Politics Supreme Court Rules That Civil Rights Act Protects Gay and Transgender People

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
How long since we've had good news?

Not naive, race and sex discrimination have been illegal for decades and still happen but enormous victory. Very clear decision. A big weapon in fight for equality.

Roberts and Gorsuch are not moderate, they are hard right but believe in rule of law. Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh pure ideologues.
 
This is huge news. I'm curious to see if this changes Romer v. Evans (the Colorado "special rights" case). Not sure if there will be any tests to this queued up, but it would seem to create a strict scrutiny standard for any laws that treat LGBTQ differently. Also, this is really a landmark decision as it would protect LGBTQ workers particularly in any states that don't have a state law protecting them, which are a shockingly large amount. Texas for example is a large state with several large cities and has no LGBTQ anti-discrimination laws on its books.
 
Landmark! Not expected from such a conservative SC. It seemed they were stacked right to vote for conservative values, i.e keeping gay and transgender people down. Glad they set politics aside and dealt with law like they are supposed to.
 
If I remember correctly when Gorsuch was confirmed there was speculation that he might be open to gay rights as an exception to his otherwise ultra-conservative ideology.

barfo
 
barfo said:
If I remember correctly when Gorsuch was confirmed there was speculation that he might be open to gay rights as an exception to his otherwise ultra-conservative ideology.

barfo
Click to expand...

In general, Gorsuch seems to be more sympathetic to the rights of workers than most conservatives, based on his judicial record. That seems to be what separates him from him the Scalia-like wing: Thomas, Alito, Kavenaugh. They will always go ultra-right on every issue.
 
This also strengthens fight against Trump administration's antigay executive orders. From banning trans service members, to allowing medical personnel to deny service, to HUD saying Section 8 housing and homeless shelters can discriminate (the one and only thing Ben Carson did). If employment discrimination is illegal, how is housing/health care discrimination legal?
 
crandc said:
This also strengthens fight against Trump administration's antigay executive orders. From banning trans service members, to allowing medical personnel to deny service, to HUD saying Section 8 housing and homeless shelters can discriminate (the one and only thing Ben Carson did). If employment discrimination is illegal, how is housing/health care discrimination legal?
Click to expand...

It's not. Trump is very unhappy
 
John Roberts has proven himself to be an excellent Chief Justice.

He is conservative, yes, but fair. Not doctrinaire. He voted in favor of this with Gorsuch and the libs, and he voted to uphold Obamacare too. He gave Kennedy the gay marriage opinion to write, knowing that Kennedy was very in favor of that. And he is not in Trump's pocket. Impressive guy.
 
Definitely so happy about this today. Absolute landmark ruling, with a definitive 6-3 vote, and it can be used as precedence for the definition of sex and gender legally going forward in other discrimination cases, such as those surely to come against the administration’s stripping of trans and disabled health care coverage.
 
It's good to see that unlike the spineless GOP senate, we still have one branch of government that is ruled by law and decency...
 
andalusian said:
It's good to see that unlike the spineless GOP senate, we still have one branch of government that is ruled by law and decency...
Click to expand...

The trans woman who’s case the SCOTUS heard didn’t live to see the judgment.

Every bit of progress in the government only comes after years of struggle and fighting, often real. They only gave us rights because we gave them riots. It’s possible they ruled this way to prevent more intense protests, which is a victory the protesters should take.
 
Last edited:
barfo said:
First good news of 2020, definitely. Of course I fully expect the court to balance this decision out with a horrible one in the next few days.

barfo
Click to expand...
Cross your fingers, barfo.
 
crandc said:
This also strengthens fight against Trump administration's antigay executive orders. From banning trans service members, to allowing medical personnel to deny service, to HUD saying Section 8 housing and homeless shelters can discriminate (the one and only thing Ben Carson did). If employment discrimination is illegal, how is housing/health care discrimination legal?
Click to expand...
I'm certain that Trump's stupid executive order on health care discrimination will soon be negated as will all other discrimination covered by federal law.
My wife and I were overjoyed about this ruling.
Yes, a bright spot in an otherwise dreary Trump world.
 
Bigots having a sad. Some rightists said this is the day the Trump re-election died. He had promised to fill courts with judges who would get rid of gay rights and give all white men guns and get scary brown people out. In one day supreme Court ruled in favor of gay rights and refused to hear cases on sanctuary cities and guns

I'm just afraid they will balance this with really horrible decisions on upcoming cases, including DACA, enforced religion, women's rights.
 
crandc said:
Bigots having a sad. Some rightists said this is the day the Trump re-election died. He had promised to fill courts with judges who would get rid of gay rights and give all white men guns and get scary brown people out. In one day supreme Court ruled in favor of gay rights and refused to hear cases on sanctuary cities and guns

I'm just afraid they will balance this with really horrible decisions on upcoming cases, including DACA, enforced religion, women's rights.
Click to expand...
I look on this as a sign of an intellectual court paving the way for more intellectual decisions.

