LGBT+ Discrimination in the Workplace Now Illegal in US

[The Huskar Social Union]

Employers will find ways around this new ruling. Employees don't have as much leverage to sue businesses and etc. If they didn't need the money/job, they'd work for themselves instead of for someone else. How hard is it going to be to prove that x workplace discriminates against LGBT?

This is why union membership should be mandatory

We need to Unionise the Big Gay

[The Free Joy State]

Good to see that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the rights of LGBT+ people to be protected from workplace discrimination 2 to 1.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender,” Gorsuch wrote. “The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Wow, Neil Gorsuch has legitimately impressed me. He didn’t let evangelical partisan hackery get in the way of a simple logical conclusion.

[Greed and Death]

Employers will find ways around this new ruling. Employees don't have as much leverage to sue businesses and etc. If they didn't need the money/job, they'd work for themselves instead of for someone else. How hard is it going to be to prove that x workplace discriminates against LGBT?

This is why union membership should be mandatory

Like we do with the police ?

[San Lumen]

“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender,” Gorsuch wrote. “The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Wow, Neil Gorsuch has legitimately impressed me. He didn’t let evangelical partisan hackery get in the way of a simple logical conclusion.

Same for me. Thus far he seems quite reasonable and not as far right as many feared

[Rojava Free State]

It's illegal to not hire gays but perfectly legal to deny them healthcare coverage now.

Wtf America? Why?

[Greed and Death]

“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender,” Gorsuch wrote. “The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Wow, Neil Gorsuch has legitimately impressed me. He didn’t let evangelical partisan hackery get in the way of a simple logical conclusion.

Why would a Catholic/Episcopal be subject to evangelical partisan hackery ?

[Geneviev]

I'm very surprised by Justice Gorsuch, but it's the right decision. America isn't totally lost yet.

[San Lumen]

If this is how they ruled on the discrimination case it gives me hope they will do the right thing when it comes to the adoption case.

[Free Northwest Sovereign]

ok

this is epic

This sums it up nicely.

Ya the internet is gonna be broken for awhile. Gorsuch apparently wrote the majority opinion

I found that extremely surprising. Perhaps he's not as conservative as we thought he was.

The definition of conservative has shifted so far right in America that political labels are much trickier now. The stranger part is that a Trump Administration pick decided to do his job right.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Wow, Neil Gorsuch has legitimately impressed me. He didn’t let evangelical partisan hackery get in the way of a simple logical conclusion.

Why would a Catholic/Episcopal be subject to evangelical partisan hackery ?

That’s the M.O. for most of the Trump admin’s policies, the President’s not an Episcopalian.

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

It's illegal to not hire gays but perfectly legal to deny them healthcare coverage now.

Wtf America? Why?

Different branches of government. The change in non-discrimination rules by Trump’s HHS is actually an interesting test of this ruling. Employer based health insurance is subject to Title VII protection against sex discrimination.

[Thermodolia]

It's illegal to not hire gays but perfectly legal to deny them healthcare coverage now.

Wtf America? Why?

That only covers trans people iirc

[Ifreann]

Well, there goes the health change Trump just did.

Does this actually undo that?

---

This is why union membership should be mandatory

We need to Unionise the Big Gay

One Big Gay Union.

[Galloism]

“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender,” Gorsuch wrote. “The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

Wow, Neil Gorsuch has legitimately impressed me. He didn’t let evangelical partisan hackery get in the way of a simple logical conclusion.

It actually makes good sense.

Maybe congress didn't expect it would be used that way, but if the statutory language supports it, then it would be up to congress to fix (or break, depending on your point of view) it.

[Thermodolia]

Well, there goes the health change Trump just did.

Does this actually undo that?

Apparently Employer based healthcare is subject to title VII so in effect this definitely does cover the majority of people

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

Well, there goes the health change Trump just did.

Does this actually undo that?

I think it will. This ruling is a judgment based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Trump’s HHS changed its interpretation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, but the argument is the same in both cases on what sex discrimination is. Trump says healthcare providers aren’t responsible for sex discrimination beyond biological sex, but SCOTUS says that’s not how it works.

[Grenartia]

Does this actually undo that?

I think it will. This ruling is a judgment based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Trump’s HHS changed its interpretation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, but the argument is the same in both cases on what sex discrimination is. Trump says healthcare providers aren’t responsible for sex discrimination beyond biological sex, but SCOTUS says that’s not how it works.

This is the moment in gay rights where you get the BFG 9000 and start yeeting demons by the dozen.

[Stellar Colonies]

I wonder how Trump will react.

[The Alma Mater]

I wonder how Trump will react.

He will probably fire someone.

[Ifreann]

Does this actually undo that?

Apparently Employer based healthcare is subject to title VII so in effect this definitely does cover the majority of people

Sweet.

---

I think it will. This ruling is a judgment based on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, while Trump’s HHS changed its interpretation of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, but the argument is the same in both cases on what sex discrimination is. Trump says healthcare providers aren’t responsible for sex discrimination beyond biological sex, but SCOTUS says that’s not how it works.

This is the moment in gay rights where you get the BFG 9000 and start yeeting demons by the dozen.

[New Bremerton]

This is awesome. I'm happy for LGBT+ Americans.

This historic ruling also indicates that Brett Kavanaugh, a nominally conservative justice and Trump appointee whose Supreme Court nomination and appointment radical feminist Democrats were hell-bent on opposing, is a sensible moderate who thinks VERY highly of LGBT+ people despite his dissenting stance, rather than a far-right, homophobic, transphobic, theocratic bigot who wants to see gays thrown off rooftops. Ditto Neil Gorsuch, another nominally conservative Trump appointee who ruled in favor of outlawing workplace discrimination against LGBT+ people. Let's hope that both of them see sense and vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. I pray Susan Collins is right about Kavanaugh.

[Grenartia]

I wonder how Trump will react.

He will probably fire someone.

Not like he can fire anyone in SCOTUS.

This is the moment in gay rights where you get the BFG 9000 and start yeeting demons by the dozen.

Gayvengers, assemble!

[Brunswick-upon-Raritan]

This is the moment in gay rights where you get the BFG 9000 and start yeeting demons by the dozen.

The Supreme Court has appeased the ancient gay gods!

[Greed and Death]

Why would a Catholic/Episcopal be subject to evangelical partisan hackery ?

That’s the M.O. for most of the Trump admin’s policies, the President’s not an Episcopalian.

No one on the supreme court is evangelical.