Comforting to know it's final. Those who don't get why LGBT people care or don't see this as a big deal are exhibiting some grand naiveté about the evils of the world or the difficulties minorities face in the workplace without proper workplace protection.

(06-15-2020 10:04 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Never heard of an employer firing someone for that reason..

Mitt Romney did.

(06-15-2020 11:30 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Comforting to know it's final. Those who don't get why LGBT people care or don't see this as a big deal are exhibiting some grand naiveté about the evils of the world or the difficulties minorities face in the workplace without proper workplace protection.

Kinda like the Obama administrations workplace treatment of the incoming elected president?

Everyone should remember this the next time you hear somebody whining about the “right-wing” or “ultra-conservative” Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court has been either middle of the road or left-of-center for over 80 years, and there’s no sign that will change. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or else hopes that you are.

(06-15-2020 11:44 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Everyone should remember this the next time you hear somebody whining about the “right-wing” or “ultra-conservative” Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court has been either middle of the road or left-of-center for over 80 years, and there’s no sign that will change. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or else hopes that you are.

I remember how up in arms most hardline liberals were when Justice Roberts was appointed...he has shown to be quite a bit more left of center on some interpretations that anyone would've expected. By and large, most judges got there because of their ability to clearly discern information, distill it into a decision, and reinforce that decision through a normally incredibly balanced view of the Constitution...not because they are right or left.

(06-15-2020 11:12 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:54 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:43 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:15 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 10:04 AM)gdunn Wrote:  Never heard of an employer firing someone for that reason..

The individual who brought the original case was fired specifically for that reason from a funeral home in Michigan...unfortunately she died a little over a month before this decision was made.

All in all, I think this makes complete sense, and it appears the dissenting opinion wasn't with the content of the case itself, but specifically with making rulings on cases like this and how it translates into a sort of pseudo-legislation, something the SC should never dip too deep into. There are people out there already saying that this is the SCOTUS saying that there is a difference between Sex and Gender now because of the wording they used in Title VII to determine the majority opinion, but really, all they're saying is employers shouldn't be able to fire an individual for a non-criminal part of their social lives, regardless of if they agree with it or not...whether it trly happened all that much or not in reality, it's good to have a safeguard.

From your interpretation it is based on the unwritten "privacy" rights.

I haven't read the full opinion yet, but based on the summaries I have read from some of the Constitutional Law individuals I read, it would appear that privacy rights didn't play a huge part in this. The ruling primarily centers around two things, firstly that the interpretation that firing someone for transitioning to a different sex does not allow for discrimination since it was not their birth sex, which was the HHS argument AND the argument from the Solicitor General. There is also a large portion of Justice Gorsuch's opinion that discussed a literal interpretation of sex being not just the classification of an individuals sex but the act of sex itself (Gorsuch is an extremely literal interpreter of the Constitution, so that makes sense for him to write the opinion). Given that Gay, Lesbian, and Transsexual individuals were a part of this argument since the SCOTUS heard 3 cases on the same matter and passed a combined ruling, and the counsel for the complainants stated that Title VII protects ALL individuals on its basis, including LGBTQ, and the individual appealing a decision from the Circuit court was fired based on the "T" part of that, which is interpreted as both a sexual orientation and a biological sex indentifier, they must've done enough to convince him.

Like I said, the dissension did not appear to have any argument against the actual content of the case (sexual discrimination, etc.) but specifically pointed towards this being a legislative issue instead of a judicial one, which is a very Thomas-y point on many of his dissenting opinions. The only thing I see in the dissenting opinion that makes sense is that SCOTUS are ruling on a law that was written with a completely different frame of reference than it is today. It would be akin to them ruling that because the Air Force didn't exist in 1790 and they're considered Airmen and not Soldiers, the 3rd Amendment doesn't apply to them and a new law would have to be written instead of ruled upon using reasonable future consideration of the law. If that we the case, the dissenting Justices are basically arguing that every law must be reassessed in Congress to adjust for future considerations.

Gays and Ts existed when the law was written.

I have little doubt Congress would have a majority to amend, but they are basically cowards and want to let courts do things for them. All the Democrats and many Republicans would vote for it. I'm guessing Republican congressmen are relieved they don't have to vote on this issue. But that's not the way its supposed to work.

What it does is just open up a whole new category of lawsuits for the tort lawyers. Few cases are going to be as clear on the facts as these. Employers will have to get into people's personal lives. They will be sued because they "should have known" employee X was gay. No big employer discriminates on this anymore, but they will get sued as well. Its notable that when Obamacare was passed, a bunch of employers dropped coverage for "domestic partners." They didn't create this coverage for people who lived together but weren't married. They had it for their gay employees who could not get married.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head with everything that could come from this. It was an "easy way out" for conservative lawmakers and the President saved face with his evangelical supporters even though both, along with most understanding citizens, would support the end result.

