Supreme Court Rules Civil Rights Act Protects LGBTQ Workers from Discrimination

[Antiganon]

Man, if you think the right to privacy is explicit, you should see Republicans debate it. To them, it's not explicit at all.

I've heard the debate points.

I haven't heard any that successfully contradict the 4th Amendment.

[downnola]

Dont employers in the US do what they here to avoid hiring minorities they dont like? They just say it's literally any number of things and dont hire them.

Yes. My girlfriend works for a garbage ISP in the Midwest that turned down a Trans woman for a position in her dept just a month ago that was extremely qualified for the job. It happens all the time.

[eschatological]

I've heard the debate points.

I haven't heard any that successfully contradict the 4th Amendment.

Sure. The 4th Amendment only applies to unreasonable searches looking for criminal evidence. It's pretty narrow in that regard, in terms of privacy.

Roe v. Wade is derived from the 14th, mainly the right to privacy extending to bodily autonomy. Griswold, the first case to explicitly lay out a right to privacy, had a 7-2 majority, but the three concurrences derived the right to privacy from 3 different Amendments - the Fifth, the Ninth, and the 14th. The 14th was written by Justices Harlan and White, and is the one they usually teach in law schools these days, after the majority opinion written by Douglas (which was based on the Fifth).

And as you know, Roe is constantly under attack, by conservatives, who like to suggest there is no right to privacy.

[Elegiac]

Back on topiiiiic let's check in with SCOTUS.

...Huh, interesting. It appears that a certain dissenting justice is so butthurt that he authored a 142 page long dissent and appendix that has overwhelmed the Supreme Court's servers. Including such scintillating legal sources as:



Someone in the thread put it best, honestly.

Alito: "Nnnoooo you can't just apply textualism to reach results that are good for Gay and Trans people the bill never says anything about sexuality or gender identity you're just legislating from the bench nononono."

Gorsuch: "Haha equality machine go brrrr."

[Jimmy Woods]

First off I'm happy for the LGBTQ workers who get protected by this ruling. HOWEVER, this is a terrible ruling and is just the latest example of how nefarious the right-wing conservative movement is in this country and why they need to be stopped.

This 100% did not need to go to the supreme court to be solved.
The vast, vast majority of people including apparently 75%+ of Republicans support what this ruling entails. So why did this have to go to the supreme court? When Nancy Pelosi and democrats voted on this bill over 95% of house Republicans voted against LGBTQ rights. And of course Mitch McConnell won't even consider bringing it up in the senate. But now they don't have to. A popular ruling gets pushed through the judicial branch while republican congressmen get to appeal to the furthest of far right fringes on being opposed to equality OR not having to take any stance on the issue at all while at the same time they can now run on "Making sure they get REAL conservatives on the supreme court who will uphold their CHRISTIAN values and beliefs" and the country gets even more divided politically.

This is the exact end game goal of the current Republican party IMO. Never have to compromise or concede to the majority of the population while letting the judiciary do all the dirty work, bonus if those doing the dirty work are LIFETIME appointed unelected judges who face no recoil. It's the perfect example of robbing us blind while tossing us breadcrumbs to be appease the masses. Shit needs to change. Good thing we got Joe!! :SAD :TERRIFIED

Just pure pure garbage and as bad as it comes.

[Antiganon]

First off I'm happy for the LGBTQ workers who get protected by this ruling. HOWEVER, this is a terrible ruling and is just the latest example of how nefarious the right-wing conservative movement is in this country and why they need to be stopped.

This 100% did not need to go to the supreme court to be solved.
The vast, vast majority of people including apparently 75%+ of Republicans support what this ruling entails. So why did this have to go to the supreme court? When Nancy Pelosi and democrats voted on this bill over 95% of house Republicans voted against LGBTQ rights. And of course Mitch McConnell won't even consider bringing it up in the senate. But now they don't have to. A popular ruling gets pushed through the judicial branch while republican congressmen get to appeal to the furthest of far right fringes on being opposed to equality OR not having to take any stance on the issue at all while at the same time they can now run on "Making sure they get REAL conservatives on the supreme court who will uphold their CHRISTIAN values and beliefs" and the country gets even more divided politically.

This is the exact end game goal of the current Republican party IMO. Never have to compromise or concede to the majority of the population while letting the judiciary do all the dirty work, bonus if those doing the dirty work are LIFETIME appointed unelected judges who face no recoil. It's the perfect example of robbing us blind while tossing us breadcrumbs to be appease the masses. Shit needs to change. Good thing we got Joe!! :SAD :TERRIFIED

Just pure pure garbage and as bad as it comes.

Yeah McConnell is probably the biggest shitheel I have ever seen in national politics. I would rate him worse than even Gingrich by a wide margin.

[BeepBoo]

big conspiracy snip

Some people read so far into things... who tf even pays attention to stuff like "hurr durr these people never broke from party lines!" Really? Are that many people that closely engrossed in party line politics that THAT is the take-away they'd get? I don't know any of them, and I have friends all over the spectrum.

