Poll of the Day > gay, transgender workers are protected by federal law forbidding discrimination

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal anti-discrimination laws protect gay and transgender employees, a major gay rights ruling written by one of the courts most conservative justices.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the courts liberals in the 6 to 3 ruling. They said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination because of sex, includes LGBTQ employees.

front page of washington post, nytimes

it's about time

---

2020 has just been utterly insane.

GORSUCH wrote the opinion.

I'll bet Trump is absolutely fuming right now.

I wonder if this sets any precedent for healthcare protection for transgender individuals now, an avenue to sue over Trump's recent attacks on that front.

---

Nice!

---

Good

---

captpackrat posted...

I wonder if this sets any precedent for healthcare protection for transgender individuals now, an avenue to sue over Trump's recent attacks on that front.

Conservatives: All lives matter!
Also Conservatives: Let's stop funding health care for trans people!

---

captpackrat posted...

2020 has just been utterly insane.

GORSUCH wrote the opinion.

I'll bet Trump is absolutely fuming right now.

I wonder if this sets any precedent for healthcare protection for transgender individuals now, an avenue to sue over Trump's recent attacks on that front.

My faith in the judicial branch has been strengthened some.

These judges are smart. They play the game but once theyre in the actual seat, they know their oaths are to the law and the constitution.

---

I know Kavanaugh dissented but the GOP really thought adding him to the SCOTUS was going to make all their dreams come true and so far he's been a bust for them. Apparently, it's not as easy as they thought.

---

that's great, ok?

---

Jen0125 posted...

I know Kavanaugh dissented but the GOP really thought adding him to the SCOTUS was going to make all their dreams come true and so far he's been a bust for them. Apparently, it's not as easy as they thought.

he does like beer though

---

Huhh, I thought that was already a thing, I guess Illinois just did before the federal government

---

Muscles posted...

Huhh, I thought that was already a thing, I guess Illinois just did before the federal government

basic-ass comment for a pretty extraordinary piece of news, ok?

---

I mean, I thought it was already a thing, I'm glad the rest of the country gets that protection now

---

I'm really happy but also sad that this is still under fire.

People just need to oppress somebody for something

---

The basis for the ruling as stated ("because of sex") doesn't make any sense. Sexual orientation (or just sexuality?) and sex aren't the same thing, plus the left has gone out of its way to state that gender is a separate entity from sex which should also make it ineligible.

Clench281 posted... front page of washington post, nytimes

Funny that you didn't link to either when you made the topic.

captpackrat posted...

GORSUCH wrote the opinion.

I'm not sure why you'd think that's significant, although I guess after the media brainwashing, this might somehow come as a surprise. And, generally speaking, candidates nominated by Republicans always tend to be more independent than candidates nominated by liberals. Roberts himself was a Bush appointee who liberals vehemently rejected yet he was the deciding vote on a lot of leftist major wins, including gay marriage.


---

Thank goodness. Equal rights for all plz

Zeus posted...

The basis for the ruling as stated ("because of sex") doesn't make any sense. Sexual orientation (or just sexuality?) and sex aren't the same thing, plus the left has gone out of its way to state that gender is a separate entity from sex which should also make it ineligible.

This is how law works, vauge but with incredibly important details spotted through.

---

ReggieTheReckless posted...

Thank goodness. Equal rights for all plz

It's not equal, though. It's a protection for minority-groups, it doesn't offer protection to people discriminated against who are in the perceived "dominant" groups. And even when whites do someday become the third or fourth-largest minority, the law likely still won't protect them without a special ruling of some sort.

shadowsword87 posted...

This is how law works, vauge but with incredibly important details spotted through.

Overlooking that it's not a matter of "vagueness" when the portion cited isn't connected to the claim being made, the whole notion that laws are intended to be "vague" is patently ridiculous considering how many times exemptions have been found because one word was chosen over another. Legalese tends to be rather exact.

---

Zeus posted...

The basis for the ruling as stated ("because of sex") doesn't make any sense. Sexual orientation (or just sexuality?) and sex aren't the same thing, plus the left has gone out of its way to state that gender is a separate entity from sex which should also make it ineligible.

If a man who's attracted to men is fired and a woman who's attracted to men is not, it's discrimination on the basis of sex.