I'd like to add that my wife and I feel like homosexuals can do whatever other people do as long as they don't otherwise interfere in our lives. Of course this is so basic that there's really no meaning in mentioning it. Like you guys (male, female, whatever) usually do just ignore my post.
 
Stevenson said:
John Roberts has proven himself to be an excellent Chief Justice.

He is conservative, yes, but fair. Not doctrinaire. He voted in favor of this with Gorsuch and the libs, and he voted to uphold Obamacare too. He gave Kennedy the gay marriage opinion to write, knowing that Kennedy was very in favor of that. And he is not in Trump's pocket. Impressive guy.
Click to expand...
All due respect I have to disagree. Legal scholars have said the Roberts court has overturned more precedent than any court in history, from voting rights to equal pay to campaign finance. And all in one direction; police power over citizens, corporations over consumers and environment, employers over workers. Roberts was nominated by Bush due to his long history of judicial opposition to voting rights. All the voter suppression and hyperpartisan gerrymandering are direct consequences of overturning voting rights act. I thought Roberts might support marriage equality because he is so pro-corporate and business tended to support it - not because companies love gay folks but because of the headache of having employees who were married on one state and not in another, but he opposed marriage equality. And he never met a women's right he didn't oppose.

Citizens United was unique in American and Western jurisprudence; for the first time corporations were defined as people and money as speech, so to limit the amount of money corporations could give in elections was a restriction on free speech. So elections became more corrupt. In Hobby Lobby the court determined corporations also have religions, and a company's "religion" takes precedence over the view of employees. So companies can deny birth control if it's against their religion, regardless of the beliefs of the employee. They ruled companies can deny people service if it violates their "religion". I see little to admire in Roberts.
 
@crandc - I am not trying to say I agree with his legal philosophy, I don't. He's a conservative Republican. My point, more broadly is that he seems fair. He supports the rule of law. He is trying to protect his institution, as opposed to other governmental institutions that are under fire by the buffoon. He has been the critical vote on this ruling, as well as Obamacare, and a few other across the aisle. Citizens United is a disaster, but hardly his fault.

But as the head of the third branch of government, at least I see him trying to 1. yes, uphold his analysis of the law, but also 2. respect that there are other points of view that need to be heard.
 
To me, Roberts will never, ever live down voting to invalidate key parts of the Voting Rights Act, which were put in place to prevent states, especially Southern states, from implementing policies intended to disproportionately harm minorities when it comes to voting. And as soon as his majority made that decision, Southern states immediately started passing such policies.

Roberts may not go down in history as the worst Chief Justice, because there have been many horrific ones, but he'll eventually be remembered as a terrible one, justifiably, despite a few unexpected votes to protect the Court from seeming overly partisan.
 
crandc said:
What would I want to interfere in your life? And why do I need permission or approval for mine?

My gay agenda for today, go to store before senior hour ends. Living my life.
Click to expand...
If you're talking to me, you don't need anyone's permission to go about your life. That's not what I was saying.
I was trying to point out the lack of logic in opposing anyone's right to love whomever they want.
You're not interfering with my life one whit. I'm happy the way I am and I have no desire to interfere with yours although I would love to interfere with Trump's life quite bit, after all, he's certainly interfered in mine in a big way.
 
Lanny, sure agree with you on Trump.

You might not have meant it this way but I have frequently heard stuff like I don't care if you're gay as long as I don't have to see or hear it. Not only implying I need permission but adding stay in your closet.

May I add McConnell to the list with Trump?
 
crandc said:
Lanny, sure agree with you on Trump.

You might not have meant it this way but I have frequently heard stuff like I don't care if you're gay as long as I don't have to see or hear it. Not only implying I need permission but adding stay in your closet.

May I add McConnell to the list with Trump?
Click to expand...
I don't mind seeing it. I've been seeing it since 1966. I saw two young men kissing. I was mesmerized because I had never seen it before. I instantly accepted it as though they had every right. One guy in our group, Dick the Savage, insisted that it should not be permitted but everyone else at the party accepted it also. We only had trouble with Dick and some of us had to restrain him. I've always been acceptable of the rights of anyone so long as they don't interfere with the rights of another. The rights of another don't include being uncomfortable with it. I'm sure everyone has things they're not comfortable with and we just have to learn to live with it.
Your being gay? Couldn't care less. I'm just glad that no ass hole has the right to deny your right to love whomever you damn well want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top