U.S, Supreme Court Rules Against LGBTQ Discrimination in the Workplace

The U.S. Supreme Court today (June 15) ruled that employers may not discriminate against LGBTQ employees on account of their unconventional lifestyles. The 6-3 ruling appears to extend worker protections to a category that was specifically omitted in the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. The majority decision was written by Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first nominee to the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal justices. Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

Gorsuch wrote, “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. 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.”

Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh vigorously dissented, saying the majority had not ruled on existing law, but actually had created new law by judicial fiat.

Alito, writing more than 100 pages in dissent for himself and Thomas, accused the court’s majority of writing legislation, not law.

“The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed,” Alito said. “The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not.”

Writing separately, Kavanaugh said simply: “We are judges, not members of Congress. Instead of a hard-earned victory won through the democratic process, today’s victory is brought about by judicial dictate – judges latching on to a novel form of living literalism to rewrite ordinary meaning and remake American law,” he wrote. “Under the Constitution and laws of the United States, this court is the wrong body to change American law in that way.”

Federal appeals courts have been split on the question since 2017, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit became the first to rule that gay men and lesbians should be covered by the decades-old federal civil rights law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled for Zarda in 2018, but the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled against Bostock. The 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, ruled for Stephens.

Congress has debated the issue for decades but “repeatedly declined to pass bills adding sexual orientation to the list of protected traits” under the law, the Justice Department told the justices. The Democratic-controlled House passed the Equality Act last year, but the Republican-controlled Senate has not considered it.

Thank you, SCOTUS!

~ Grif

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
FU black liars matter
FU black liars matter
4 months ago

..but they can still discriminate against political affiliation. Way to go scotus fuktards.

Dr. Eowyn
Admin
4 months ago

Exactly!

Kevin J Lankford
Kevin J Lankford
4 months ago

Liberalism is the communist’s tool. Just one of the globalist banker’s weapons they spoke of for destroying the U.S. from with in. By dumbing down our children through the control of our own educational system and twisting their minds through the redefining and interpretation of our words, they pervert the intent of our very Constitution and law.   As with the 16th Amendment, they twisted our tax code, erroneously equating wages with income in the minds of average citizens in such a way that is an actual claim to all mans labor. Wages are not income, but can be used… Read more »

Tom
Editor
Tom
4 months ago

An egregious example of legislating from the bench, made worse by its distortion of objective truth by supposedly learned and impartial men.   Why do I say that? Because:   1) Homosexuality is not a “sex” or “gender.” It is a biological abnormality — the “sexual orientation” does not match the sexual organs (in a normal person it does).   2) Transexuals. Neither is that a “sex” or gender.” It is a mental disorder (i.e., also an abnormality). The “gender identity” doesn’t match the actual gender. There was nothing wrong with Bruce Jenner biologically; his issues were/are mental.   Here… Read more »

Michael Garrison
Michael Garrison
4 months ago

One of the aims of the Commie Khazars, is to flood our court system with trivial lawsuits.

Anonymous
Anonymous
4 months ago

You have to think this isn’t creepy now… or get sued:
comment image

Lana
Lana
4 months ago

A great thank you to our Freemason and Jewish overlords on the Supreme court.   How many are discriminating against Gay people anymore? On the other hand of you have some freak of a guy dressed as a woman with a beard and you sell lingerie are you forced to hire ” “her”? How can an employer possibly hire anyone? Evey time you hire someone you are discriminating on what type of individual he/she is( their character) and how they present themselves as they will be representing your business. Many heterosexual people are plain weirdos you would not to hire… Read more »

Anonymous
Anonymous
4 months ago

But firing somebody for disagreeing with the latest Leftist orthodoxies is still okay…

CogitoErgoSumantra
CogitoErgoSumantra
3 months ago

Gorsuch got it wrong, big-time. The problem with the law as written, which allowed his error, is that it wrongly used the term “sex” originally (as a protected class), which at the time was broadly considered to be what we once thought, as laypersons: man or woman, a binary choice.   They *should* have used the more precise term “gender” (or even the XX/XY genetic difference), as they were referring to “which reproductive organs a person has”, NOT “sex” — how that person decides to use it, or to act or portray themselves.   One class is a group that… Read more »

CogitoErgoSumantra
CogitoErgoSumantra
3 months ago

Why does it matter? Because now LGBTQs can sue to get and keep and be promoted within jobs at churches, private schools, the Boy Scouts, etc., and the SCotUS will back them.     If I want to hire a personal aid in my home and decide not to hire a queer dude, he can now just threaten a lawsuit if I don’t hire him or offer some sort of reparation. Or just have an ACLU attorney inform me I have to hire him. And it will be even worse for public companies… They’ll be burdened financially with the law… Read more »

Calgirl
Calgirl
3 months ago

Wish everyone, including judges…& even Supremes, would STOP considering there is a fluidity betw genetic way people were born & then later what they prefer to do w/their genitals for sexual gratification according to their “concept of self.” . There needs to be a separate amendment written to address the difference betw rights of sexuality at birth, & rights of sexuality according to how one prefers to use their sexual organs. Sexual genetic assignment, & gratification or sexual identity are different things and IMHO, do not deserve to be addressed by the Supreme Court, much less licensed by it. I’m… Read more »