If a MtF is fired and a biological woman is not, it's discrimination on the basis of sex.

This is pretty fucking obvious.

Zeus posted...

It's not equal, though. It's a protection for minority-groups, it doesn't offer protection to people discriminated against who are in the perceived "dominant" groups. And even when whites do someday become the third or fourth-largest minority, the law likely still won't protect them without a special ruling of some sort.

LMAO you think "whites aren't protected" by Title VII?

You literally don't even know what you're talking about

---

Pretty sure anti gay discrimination laws include white people, too.

---

EvilMegas posted...

Pretty sure anti gay discrimination laws include white people, too.

That's not even the crux of the issue. He clearly thinks that "protected class" means that it only protects minorities.

If you're fired because you're white, that's also a violation of title VII.

When the law says that an employer can't discriminate based on sex, race, color, or religion, it means those qualities are protected. If your employer fires you because you're Christian, Muslim, male, female, Black, White, Jewish, Arab, Hindu... that's illegal.

Whether the group is a majority or minority doesn't matter.

If someone is that off-base about a basic civil rights fact, they're too uninformed contribute anything of value to the discussion.

---

Clench281 posted...

LMAO you think "whites aren't protected" by Title VII?

You literally don't even know what you're talking about

LMAO you literally don't even know what you're talking about if you believe that actually holds up in practice. White plaintiffs have certainly *tried* suing under Title VII, but those cases get dismissed whereas non-white races have won countless major lawsuits.

---

Is it just me or are Zeus arguments and views somehow becoming even more ridiculous


---

Zeus posted...

LMAO you literally don't even know what you're talking about if you believe that actually holds up in practice. White plaintiffs have certainly *tried* suing under Title VII, but those cases get dismissed whereas non-white races have won countless major lawsuits.

What you're saying is some people met the burden of proof and others didn't? Seems fairly normal.

Mead posted...

Is it just me or are Zeus arguments and views somehow becoming even more ridiculous

Yes. He's trolling, stop taking him seriously.

---

Genuinely surprised at Gorsuch not being a complete and total waste of skin on this topic.

---

hey guys, is @Zeus ok? i'm getting a feeling he's not ok...

---

Zeus posted...

LMAO you literally don't even know what you're talking about if you believe that actually holds up in practice. White plaintiffs have certainly *tried* suing under Title VII, but those cases get dismissed whereas non-white races have won countless major lawsuits.

It's like some cases are more valid than others.
---

You'd have to be an extremely idiot of an employer in the first place to cite the reasoning of your firing of an employee specifically to be their gender or sexual orientation though.

Why would you do that when you don't have to give a reason.
---

I kind of thought it was weird that people voted against it.

Are they for firing based on sexual orientation?

---

PolloftheDay posted...

If a man who's attracted to men is fired and a woman who's attracted to men is not, it's discrimination on the basis of sex.

If a MtF is fired and a biological woman is not, it's discrimination on the basis of sex.

This is pretty fucking obvious.

I hope you aren't implying that lgbt people shouldn't be fired at all regardless of anything else, because with those examples that's what it seems like

---

Muscles posted...

I hope you aren't implying that lgbt people shouldn't be fired at all regardless of anything else, because with those examples that's what it seems like

I hope you aren't implying that anyone gives a shit about what you say.
---

Muscles posted...

I hope you aren't implying that lgbt people shouldn't be fired at all regardless of anything else

Where is that anywhere implied in that comment? Literally where?

---

GanonsSpirit posted...

I hope you aren't implying that anyone gives a shit about what you say.

it's amazing how often and how frequent muscles makes the most basic-bitch observations, ok?

---

He really pulled that implication out of his ass just to have something to overreact to, yikes

---

Zeus posted...

plus the left has gone out of its way to state that gender is a separate entity from sex which should also make it ineligible.

1. The distinction between gender and sex is relatively recent. There's ample room to argue that the use of "sex" in 1964 covers both concepts, as they had not yet been differentiated at that point.
2. Phrasing the situation the other way around (that is, firing somebody because their sex doesn't match their gender) can easily be described as firing somebody because of their sex. That's how sentences work, after all.

---

ForteEXE3850 posted...

Why would you do that when you don't have to give a reason.

