SCOTUS extends job protection to LGBT people

[MillCreek]

https://apnews.com/ef3c19a79b65c060fd9e82b9dd87a1d9

In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS rules that Title VII also extends to job bias on the basis of LGBT status.

[lupinus]

Saw that a few moments on Facebook.

While I would have preferred it be handled legislatively, I also agree with the argument that was presented and decision.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Ron]

The freedom of association was torn down a long time ago.

This is just the rubble bouncing.

[lupinus]

The freedom of association was torn down a long time ago.

This is just the rubble bouncing.

If one wants to go after demolishing the civil rights act then by all means, good luck with that.

But I have a hard time seeing that LGBT folks shouldn't be covered by it's protections.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[AZRedhawk44]

Can't say I really want my company to be represented by a bearded "lady" or a Portlandia style lumberjack (fe)male.  Dress and appearance matter for many roles.  Adherence to convention.

[dogmush]

Can't say I really want my company to be represented by a bearded "lady" or a Portlandia style lumberjack (fe)male.  Dress and appearance matter for many roles.  Adherence to convention.

You can require professional appearance standards without basing them on sexual orientation.

If the stereotypes and A and E shows are true, the gays probably look better and more professional then we do anyway.

[Pb]

deleted

[zahc]

Freedom of association is still allowed when it comes to preferentially funneling money to "black owned businesses" or "women owned businesses". Even though sex and race are federally protected categories.

[Perd Hapley]

Will SCOTUS get around to protecting bakers and such?

[grampster]

I can hardly wait for some 6'5" 240lb Transgender Transvestite cross dresser, wearing outrageous makeup, a 3ft tall beehive wig, and 6 inch platform shoes applies to be the desk sergeant in Minneapolis.

[lupinus]

I can hardly wait for some 6'5" 240lb Transgender Transvestite cross dresser, wearing outrageous makeup, a 3ft tall beehive wig, and 6 inch platform shoes applies to be the desk sergeant in Minneapolis.

Because that's absolutely the usual person who gets fired for homosexual or trans

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[AZRedhawk44]

I can hardly wait for some 6'5" 240lb Transgender Transvestite cross dresser, wearing outrageous makeup, a 3ft tall beehive wig, and 6 inch platform shoes applies to be the desk sergeant in Minneapolis.

Or works for Victoria's Secret.

[Ron]

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-conservatives-get-massacred-fake-conservative-scotus/

[Andiron]

The freedom of association was torn down a long time ago.

This is just the rubble bouncing.

Happy pride month!

 

[Ron]

Happy pride month!

 

Not a coincidence

[just Warren]

What if there are other gays that didn't get fired?

What if the person doing the firing is gay?

And how does a person prove they are gay?

Is just saying it enough?

If not, then how do you prove it? Because, without providing intimate details of your life, no one can really know.

And if you do provide those details to your colleagues then aren't you violating some harassment statute?  Or violating company policies. And that's something you COULD be fired over.

And that is the play I would make as a boss if I needed to fire an alleged gay person. Start the paper trail as usual and then hope that at some point they break out the gay card and go into detail about their sex life and fire them for creating a hostile work environment.

So gays are happy now, but I think they'll be disappointed when it turns out it's harder for them to get traction in the courts than other protected groups. Other protected groups have obvious traits. Gays not so much.

 

[Perd Hapley]

What if there are other gays that didn't get fired?

What if the person doing the firing is gay?

And how does a person prove they are gay?

Is just saying it enough?

If not, then how do you prove it? Because, without providing intimate details of your life, no one can really know.

And if you do provide those details to your colleagues then aren't you violating some harassment statute?  Or violating company policies. And that's something you COULD be fired over.

And that is the play I would make as a boss if I needed to fire an alleged gay person. Start the paper trail as usual and then hope that at some point they break out the gay card and go into detail about their sex life and fire them for creating a hostile work environment.

So gays are happy now, but I think they'll be disappointed when it turns out it's harder for them to get traction in the courts than other protected groups. Other protected groups have obvious traits. Gays not so much.

The Kevin Spacey defense:

"You're fired."

