Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects gay and lesbian workers

NBC News ^ | June 15, 2020 | Pete Williams

[apillar]

Well you can still fire them, you just can't come right out and say their sexual orientation was the reason, as the defendants in this case did. Now you will just need to do a little more leg work to cover you rear end, document a few meeting where everybody agrees that particular position is too expensive or no longer provides benefit to the company and then fire them with the official reason being "we are downsizing" or "your position has been eliminated" or some other BS.

Trust me, I work in HR this stuff happens all the time when an employer wants to get rid of an employee for being obnoxious or a troublemaker but is afraid of being sued, you just need to invent a "legitimate" reason and document it.

[libertylover]

So, let’s see. You can be fired from your job for saying, “All lives matter”, but not for being a pervert.

[a fool in paradise]

Look for instances of sexual harassment. I’ve heard from friends about lesbian restaurant/bar managers hiring their girlfriends and firing them when the sexual relationship(s) soured. Also heard about catty infighting at a hospital when lesbian doctors and nurses had it in for their ex-es when those relationship soured or advances were rejected.

[John W]

From the excerpt above: They conceded that sexual orientation was not on the minds of anyone in Congress when the civil rights law was passed.

[itsahoot]

I’m not really seeing the problem with this.

If you are a litigious lawyer you will love it.

[Stingray51]

It is horrible news. It provides the trial lawyers one more reason to attack small and family-owned businesses.

Statutes mean what their words say they mean. Gays have been with mankind since the beginning — it is nothing new. If those who wrote, voted for and ultimately signed the Civil Rights Act intended to provide protections for gays, they would have said so. They did not. The role of the Supreme Court should not be to re-write statutes to fit current societal preferences. That is the job of Congress. This is judicial dictatorship.

[CodeToad]

Homosexuality is a mental illness and was described as so until about 1980 when the homomafia got it expunged from the DSM. Never hire mentally ill people.

[dfwgator]

Judas Roberts strikes again.

Thanks, Dumbya.

[Leaning Right]

> You can only discriminate based on traits that affect their ability to to the job. <

I have mixed feelings about this. What you said there makes perfect sense. But suppose you ran a fundamentalist Christian (or Jewish or etc.) private school. It looks like now you cannot turn away some gay guy who likes to dress as a woman. And if you do, lawsuit time.

That doesn’t seem right.

[where's_the_Outrage?]

So now you can’t put you need a certain sex to do the job, such as Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz is now open to males.

Of course male jobs were already being co-opted (e.g. CPT Marvel).

Going to play hell with GOGO joints.

[Erik Latranyi]

I agree this does not affect anything. In fact, now sexual harassment laws apply to homosexuals, lesbians and transgendered as well.

[edwinland]

A very bad day for strict constructionists and for people who take the separation of powers seriously.

The minority opinion is worth reading. They correctly point out that whether discrimination based on sexual orientation should be unlawful is something the legislative branch should and was debating. Bills were introduced numerous times to add it to the law.

But it’s simply not the job of the court to change the meaning of a statute.

And its’ a VERY VERY bad day for people who hoped Gorsuch would be a strict constructionist.

Sorry to seem like a defeatist but this decision makes the 2020 election a lot less important in my opinion.

[DesertRhino]

You can always count on Roberts to come to the rescue of homos

[Meatspace]

Now that Gorsuch is the new Justice Kennedy, what case is next on the Agenda?

[Alberta's Child]

ANY application of "civil rights" statutes to private industry is already unconstitutional on its face.

What you're seeing here is the natural progression of a fascist political-economic system, where private employers increasingly function as arms of the state.

[TexasGunLover]

Judas Roberts strikes again.

What about Gorsuch? Does he get a pass because Trump nominated him? Shouldn't Trump immediately be compared to Bush?

[Varda]

The court is rewriting the meaning of the law in effect creating a new law.
“ sexual orientation discrimination was a form of sex discrimination.”

“Sex” when the law was written meant biological sex i.e male and female. “Sexual orientation” means sexual behavior whether it’s constructive or the destructive result of mental illness.

In the present this sets up revoking faithful Christian organizations 501c3 status.
Also with this ruling the court is opening up a court ordered legalization of pedophilia which is widely regarded among “experts” to be a sexual orientation.

[Vaduz]

But they said when an employer fires a male employee for dating men, but not a female employee who dates men, that violates the law.

Logic missing they ruled to give special treatment to gays.

[itsahoot]

Now you will just need to do a little more leg work to cover you rear end, document a few meeting where everybody agrees that particular position is too expensive or no longer provides benefit to the company and then fire them with the official reason being "we are downsizing" or "your position has been eliminated" or some other BS

The problem is you will have to prove the sexual orientation didn't enter into it. Just because you can make up some other reason doesn't mean a lawyer won't make you prove it. Lawyers love these cases. Well, some lawyers do.

[microgood]

The Civil Rights Act targeted immutable characteristics, not lifestyle choices.