When you're taken to court you have to give a reason, and it only gets to that level if your original reason was flimsy.
---

By saying it's destination to fire a gay person over a straight person without giving details

If the straight person is a better worker is it discrimination to fire the gay person? No

If they are equal workers is it discrimination? Only if the deciding factor was their sexuality

To say its wrong to fire a gay person over a straight person without any more details is just stupid

---

That isn't at all what that post was trying to imply or explain. It was literally giving a tl;dr of the legal justification of the opinion. That's it. You are trying to force additional information to a point that doesn't need it. It was clearly summarized as is.

---

adjl posted...

Phrasing the situation the other way around (that is, firing somebody because their sex doesn't match their gender) can easily be described as firing somebody because of their sex.

except the firing doesn't occur because of their sex, people who are just of either sex don't have this concern. The only way you can consider it as discrimination on the basis of their sex is if you consider transgenders neither male nor female but rather a third sex that is being discriminated against.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

When you're taken to court you have to give a reason, and it only gets to that level if your original reason was flimsy.

You can just say you didn't have a need for their services anymore. You can't force an employer to keep paying someone they don't need. People of both genders are fired all the time without the boss citing a reasoning other than not needing them anymore.

While it's true you can sue someone for anything if you have the money and can find a lawyer, unless your boss has a history of verbally sexist, how are you to prove the reason for firing was your sex or sexual orientation?
---

ForteEXE3850 posted...

You can just say you didn't have a need for their services anymore. You can't force an employer to keep paying someone they don't need.

You'd have to prove you had no need if it came to court. It's particularly damning if you hire someone to replace them.

ForteEXE3850 posted...

unless your boss has a history of verbally sexist, how are you to prove the reason for firing was your sex or sexual orientation?

You're suggesting it would be appropriate to claim your boss is discriminating against you without evidence of intent. Obviously that would never make it to court and anybody who does that should be laughed out by every lawyer in the country.

You can't make a claim of discrimination without evidence, but you shouldn't have any reason to believe you were discriminated against without evidence.

Btw, can you fire people for political affiliation?
---

Muscles posted...

To say its wrong to fire a gay person over a straight person without any more details is just stupid

literally no one is saying that

what is wrong is to discriminate against some because of their sexuality or gender identity

If youre an employer and youve got someone that is gay or trans and they suck at their job, then you have every right to fire them

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You'd have to prove you had no need if it came to court. It's particularly damning if you hire someone to replace them.

No it isn't. Unless you were literally the perfect employee, which I doubt anyone is unless you're a machine, it's not hard to cite a reason for replacing someone. You saying an owner of a family restaurant can't decide to hire their daughter, but now have too much staff and decide to let someone go?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Btw, can you fire people for political affiliation?

Yes. It isn't a protected class.

---

ForteEXE3850 posted...

No it isn't. Unless you were literally the perfect employee, which I doubt anyone is unless you're a machine, it's not hard to cite a reason for replacing someone.

You can cite any reason you want, but if it comes to court you'll have to prove you had a reason to come to this conclusion. For example, you can't fire somebody for poor performance then when you're investigated, have no evidence the person performed worse than anybody else.

If you claim you just don't need any more people, you need to show what evidence you have that lead you to believe you didn't need as many people. If there's no evidence of circumstances changing then there's no evidence that any body needed to be fired.

ForteEXE3850 posted...

You saying an owner of a family restaurant can't decide to hire their daughter, but now have too much staff and decide to let someone go?

This is an issue of chronology. If the owner of a family restaraunt fired somebody because they had too much staff then hired their daughter to replace them, that could be something. You're missing another vital part however. Where does the act say you can't discriminate against strangers? I don't see anything that says you can't treat your family as higher priority than other employees.
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

Yes. It isn't a protected class.

Then you can fire all transgenders for affiliating with LGBT action. Go to one rally and you're legal to fire.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Then you can fire all transgenders for affiliating with LGBT action. Go to one rally and you're legal to fire.

But what if they dont go to rallies?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Then you can fire all transgenders for affiliating with LGBT action.

You'd have to reasonably argue that going to any event that organizes LBGTQ+ people is political. That's a big leap. What does "affiliating with LGBT action" even mean? Going to a friend's coming out party?

---

LinkPizza posted...

But what if they dont go to rallies?

When has anybody who's deeply invested enough to go through genital surgery not got involved with LGBT business?
---