SCOTUS rules 6-3 that Title VII of Civil Rights Act applies to sexual orientation (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

This is a big decision. Only about 20 or so states allow such protections. This now provides protections nationwide. Long time coming for many in the LGBTQ community. 6-3 decision is pretty decisive.

In landmark case, Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers are protected from job discrimination

The decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[GrandAdmiral]

This is a welcome decision, but not unexpected according to some lawyers I read on Twitter.

Does this invalidate or render unconstitutional the recent EO by Trump about declining medical services?

Not certain it does, unless parts of the Trump's EO discusses employer-based health plans. Title VII deals exclusively with employment discrimination.

 

[JimEverett]

Will this have an impact in regard to transgenders in the military?

For a long time Title VII did not apply to the federal government at all (it is specifically excluded in the statute). But over time I think there has legislation that has added elements of the federal workforce - so it is sort of piecemeal with respect to federal employees.
As far as I am aware no Court or federal agency - like the EEOC - has found that Title VII applies to uniformed military members. However - I think non-uniformed employees of the military can be covered depending on their classification.

 

[superchuck500]

For a long time Title VII did not apply to the federal government at all (it is specifically excluded in the statute). But over time I think there has legislation that has added elements of the federal workforce - so it is sort of piecemeal with respect to federal employees.
As far as I am aware no Court or federal agency - like the EEOC - has found that Title VII applies to uniformed military members. However - I think non-uniformed employees of the military can be covered depending on their classification.

I think Title VII is pretty broadly applicable to the federal civil workforce - including the executive branch. Not sure about military.

 

[MT15]

This guy is a good follow on Twitter, I think. He highlights an early response from Ben Shapiro. The responses are pretty good also.

 

[SaintForLife]

The majority opinion was written by Neil Gorsuch.

He's the most libertarian SCOTUS justice. See guys, not all libertarians are crazy lol.

 

[insidejob]

They're writing the majority opinion, not the dissent, right?

Totally got it backwards for some reason. Thanks for catching it.

 

[insidejob]

Gorsutch wrote the majority opinion, not the dissent.

Had a brain fart.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Because Congress in 1964 didn't pass the law intending to prevent discrimination of gay and transgendered people. And no attempts to expand the law to apply to sexual orientation in Congress have been successful.

But the words of the law (prohibiting discrimination "because of sex") are what they are. And the guys dissenting are of course the ones who claim to care the most about "textualism."

I don't understand this train of thought

The whole point of any new law is that it covers things that the old law didn't

That doesn't make sense to me and they'd need a better reason than that

 

[wardorican]

I don't understand this train of thought

The whole point of any new law is that it covers things that the old law didn't

That doesn't make sense to me and they'd need a better reason than that

Read this for a fair overview.

Opinion analysis: Federal employment discrimination law protects gay and transgender employees (Updated) - SCOTUSblog

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination “because of sex.” Today the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, ruled that even if Congress may not have had discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status in mind when it enacted the landmark law over a

www.scotusblog.com

Justice Samuel Alito filed a sharp dissent that was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. While conceding that the result that the majority reached “no doubt arises from humane and generous impulses,” Alito stressed that there “is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation.” He compared the majority’s opinion to a “pirate ship,” writing that although it sails “under a textualist flag” – that is, it purports to adhere to the text of Title VII – “what it actually represents is a theory of statutory interpretation that Justice Scalia excoriated—the theory that court should ‘update’ old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.” “If the Court finds it appropriate to adopt this theory,” Alito complained, “it should own up to what it is doing.”

He noted that last year the House of Representatives passed a bill that would make clear that Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, but that the bill stalled in the Senate. Today, Alito contended, his colleagues in the majority have “essentially taken” that bill “and issued it under the guise of statutory interpretation. A more brazen abuse of our authority,” Alito suggested, “is hard to recall.” The real question before the court, Alito stressed, is “not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not,” Alito argued.