"I choose now to live as a gay man."

[Ron]

The most unfortunate aspect to this is it shows that the Federalist Society is pretty much an enemy of Heritage/constitutional America and that the Trump effect on the courts will not be as great as was promoted.

It will be business as usual as the thesis/antithesis/synthesis destruction of America continues apace.

Cthulhu only swims left.

Thomas and Alito are the only uncompromised justices on the court.

 

[Ron]

From what I can gather, now that we've unhinged civil rights from any observable objective standard of reality, the door is now opened for every color in the rainbow of gender/race/species/otherkind to declare for themselves this extra layer of protection (from reality).

When the dissident right starting calling it clown world I never expected the left to say "you haven't seen anything yet, here hold my beer and watch this".

I'm surprised at the disappointment I feel, even as cynical as I am I guess I still held/hold out hope, against all reason.

Trump and his propaganda machine are pretty effective.

[fifth_column]

If not, then how do you prove it?

I always figured there was some kind of secret handshake or something . . . . .

[TommyGunn]

If one wants to go after demolishing the civil rights act then by all means, good luck with that.

But I have a hard time seeing that LGBT folks shouldn't be covered by it's protections.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

It isn't the conclusion reached that's bad.   I don't have a big problem protecting  lgbqwerty  people from discrimination,  but SCOTUS  made a law.  Thats not their purpose, it's the legislature's purpose.

[cordex]

What if there are other gays that didn't get fired?

What if the person doing the firing is gay?

According to the decision neither of these would matter.  It doesn't matter how groups are treated overall, it matters only if a protected characteristic contributes in any way to the firing of an individual.

And how does a person prove they are gay?

Is just saying it enough?

Yes.  I think the Title VII argument could be made even if the firing authority made an incorrect assumption about the protected characteristic.

And if you do provide those details to your colleagues then aren't you violating some harassment statute?  Or violating company policies. And that's something you COULD be fired over.

And that is the play I would make as a boss if I needed to fire an alleged gay person. Start the paper trail as usual and then hope that at some point they break out the gay card and go into detail about their sex life and fire them for creating a hostile work environment.

While I don't doubt that there will be people who will flagrantly (or perhaps flamboyantly) abuse this, it seems like there's a pretty slim chance that someone choosing to play the gay card here are going to follow it up with graphic details that would be actionable.  A vastly more likely scenario is:
"Jim, you're fired."
"It's because I'm gay, isn't it?  You'll be hearing from my attorney."

All that said, the opinion is judicial overreach.  Sure, if they passed a new civil rights act they'd almost certainly include LGBTQLAMINASDFOAISNERWELKINC& in the list of protected classes.  That said, the law doesn't reference it, and firing someone for a particular kind of sexual behavior is not the same thing as firing them for their biological sex.  The opinion gets around this by saying "This man was fired for kissing a man, but if the employee had been a woman kissing a man then they wouldn't have been fired!  Checkmate!"  This is disingenuous and intentionally removes actions from their context.  It might be noted that if a woman kissed that particular man it would likely be considered a possibly criminal unwanted sexual advance given that the man in question is homosexual and therefore might well have resulted in firing. 

Whether or not you agree with the outcome it takes a heck of a lot of twisting to get to the point SCOTUS got here.

[zahc]

"This man was fired for kissing a man, but if the employee had been a woman kissing a man then they wouldn't have been fired!  Checkmate!"  This is disingenuous and intentionally removes actions from their context"

Actually this is logically consistent. It's exactly the logic that brought us gay marriage.

I mean it's a terrible ruling, yes, if you are trying to interpret the law correctly i.e. do your job as a supreme court. But you have to admit that if men marrying men must be allowed because men marrying women is allowed, then this ruling makes perfect sense. Once again, the "alarmists" who warned about the ramifications of previous rulings on this topic were, in fact, completely right. Since age is a protected category, I do expect eventual pedophile ramifications to arise.

[makattak]

This keeps happening, such that I'm fairly certain the "unintended" consequences of this new law¹ are actually the intended ones.




1: No, I'm not mistaken about what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, but 6 Justices are.