The fact that the courts decided this rather than it being written into law will 100% end up with what you mentioned. Many individuals will likely be trying to find ways to latch onto this ruling now that the Highest Court has made a final decision...how that effects Civil court proceedings in the future is going to be very interesting, as I'm sure there will be some who will find ways to present hostile work environment arguments through this.

Somewhere out there LazyTom is celebrating even though i told him this was a non-issue.

(06-15-2020 12:52 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I remember how up in arms most hardline liberals were when Justice Roberts was appointed...he has shown to be quite a bit more left of center on some interpretations that anyone would've expected.

I think more than they lean left or right, the justices pretty much all come out of a very limited range of experiences. All of them attended law school at either Harvard or Yale (Ginsburg got her law degree from Columbia, but she transferred from Harvard). They came from a very limited judicial background (4 from DC Court of Appeals, 1 from 1st Circuit, 1 from 2nd Circuit, 1 from 3rd Circuit, 1 from Solicitor General, and 1 from 10th Circuit). That is a very, very heavy east coast establishment slant. They're going to side together on issues where you don't expect it, because they don't have a broad range of experience from which to form varied opinions. A conservative in NY or New England is probably a liberal in Texas.

I've said before, I'd support something like 12 justices, one from each of the 11 regional circuits, and one from the DC circuit, with the CJ being the senior judge on the court, and nonvoting except to break a tie. That would get some intellectual diversity on the court, which is badly missing right now.

(06-15-2020 01:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 12:52 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I remember how up in arms most hardline liberals were when Justice Roberts was appointed...he has shown to be quite a bit more left of center on some interpretations that anyone would've expected.

I think more than they lean left or right, the justices pretty much all come out of a very limited range of experiences. All of them attended law school at either Harvard or Yale (Ginsburg got her law degree from Columbia, but she transferred from Harvard). They came from a very limited judicial background (4 from DC Court of Appeals, 1 from 1st Circuit, 1 from 2nd Circuit, 1 from 3rd Circuit, 1 from Solicitor General, and 1 from 10th Circuit). That is a very, very heavy east coast establishment slant. They're going to side together on issues where you don't expect it, because they don't have a broad range of experience from which to form varied opinions. A conservative in NY or New England is probably a liberal in Texas.

I've said before, I'd support something like 12 justices, one from each of the 11 regional circuits, and one from the DC circuit, with the CJ being the senior judge on the court, and nonvoting except to break a tie. That would get some intellectual diversity on the court, which is badly missing right now.

You are very right on this.

If I was president, being from an Ivy League law school or from the Northeast would be an automatic disqualifier until the court was more balanced.

Interesting that our once all Protestant Supreme Court hasn't had anyone (at least raised that way) protestant since Justice Stevens retired.

Out of curiosity I looked it up on Wiki:
14 Catholic
8 Jewish
33 Episcopal
18 Presbyterian
9 Unitarian
5 Methodist
3 Baptist
1 Lutheran
1 Quaker
15 nondefined Protestant

Rather interesting that the far and away largest protestant denominations have only 8 (Methodist and Baptist).

(06-15-2020 01:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  Out of curiosity I looked it up on Wiki:
14 Catholic
8 Jewish
33 Episcopal
18 Presbyterian
9 Unitarian
5 Methodist
3 Baptist
1 Lutheran
1 Quaker
15 nondefined Protestant

Rather interesting that the far and away largest protestant denominations have only 8 (Methodist and Baptist).

Good lord, there are 1.6M Episcopals in the US and they've got nearly double the next highest amount of Justices. That's...something...

(06-15-2020 01:03 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 12:52 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I remember how up in arms most hardline liberals were when Justice Roberts was appointed...he has shown to be quite a bit more left of center on some interpretations that anyone would've expected.

I think more than they lean left or right, the justices pretty much all come out of a very limited range of experiences. All of them attended law school at either Harvard or Yale (Ginsburg got her law degree from Columbia, but she transferred from Harvard). They came from a very limited judicial background (4 from DC Court of Appeals, 1 from 1st Circuit, 1 from 2nd Circuit, 1 from 3rd Circuit, 1 from Solicitor General, and 1 from 10th Circuit). That is a very, very heavy east coast establishment slant. They're going to side together on issues where you don't expect it, because they don't have a broad range of experience from which to form varied opinions. A conservative in NY or New England is probably a liberal in Texas.

I've said before, I'd support something like 12 justices, one from each of the 11 regional circuits, and one from the DC circuit, with the CJ being the senior judge on the court, and nonvoting except to break a tie. That would get some intellectual diversity on the court, which is badly missing right now.

Yeah, I think you're right about that, and that's a solid idea...grants a greater representation of the US population as well. Very good point on the "where" for SCOTUS. It's crazy to think about, but only 5 Justices in the last half century have been educated anywhere but Harvard or Yale:

Day-O'Connor and Reinquist were Stanford
Stephens was Northwestern
Thurgood Marshall was Howard

So really, only one individual went to a non-"Elite" school, and I'm not talking about ratings either. Government is all an old-boy's club in that you've basically got to wear Crimson and Cream or Blue and White to get anywhere, but I didn't realize it was THAT bad in the SCOTUS.