Alito warned that today’s ruling “is virtually certain to have far-reaching consequences” that will include, among other things, threats to “threaten freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and personal privacy and safety.” He noted that myriad federal laws, like Title VII, ban discrimination “because of sex,” including the Fair Housing Act and Title IX, which bars discrimination in education. And he described the court’s “brusque refusal to consider the consequences of its reasoning” as “irresponsible,” because it “greatly impeded—and perhaps effectively ended—any chance of a bargained legislative resolution.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed his own dissenting opinion. He began by acknowledging that the arguments for “amending” Title VII “are very weighty.” He also observed that the Supreme Court “has previously stated, and I fully agree, that gay and lesbian Americans ‘cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.’” But, he continued, the job of judges is “not to make or amend the law,” and, as it currently stands, “Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation.” (In a footnote, Kavanaugh indicated that although his dissenting opinion refers only to discrimination based on sexual orientation, his analysis would also apply “in much the same way” to discrimination based on gender identity.)

Kavanaugh contended (and appeared to agree with his colleagues in the majority) that courts should follow the ordinary meaning of the words in a statute, because that is how both members of Congress and the public would understand the law. But if the ordinary meaning is not the same as the literal meaning, Kavanaugh continued, then courts should employ the ordinary meaning. And here, in Kavanaugh’s view, the ordinary meaning of the phrase “discriminate because of sex” does not extend to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Because Title VII as drafted does not protect gay and lesbian employees, Kavanaugh continued, “the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.” And, he added, “when this Court usurps the role of Congress, as it does today, the public understandably becomes confused about who the policymakers really are in our system of separated powers, and inevitably becomes cynical” about the idea that judges make their decisions based on the law, rather than on their personal preferences. “The best way for judges to demonstrate that we are deciding cases based on the ordinary meaning of the law is to walk the walk, even in the hard cases when we might prefer a different policy outcome.”

Kavanaugh concluded by acknowledging “the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result.” But Kavanaugh reiterated his belief that Congress, rather the Supreme Court, should have been the source of that result.

 

[superchuck500]

I don't understand this train of thought

The whole point of any new law is that it covers things that the old law didn't

That doesn't make sense to me and they'd need a better reason than that

There is no new law - the issue before the Court was one of interpretation. Did the 1964 law's inclusion of "sex" within the protections of the law include sexual orientation and/or identity?

 

[Farb]

At some point, I would like to see Congress do their job, work together and pass laws that fix some of our issues instead of crumbling into partisan politics. I would rather see a law passed in congress than executive orders and bench law.

"Defund Congress"?

 

[superchuck500]

At some point, I would like to see Congress do their job, work together and pass laws that fix some of our issues instead of crumbling into partisan politics. I would rather see a law passed in congress than executive orders and bench law.

"Defund Congress"?

Unfortunately the trick there is Congress holds the funding power.

 

[Farb]

True, they hold the power of the purse but we fill the purse.

 

[insidejob]

Check out this thread:

 

[wardorican]

Check out this thread:

I read it all. It defies reason. The hatred and garbage they put that man through. Love that he won, and took them all down.

 

[Richard]

I haven't read the opinions yet, but I do have reservations and my initial reaction was that the decision was an overreach. Again, before anyone jumps on me, I haven't read it yet. I just wanted to break up the kumbaya party with a little potential dissent.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I haven't read the opinions yet, but I do have reservations and my initial reaction was that the decision was an overreach. Again, before anyone jumps on me, I haven't read it yet. I just wanted to break up the kumbaya party with a little potential dissent.

 

[Farb]

I haven't read the opinions yet, but I do have reservations and my initial reaction was that the decision was an overreach. Again, before anyone jumps on me, I haven't read it yet. I just wanted to break up the kumbaya party with a little potential dissent.

I think you are correct. It was an overreach and it will also have more cases under 'religious liberties' being broght forward. Now the SCOTUS doesn't have to hear them and by their past actions, they probably won't.
It is still baffling that the congress is so inept at its job.