+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: BIG Scotus Ruling (/thread-901177.html)
BIG Scotus Ruling - Redwingtom - 06-15-2020 09:16 AM
I think the vote was even 6-3.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - umbluegray - 06-15-2020 09:21 AM
Who didn't see that coming?
"I firing you because you're gay."
Seriously?
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - ECUGrad07 - 06-15-2020 09:24 AM
(06-15-2020 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:
I think the vote was even 6-3.
Seems reasonable. I don't think there are too many employers out there that think it is OK to fire someone for being gay or trans.
Maybe the left will stop crying about Merrick Garland now?
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - MemTigers1998 - 06-15-2020 09:27 AM
What employer would be dumb enough to give that as the reason for termination?
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - TrueBlueDrew - 06-15-2020 09:37 AM
Good employers would never fire a loyal employee over the employee's personal life away from work, but there are a lot of bad employers out there. This just broadens protections that more than half the states have already passed anyways. I think it's a good thing although I don't understand why LGBT people would want to work for someone they knew was homophobic even if they can't be fired for it now.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - gdunn - 06-15-2020 10:04 AM
Never heard of an employer firing someone for that reason..
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - umbluegray - 06-15-2020 10:07 AM
(06-15-2020 09:37 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote: Good employers would never fire a loyal employee over the employee's personal life away from work, but there are a lot of bad employers out there. This just broadens protections that more than half the states have already passed anyways. I think it's a good thing although I don't understand why LGBT people would want to work for someone they knew was homophobic even if they can't be fired for it now.
FedEx just fired a guy for posting a video on his own time about BLM.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - 450bench - 06-15-2020 10:08 AM
(06-15-2020 10:04 AM)gdunn Wrote: Never heard of an employer firing someone for that reason..
Agreed...and who cares really? If you perform you task well, who cares. And why do libs just have to make a big deal out of carp like this? Seriously. Nobody cares.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - ArmyBlazer - 06-15-2020 10:12 AM
(06-15-2020 09:27 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote: What employer would be dumb enough to give that as the reason for termination?
Most don’t, but on occasion an employer fires someone for an openly discriminatory reason. You usually have to infer the discrimination from an employer’s conduct. For example, an employee of one race violates company policy and gets fired. An employee of another race commits similar misconduct and gets a slap on the wrist, if anything. Obviously, that’s a super simplified example, and there could be other factors to consider, but’s that’s normally what leads to these kind of employment actions.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - ECUGrad07 - 06-15-2020 10:13 AM
Remember... this is a big deal for liberals because they feed off identity politics. For most of us, this is an odd thing to consider "a big ruling" because most of us know that if you work hard, you will become a valued employee. In the world of the left, there is the fear of being fired because the evil conservative corporate type (which is crazy because most corporate types are liberal) is going to fire you for being gay.
It really is a bizarre world they live in. A sad one.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - BearcatMan - 06-15-2020 10:15 AM
(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.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - TrueBlueDrew - 06-15-2020 10:34 AM
(06-15-2020 10:07 AM)umbluegray Wrote:(06-15-2020 09:37 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote: Good employers would never fire a loyal employee over the employee's personal life away from work, but there are a lot of bad employers out there. This just broadens protections that more than half the states have already passed anyways. I think it's a good thing although I don't understand why LGBT people would want to work for someone they knew was homophobic even if they can't be fired for it now.
FedEx just fired a guy for posting a video on his own time about BLM.
What a terrific spin.
FedEx fired him for being caught on video kneeling on a friend's neck while screaming racial slurs at passersby.
Apples and oranges...
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - bullet - 06-15-2020 10:43 AM
(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.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - bullet - 06-15-2020 10:44 AM
(06-15-2020 10:13 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote: Remember... this is a big deal for liberals because they feed off identity politics. For most of us, this is an odd thing to consider "a big ruling" because most of us know that if you work hard, you will become a valued employee. In the world of the left, there is the fear of being fired because the evil conservative corporate type (which is crazy because most corporate types are liberal) is going to fire you for being gay.
It really is a bizarre world they live in. A sad one.
Lots of paranoids, not just on the far left, but the mainstream left.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - bullet - 06-15-2020 10:51 AM
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-gay-workers-protected-from-job-discrimination-in-big-win-for-lgbt-rights
In all 3 cases, the employer admitted they fired them because they were gay or transgender.
Gorsuch and Roberts were in the majority and Gorsuch wrote the opinion:
"...Ours is a society of written laws. Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee," said the court's opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch....
Justice Samuel Alito said the majority went too far, calling the decision "legislation," in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
"There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive," Alito wrote.
Alito noted that the majority opinion "no doubt arises from humane and generous impulses," acknowledging the desire to treat gay, lesbian, and transgender people "with the dignity, consideration, and fairness that everyone deserves," but said the court's role "is limited to saying what the law is," not adding to it.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh made a similar argument in a dissent of his own.
"Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court," he wrote.
At the same time, Kavanaugh recognized the significance of the court's ruling for LGBT rights.
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans," Kavanaugh wrote. "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.""
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - umbluegray - 06-15-2020 10:53 AM
(06-15-2020 10:34 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:(06-15-2020 10:07 AM)umbluegray Wrote:(06-15-2020 09:37 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote: Good employers would never fire a loyal employee over the employee's personal life away from work, but there are a lot of bad employers out there. This just broadens protections that more than half the states have already passed anyways. I think it's a good thing although I don't understand why LGBT people would want to work for someone they knew was homophobic even if they can't be fired for it now.
FedEx just fired a guy for posting a video on his own time about BLM.
What a terrific spin.
FedEx fired him for being caught on video kneeling on a friend's neck while screaming racial slurs at passersby.
Apples and oranges...
I think you missed this part: "employee's personal life away from work"
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - BearcatMan - 06-15-2020 10:54 AM
(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.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - 200yrs2late - 06-15-2020 11:05 AM
(06-15-2020 09:16 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:
I think the vote was even 6-3.
Didn't know it was being challenged. Makes sense to me.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - TrueBlueDrew - 06-15-2020 11:07 AM
(06-15-2020 10:53 AM)umbluegray Wrote:(06-15-2020 10:34 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:(06-15-2020 10:07 AM)umbluegray Wrote:(06-15-2020 09:37 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote: Good employers would never fire a loyal employee over the employee's personal life away from work, but there are a lot of bad employers out there. This just broadens protections that more than half the states have already passed anyways. I think it's a good thing although I don't understand why LGBT people would want to work for someone they knew was homophobic even if they can't be fired for it now.
FedEx just fired a guy for posting a video on his own time about BLM.
What a terrific spin.
FedEx fired him for being caught on video kneeling on a friend's neck while screaming racial slurs at passersby.
Apples and oranges...
I think you missed this part: "employee's personal life away from work"
Maybe he can take it to the Supreme Court and try to get them to make racists a protected group under the Civil Rights Act too, but I don't think he'd get very far.
RE: BIG Scotus Ruling - bullet - 06-15-2020 11:12 AM
(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.