NationStates

The SCOTUS has just ruled in a 6-3 decision that federal law extends to LGBT+ workers and that they are thus protected from discrimination and firing. It is now illegal to be fired at any place of employment in the US for being LGBT+

This is a great victory for the US. And I couldn’t be happier. Honestly this is a pretty great decision and one that proves that just because the court might be more conservative doesn’t mean it’s going to roll back rights

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/supreme- ... SP34gN2yI/

This is big. The opinion is ridiculously large as well. I will read through it after work.

Also it is a pain to load, it appears the entire gay community is breaking the internet to download it.

Wasn't something to the same effect said a couple years ago? I swear I remember a very similar case.

Greed and Death wrote:This is big. The opinion is ridiculously large as well. I will read through it after work.

Also it is a pain to load, it appears the entire gay community is breaking the internet to download it.

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

Washington Resistance Army wrote:Wasn't something to the same effect said a couple years ago? I swear I remember a very similar case.

You might be thinking of the executive order under Obama which ordered the EEOC to treat LGBT discrimination under Title title VII. Trump rolled that order back.

Our LGBTQ+ Comrades have finally achieved more equality. This is truly a great day.

ok

This decision makes me very happy. It means that its now illegal in every state to fire someone for being gay.

I was most surprised by the words Justice Gorsuch wrote ""Ours is a society of written laws. Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations," Gorsuch, one of the court's conservatives, wrote in the majority opinion. "In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee's sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law."

Kargintina the Third wrote:ok

Do you not understand how big a deal this is? It means that someone cannot be fired for being gay in any state.

This is great!

Well, there goes the health change Trump just did.

this is epic

Thermodolia wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:This is big. The opinion is ridiculously large as well. I will read through it after work.

Also it is a pain to load, it appears the entire gay community is breaking the internet to download it.

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

The opinion should be interesting. If you took a very conservative means of statutory construction plain meaning that means gay and trans people are protected, meanwhile if you take a liberal means of statutory construction congressional intent then it was clear that title VII was only about biological sex. So I am curious did the liberal justices adopt conservative methodologies and did the consenting justices adopt liberal methodologies.

So gay people stop breaking the internet. I want to indulge my curiosity.

Thermodolia wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:This is big. The opinion is ridiculously large as well. I will read through it after work.

Also it is a pain to load, it appears the entire gay community is breaking the internet to download it.

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.

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?

San Lumen wrote:

Kargintina the Third wrote:ok

Do you not understand how big a deal this is? It means that someone cannot be fired for being gay in any state.

"We do not feel you fit in the team"

Saiwania wrote: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?

Explain.

Saiwania wrote: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?

That is where places like the ACLU come in

San Lumen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote: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.

I am fairly certain I pointed out a conservative methodology of reading statutes arguably reads title Vii as protecting LGBT rights. He doesn't need to be liberal.

It is also worth noting Kavanaugh in his dissent said protecting LBGT people from being fired was a good thing he just felt it should have been congress doing this.

San Lumen wrote:

Saiwania wrote: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?

Explain.

Meh... Usually Conservatives always try to find work-a-rounds to policies they don't like.

Good

Servilis wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
Explain.

Meh... Usually PeopleConservativesalways try to find work-a-rounds to policies they don't like.

Fixed

Coolio

San Lumen wrote:

Saiwania wrote: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?

Explain.

As long as other reasons are documented for firing a person it is pretty easy to fire someone. This has largely been a problem with protections for sex and racial employment discrimination cases.

Saiwania wrote: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