[Antiganon]

Some people read so far into things... who tf even pays attention to stuff like "hurr durr these people never broke from party lines!" Really? Are that many people that closely engrossed in party line politics that THAT is the take-away they'd get? I don't know any of them, and I have friends all over the spectrum.

He's not wrong.

One of the few ways to hurt Republicans electorally while helping the general population is to force them to vote on civil rights issues. The majority of the country overwhelmingly supports civil rights, with the minority that doesn't being entirely contained within the Republican base.

If they have to go on record in favor of civil rights, the base stays home in November. If they go on record against, the moderates vote Democrat. If they can squeak by without making a statement one way or another, the Democrats lose it as an issue for campaigning. And in a situation like this, Democrats can't even point to it as a win.

Democrats can say "Yeah we passed it in the House but McConnell refused to put it to a vote", but disengaged unaffiliated voters here "Congress can't even pass basic civil rights legislation, why should I care?"

[Lenonis]

The ruling seems fine.
Seems like its not the end times that some liberals make it out to be with these Trump appointed justices. None of them appear to be the ultra religious gay hating bigots that would strip the rights from the LGQBT community after all.

Um...you might want to re-read who dissented. And also note that it was a 6-3 decision which means we are 2 justices away from losing it all. Which could happen in 4 years under Trump. So actually yes, this did prove the point of how important SCOTUS is this election.

But thanks for playing.

- - - Updated - - -

And more importantly, who has the money for that?

There are a number of organizations that will provide free legal representation if you have a case. HRC for one.

I'm not downplaying how much a David v Goliath scenario it is, especially if you are going after a big company, but even a poor minority could get assistance if they know of the resources available.

The problem would be if the case falls into a grey area. I don't know if you have a case that's a bit of a toss up if you'll get any help and that's a shame.

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...vatives-323254

Sen. Josh Hawley had a stunning view of the Supreme Court’s decision extending new protections to LGTBQ workers: It “represents the end of the conservative legal movement.”

Fantastic! The courts shouldn't be politicized, so I only hope that Hawley speaks for the Republican party in this. This was interesting though -

Explaining that the religious right supports GOP leadership in return for judges who protect religious freedom, Hawley concluded “the bargain that has been offered to religious conservatives for years now is a bad one. It’s time to reject it."

[Masark]

This 100% did not need to go to the supreme court to be solved.

To be fair, if the equality act became law, it probably would end up in front of SCOTUS anyway, just with some batch of god botherers (Hobby Lobby seems like a probable plaintiff) driving the case, much the same as happened in 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_..._United_States

[Antiganon]

To be fair, if the equality act became law, it probably would end up in front of SCOTUS anyway, just with some batch of god botherers (Hobby Lobby seems like a probable plaintiff) driving the case, much the same as happened in 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_..._United_States

Equality Act (and the ERA) are both unnecessary now, right? Between the 14th, the Civil Rights Act, and this ruling, everybody is protected (at least in theory)?

[Masark]

Equality Act (and the ERA) are both unnecessary now, right? Between the 14th, the Civil Rights Act, and this ruling, everybody is protected (at least in theory)?

The ruling in this case only covers discrimination regarding employment. It doesn't cover discrimination regarding housing or other topics. While the principle probably extends to all other topics the CRA covers, this ruling didn't actually say so, so you'd have to go through the court process, and possibly appeals, to get that established.

And no, the ERA would still have effect.

1. This ruling was on statutory law, not constitutional. A Republican congress and president could simply amend the law and wipe this ruling out. The ERA would help to entrench it somewhat.

2. Currently, sex based discrimination in law is subject to intermediate scrutiny. The ERA would upgrade that to strict scrutiny.

For example, the policy of only men being required to register for selective service has been found constitutional under intermediate scrutiny. This would almost not be found valid under strict scrutiny

[Antiganon]

The ruling in this case only covers discrimination regarding employment. It doesn't cover discrimination regarding housing or other topics. While the principle probably extends to all other topics the CRA covers, this ruling didn't actually say so, so you'd have to go through the court process, and possibly appeals, to get that established.

And no, the ERA would still have effect.

1. This ruling was on statutory law, not constitutional. A Republican congress and president could simply amend the law and wipe this ruling out. The ERA would help to entrench it somewhat.

2. Currently, sex based discrimination in law is subject to intermediate scrutiny. The ERA would upgrade that to strict scrutiny.

For example, the policy of only men being required to register for selective service has been found constitutional under intermediate scrutiny. This would almost not be found valid under strict scrutiny

So the Equality Act isn't needed if a few people are willing to fight the specific battles in court (for housing, public accomodation, education, adoption, etc). The ERA is a totally different ball of wax.

[Dr Assbandit]

My question was about how does that law work and how does it stop anyone from claiming that decision to fire them was biased. Were people seriously fired with their sexual orientation/gender/whatever officially stated as a reason?

This has been happening for years.

