The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT people from discrimination in employment, a resounding victory for LGBT rights from a conservative court.Trump, of course, sees it differently because those in his base who are Talibanistas want him to:
The court decided by a 6-3 vote that a key provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 known as Title VII that bars job discrimination because of sex, among other reasons, encompasses bias against LGBT workers.
“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,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. “Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
The Trump administration will scrap ObamaCare's nondiscrimination protections for sex and gender identity under a final rule released Friday.Trump's move was motivated solely by his need to placate the bigots in his base (read to the end of this post). Based on the ruling today by the Supreme Court, a challenge to his rule would likely succeed.
In a statement, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said the government's interpretation of sex discrimination will be based on "the plain meaning of the word 'sex' as male or female and as determined by biology."
According to HHS, the new policy makes clear that "the substantive protections prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, and sex remain in effect."
I’m of two minds on this; philosophically, I believe that a Citizen employer should be able to unilaterally discriminate as to who they hire or fire: gay, black, Christian, etc.....
ReplyDeleteHowever, if an employer cannot fire someone based on race or religion, then they should not be able to do likewise based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
If you can discriminate for any reason its wrong. However
ReplyDeletebeing fired because your fundi boss is anti-gay or anything
is a limit exceeded. There is no entitlement only that a
job is being done and firing for basis that is not
performance, attendance, or insubordination.
There is a basic tenet of MYOB, if the boss is minding his own
business and the employee does the job as expected and required
than that should be it.
The problem is what was being seen is discrimination on a
religious basis. It often goes further than simple firing
there is often abuses prior, "to get them to quit".
To me its easy and clear, the government all people are
to be treated as equal. There is no pick and choose. That
covers a lot of ground but for the moment in employment
there are rules and they are also applied equally.
At the extreme being denied medical services or other services
nominally considered public is what its more closely focused.
Reason for that they are funded or even run by government or
in the behest of government (NGOs) then they can't deny and
religion is not an exception. You take public money you
serve the whole of the public.
Then there are those of all colors being LBGTQ being killed
and we have been seeing a lot of protests that include that
as well.
Eck!
What Eck! said. I hope you're right about the challenges, because yeah, the dead transgender black women seem kinda like a trend I don't want to see get too much farther, and if you don't read Twitter, you might not even know about them.
ReplyDelete-Doug in Sugar Pine
Doug,
ReplyDeleteIts not limited to dead black trans! Its about any one that
the wilds feel they can abuse or kill because [sex,orientation,
gender, color, hair style, day of the week].
Much of that is being promoted by the religious Taliban.
Their beliefs are not a right to harm others.
Lives Matter
Eck!
Per capita the number one demographic most likely to be gunned down by the cops are First American women, and there doesn't seem to be any good explanation for it.
ReplyDeleteI am a conservative, yet I am also a very strong supporter of the constitution. I believe that the constitution was meant to protect everyone, not just middle aged white males. Of which I am one.
ReplyDeleteI found the SCOTUS ruling today to be proper, and think it should have been 9-0, instead of 6-3. I can't think of any time where discrimination would be proper. In the workplace, with two equally qualified candidate for promotion, you should not be able to look at color, religion, or sexuality. You could use seniority, or some equally non discriminatory factor.
There are some situations where laws and rules are going to be used for bad outcomes, and that is where courts must be willing to step up and try to make things right. For example, the courts must attempt to allow for a fair and equal outcome when a gay couple sues a baker for failure to bake a cake for their wedding. The thing is, the gay couple can get a cake from many other places. But for the baker, who holds what is to him or her, strong reasons for not wanting to bake that cake, the courts need to try to make certain that both parties get an outcome that they can live with. I never said it would be easy, but often, things involving civil rights never are.
pigpen51