Also...while many of the Justices do agree on some things that are unexpected, the only thing that's certain about the SCOTUS right now is that Justice Thomas will dissent

good ruling...

(06-15-2020 01:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Good lord, there are 1.6M Episcopals in the US and they've got nearly double the next highest amount of Justices. That's...something...

Yeah, but they were a lot bigger before they decided to become more "inclusive."

(06-15-2020 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 01:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Good lord, there are 1.6M Episcopals in the US and they've got nearly double the next highest amount of Justices. That's...something...

Yeah, but they were a lot bigger before they decided to become more "inclusive."

But Methodists and Baptists have been far and away the largest for a very, very long time.

(06-15-2020 01:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-15-2020 01:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Good lord, there are 1.6M Episcopals in the US and they've got nearly double the next highest amount of Justices. That's...something...

Yeah, but they were a lot bigger before they decided to become more "inclusive."

Exact #s are hard to come by. But there was a point time — approximately 1965 or so — when the Episcopalian Church could legitimately claim about 3.5-3.6 million members, in a country of ~200 million.

Now they can legitimately claim about 1.5-1.6 million members, in a country of 330 million.

There’s a lot of different ingredients that went into that. Some of them were in the “control” of the church and some of them were not. But any way you slice it, to go from 1 out of 50-60 people, to 1 out of 210-220 people, is a sobering experience. For a group that is continually seeking new members (and will accept just about anybody) it basically represents a demographic implosion.

I have no problem with this decision. I doubt it comes into play very much..but..If an employers is stupid enough to fire someone using this reason?...They deserve to be punished for their stupidity.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...43456.html
Interesting take on the decision:


"If we’re right about Chief Justice Roberts’ motivations, we see this generational split emerge among the court’s conservatives. For the boomer conservatives, including Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Roberts, the fight over gay rights is very much a live debate. For Gen Xers, and especially millennials, even among conservatives there is growing acceptance of sexual minorities. Combined with a rationale that is consistent with their jurisprudential approach, the arguments here will be much more appealing.

So it isn’t surprising that Gorsuch wrote this opinion, or that Brett Kavanaugh wrote a measured dissent and failed to join Alito’s more strident opinion. We see the younger conservatives appearing more libertarian on criminal rights as well, having not experienced the crime wave of 1965-95 in the same way that boomers did. Ultimately the court does not get too far out of step with public opinion, because ultimately its members cannot be removed from the context of that opinion."

(06-15-2020 02:21 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Exact #s are hard to come by. But there was a point time — approximately 1965 or so — when the Episcopal Church could legitimately claim about 3.5-3.6 million members, in a country of ~200 million.
Now they can legitimately claim about 1.5-1.6 million members, in a country of 330 million.
There’s a lot of different ingredients that went into that. Some of them were in the “control” of the church and some of them were not. But any way you slice it, to go from 1 out of 50-60 people, to 1 out of 210-220 people, is a sobering experience. For a group that is continually seeking new members (and will accept just about anybody) it basically represents a demographic implosion.

I am a cradle Episcopalian (the noun, the adjective is Episcopal) but am about ready to move to the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA), a denomination consisting largely of former Episcopalians who feel that their church has left them.

Not about revisions to the liturgy (I kind of liked the 16th century English, but have no real problem with contemporary language), which caused the first wave of the exodus.

Not about female clergy (if women are not supposed to proclaim the Gospel, how come the first three people in history to do it were named Mary, Mary, and Salome?), which caused the second wave of the exodus.

Not about admitting LGBT members (I voted to allow--and attended--a female/female wedding last year), which caused the third wave of the exodus, although I do have some reservations about making them priests and especially bishops. They should have a place in the tent, but I don't think that place should be ringmaster.

But where I can't go is that the church leadership has resorted to pluralist and liberation theology to justify those moves, or perhaps just to give in to pop culture. There are probably a number of Episcopal bishops who would take serious issue with, "Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life." And liberation theology is the communist party at prayer. Literally. It is a method of interpreting the Bible developed by a bunch of Marxist Roman Catholic priests in Latin America to justify Marxism by proof texting. Jeremiah Wright and his "church" are examples of liberation theology. There are almost certainly more Episcopal bishops (and maybe more Episcopal priests) who believe in liberation theology than who believe in the basic tenets of Anglican theology as expressed in the Thirty-Nine Articles.

There are two ACNA churches within an easy drive of me. I will probably be going to one or the other when the CV-19 restrictions are lifted.

(06-15-2020 02:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  if women are not supposed to proclaim the Gospel, how come the first three people in history to do it were named Mary, Mary, and Salome?

Is proclaiming the Gospel restricted to members of the clergy? Were Mary, Mary, and Salome members of the clergy?