-15 10:33:43 AM  
The topic made I Like Beer uncomfortable.  It unrepressed a memory of that time his bud said "just let me rub it in your butt, Bro". And another time when he passed out and woke with that guy cuddling him and the other time when the chick he promised didn't show so he did the handies for the guys and of course, that time he passed out...

And a few others.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:09 AM  

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.


If Democrats actually manage the long shot and flip the senate this election, they should have a running list of all the crap like this that needs to be cleared up so this doesn't happen again.

Court precedent is not a strong enough deterrent to stop this in the future.  All this does is grant a reprieve until the balance in the court shifts again.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:19 AM  
Blackout Brett likes beer but not gay people.  Wow, that's shocking.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:27 AM  
I will just stop here to that this is fantastic & thank God

I very well could have gone the other way.

Congratulations friend Farkers who can sigh with a (little) relief

I know quite a few of you are celebrating
 
2020-06-15 10:34:28 AM  

CrazyCurt: Thomas of course was no. The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots. They guy literally sleeps on the bench and has had to be woken up by his fellow justices. He's written perhaps two opinions, maybe, and one of them was likely a complaint about coffee. I wish we could fire these asshats. The Supreme Court is a very bad idea imho. America needs an overhaul.

/ Our system is way too old, imperious and subject to the whims of opinion.


Not true. Thomas speaks extremely infrequently (but more often in recent years) but he does write opinions. Well, I assume he writes them. He has all of the trademarks of an impostor in trying to avoid being exposed.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:28 AM  

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


Unexpected?  Try surprising, but also awesome.  Great news for a Monday morning.  And shocking that Not Garland did the right thing.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:44 AM  
Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?
 
2020-06-15 10:34:50 AM  

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


Well, he cannot rape (male) gay people.  So, that explains his point of view.
Now, if he can get that cute lesbian over there to deliver a beer and taste his roofie, well...
 
2020-06-15 10:34:54 AM  

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.


Considering the Senate right now...

I had a thought about optics, but I realized that Moscow Mitch doesn't give a shiat about anything but his own power and stacking the courts with partisan hacks.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:08 AM  
People ITT Grouching About Trump:lol suck it MAGAts and conservatives, etc. etc.

You guys are going to be real mad when you notice who authored the opinion.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:09 AM  

CrazyCurt: Thomas of course was no. The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots. They guy literally sleeps on the bench and has had to be woken up by his fellow justices. He's written perhaps two opinions, maybe, and one of them was likely a complaint about coffee. I wish we could fire these asshats. The Supreme Court is a very bad idea imho. America needs an overhaul.

/ Our system is way too old, imperious and subject to the whims of opinion.


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.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:10 AM  
I thought Kavanaugh was Bi.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:24 AM  

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


Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
 
d23 [OhFark]
2020-06-15 10:35:34 AM  

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


"Gay and Trans people are icky!"
 
2020-06-15 10:35:47 AM  
I'm beginning to think the Supreme Court can see the "wrong side of history" a little more clearly now.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:50 AM  

CrazyCurt: The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots.


Dredd Scott actually makes a fair bit of sense in the context of the time and is in keeping with a lot of American legal tradition up to 1857. The problem was that northern opinion on the matter had shifted dramatically over the previous several years.

People who say it's a "bad decision" are typically either not treating it historically but instead in the context of modern constitutional interpretation or focusing on its effects (one of the crucial triggers of northern disaffection and the Civil War), which were unpredictable and unforeseen at the time.

So, yeah, it's probably unfair to the Dred Scott justices to compare them to Thomas, who is utterly useless.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:07 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.


They've recognized that since deciding Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins back in 1989.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:10 AM  

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

The SCOTUS case isn't directly on the same point as the EO, but it will be highly persuasive when the EO is challenged in court.


This.

It sets SCOTUS precedent that sex-based protections also apply to trans and gay people. This ruling may end up having even farther-reaching implications than the marriage equality ruling.

So the entire line of cases extending quasi-protected status to women on the 14th Amendment may now apply to LGBT folks. Something SCOTUS expressly declined to do in the marriage cases.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:16 AM  
I'm very happy for this ruling. Of course it doesn't mean I can't be fired for being gay. It just means, after lots of lawyers and effort fighting it, my boss can't get away with it now.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:31 AM  

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

This is why the "both sides" argument really only circles back to entitled white [cis straight] people.  The Democratic base is a loose collection of people the Republicans have directly and deliberately hurt, and the sliver of unaffected Americans with empathy.

It's really kind of why the Democrats get away with so much maddening crap -- because they know to their voters, the choice is obvious.  One side is incompetent, complicit and corrupt; the other side is literally a fascist institution that stands against their very existence.  When entitled white jackasses say "both sides [are bad]" they're referring to petty grift and, when really stretching for it (like w BLM), Democratic inaction on problems the right wing caused, sustained, escalated, and gridlocked to prevent reform.  When liberals disagree, it's because they see one side clearly wanting to erase their existence.
 
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.