SCOTUS adds sexual orientation and gender identity to protected classes of the CRA (1

[Peter1469]

SCOTUS adds sexual orientation and gender identity to protected classes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

When SCOTUS accepted this case, this was the outcome that I predicted.

The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees from being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.The court on Monday issued opinions on two major decisions with far-reaching implications for the civil rights of transgender and LGBTQ individuals.
It was a 6-3 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the four liberal justices in the majority.
The rulings rest on a pair of arguments the court heard in October in which justices considered whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits workplace discrimination, applies to LGBTQ and transgender workers.


While Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of “race, color, national origin, sex, and religion,” the original bill didn’t define “sex” as a term. The Trump administration used that ambiguity to argue that lawmakers’ original intent focused solely on protecting women’s rights and, therefore, shouldn’t be extended to include sexual orientation or gender identity.

This is an example of judicial activism. The proper remedy would be for Congress to amend the statute to add sexual orientation and gender. J. Alito said as much during oral arguments.

“If the court takes this up and interprets this 1964 statute to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation,” Justice Samuel Alito said, “we will be acting exactly like a legislature.”

[Safety]

SCOTUS adds sexual orientation and gender identity to protected classes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

When SCOTUS accepted this case, this was the outcome that I predicted.




This is an example of judicial activism. The proper remedy would be for Congress to amend the statute to add sexual orientation and gender. J. Alito said as much during oral arguments.

I think this even strengthens the disparity in how the vote from '64 CRA aligns with ideology vs party. It is telling how the ideological differences have not changed one bit, but so many love to use "party" affiliation to argue things such as "the KKK was democrats", "democrats created Jim Crow", when all along I have pointed out it was ideology that drove those racist institutions, not party.

[Peter1469]

I think this even strengthens the disparity in how the vote from '64 CRA aligns with ideology vs party. It is telling how the ideological differences have not changed one bit, but so many love to use "party" affiliation to argue things such as "the KKK was democrats", "democrats created Jim Crow", when all along I have pointed out it was ideology that drove those racist institutions, not party.

Right. Ideology drove those big votes. With the CRA there is more correlation between North and South than Dem and Repub.

[Hoosier8]

SCOTUS adds sexual orientation and gender identity to protected classes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

When SCOTUS accepted this case, this was the outcome that I predicted.




This is an example of judicial activism. The proper remedy would be for Congress to amend the statute to add sexual orientation and gender. J. Alito said as much during oral arguments.

Which, of course, is judicial activism. Changing a law on the bench.

[Peter1469]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...-1618_hfci.pdf

link to the case

[carolina73]

How does one prove that I fired someone for being gay when i can fire anyone that I want if I don't like them?

I fired a guy for being a pedophile. He was raping his 9 year old daughter. The Sheriff came in and pulled him out the day before.
EEOC called and threatened us with a law suit. Okay. 30 days later I fired him again with a long list of infractions.

Do I feel bad? Hell no. I wanted to put his hands in the shear press.

[Peter1469]

You answered your own question.

How does one prove that I fired someone for being gay when i can fire anyone that I want if I don't like them?

I fired a guy for being a pedophile. He was raping his 9 year old daughter. The Sheriff came in and pulled him out the day before.
EEOC called and threatened us with a law suit. Okay. 30 days later I fired him again with a long list of infractions.

Do I feel bad? Hell no. I wanted to put his hands in the shear press.

Paper the file.

[carolina73]

You answered your own question.


Paper the file.

Yes. But my question was how do they prove if I get rid of someone because they are deviants. I just showed how easy it is to cover yourself.

[roadmaster]

Jobs are one thing, but when they allow men to go to womens restrooms, showers, and changing rooms, there will be choas. I hope Neil thought about that beforehand. The next is DACA, if Trump loses on this one, or adoration, it's over for him. It was never about who they were attracted to, it was about demanding other sexes to accommodate them and not being able to say, NO men with us.

[roadmaster]

Yes. But my question was how do they prove if I get rid of someone because they are deviants. I just showed how easy it is to cover yourself.

That will be next. Can't discriminate against a child molester. It's already happening in other countries, years ago. You should have seen that coming allowing known pedophiles for story book time in libraries.