I know several people over the the past years since I moved to the U.S. who have lost their jobs only when it came to light that they were gay, even if they tried their hardest to keep their private life a secret. One in particular was excellent at his job and not a single complaint against him since he started working there. A Karen at work wants to set him up with a friend of hers who is interested in him and he politely declined after making excuses every time she asked. So she goes snooping and finds a single picture on his Facebook that outed him as gay and goes and tells the boss who promptly fires him on the grounds of "just letting you go".

Also it's not rocket science for a company to prove that someone was fired for lack of performance or getting laid off. If they fired someone without having any reason then the defendant has a solid case for discrimination.

[pathora44]

Equality Act (and the ERA) are both unnecessary now, right? Between the 14th, the Civil Rights Act, and this ruling, everybody is protected (at least in theory)?

Ya that would be nice if the Trump administration didn't reverse protections for trans people by making it legal for a doctor to not help a patient because they are trans. So there should be more protections especially for the more vulnerable minorities because we can get racist, bigoted, hateful pieces of shit like the Trump administration into power.

[Dr Assbandit]

Ya that would be nice if the Trump administration didn't reverse protections for trans people by making it legal for a doctor to not help a patient because they are trans. So there should be more protections especially for the more vulnerable minorities because we can get racist, bigoted, hateful pieces of shit like the Trump administration into power.

I don't know a single physician, liberal or conservative, that is on board with this clear attack on trans individuals. Being able to deny someone healthcare for pretty much any reason sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and this is a clear overreach of religious rights by this administration.

[BeepBoo]

I don't know a single physician, liberal or conservative, that is on board with this clear attack on trans individuals. Being able to deny someone healthcare for pretty much any reason sets an incredibly dangerous precedent and this is a clear overreach of religious rights by this administration.

I'm 100% on-board with the supreme court's decision, however you have to also see the other side.

Being forced to provide <anything> to someone you don't want to, for any reason, also has it's own fair share of dangerous precedents. Forced labor is probably the absolute antithesis of my being.

Starbucks changed their stance on employees being able to wear BLM things, numerous other companies have changed stances based on social media hatewaves as well.

To that end, I say let places decide all of that stuff for them, and let social ostracizing do it's thing against all the people who make truly hateful, idiotic choices.
Just food for thought is all.

[Dr Assbandit]

I'm 100% on-board with the supreme court's decision, however you have to also see the other side.

Being forced to provide <anything> to someone you don't want to, for any reason, also has it's own fair share of dangerous precedents. Forced labor is probably the absolute antithesis of my being.

Starbucks changed their stance on employees being able to wear BLM things, numerous other companies have changed stances based on social media hatewaves as well.

To that end, I say let places decide all of that stuff for them, and let social ostracizing do it's thing against all the people who make truly hateful, idiotic choices.
Just food for thought is all.

That's all fine and dandy but it's also antithetic to the Hippocratic oath to do no harm.

The whole profession of medicine is dedicated to care of others and as such if you have nitpicks about which patients you want to see then they are in the wrong profession. I mean this is purely limited to mostly Christian doctors it seems as I don't know any Muslim, Hindu, or other doctors who have a problem with giving care even if it goes against their religious teachings such as abortions. These physicians have done many many years of clinical rotations, residencies, and then fellowships that they go through where they know full well the procedures that might be asked of them or the patients they might see. They have had plenty of time to consider who they will give care to and even chose their fields.

I don't see one single logical reason in the field of medicine to deny care to anyone, period. At some point religion and science don't mix, and morality doesn't only come from religion and I'd argue after having seen how all Abrahamic religions operate that following them all to the letter is what's immoral.

Let's be honest with what's going on here and agree to stop politicizing medicine and science in order to placate evangelical voters.

[BeepBoo]

That's all fine and dandy but it's also antithetic to the Hippocratic oath to do no harm.

Refusing help isn't the same as actively harming, though. But let's not get into that there.

These physicians have done many many years of clinical rotations, residencies, and then fellowships that they go through where they know full well the procedures that might be asked of them or the patients they might see. They have had plenty of time to consider who they will give care to and even chose their fields.

You're talking to someone who is literally married to a pediatrician that just finished residency, who was been with her for the entire time since undergrad. I know what their lives are about.

I don't see one single logical reason in the field of medicine to deny care to anyone, period.

I see plenty of reasons I'd deny someone care, or pick someone else to dedicate my time to, though.

Personally, if I were a doctor, if I knew someone was an asshole (like if the cop who killed floyd showed up on my operating table), I'd elect to pass on them and let someone else who didn't have internal qualms with that person decide to take it on. Otherwise, if the person in question can't manage to get anyone sympathetic to who they are as a person, maybe they should have made better life choices.

As well, I'd rather take someone who is willing to pay me 100k over 5k to "skip the line." My time is worth whatever I can get for it. Someone has the means and the desire to get my time faster because they think I'm _that_ good at my job, I'm happy to oblige.

Let's be honest with what's going on here and agree to stop politicizing medicine and science in order to placate evangelical voters.

Hey, I'm down with that. I just think it's important to consider the implications is all. We all know why people would refuse to serve people of those protected statuses *if* the reason has anything to do with religion or hate.