U.S. Supreme Court Grants Review in Three LGBTQ Employment Discrimination Lawsuits

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn't protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it will review three cases that address whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion.

The three cases include: Altitude Express v. Zarda, a New York case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the estate of a skydiving instructor who was fired because he was gay; Bostock v. Clayton County, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against a Clayton County, Georgia, child welfare services coordinator fired when his employer discovered he was gay; and: R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v.EEOC, a Michigan case brought by the ACLU and ACLU of Michigan where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of a transgender woman fired from her job as a funeral director when she informed her boss she intended to transition. Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief and argued the Zarda case before the full Second Circuit in September 2017. Lambda Legal also filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the Georgia and Michigan cases.

This should be real interesting given the change in complexion of the supreme court since the appointment of two new Justices by trump-the first changes since Windsor and Obergefell . The first of those appointments replaces Scalia so it did not represent a net change in the court. The second of course replaced Justice Kennedy who was considered a conservative for the most part, but was an influential swing voter- particularly on gay rights issue. My guess is that Roberts- who is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court will not allow it to move to far to the right and will become the new swing voter and side with the liberal wing of the court on this and other civil rights issues.

The second interesting but more predictable aspect of this case is the position that the Trump administration will take on it. The Obama Administration's policy was that this issue is absolutely covered by the Civil Rights Act.. Not so the Trump Administration, despite his bloviating about how good he would be for the LGBT population during his campaign, We shall see

The Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn't protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination

The Department of Justice filed a brief Wednesday night arguing that a landmark federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn't protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it will review three cases that address whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion.

The three cases include: Altitude Express v. Zarda, a New York case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the estate of a skydiving instructor who was fired because he was gay; Bostock v. Clayton County, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against a Clayton County, Georgia, child welfare services coordinator fired when his employer discovered he was gay; and: R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v.EEOC, a Michigan case brought by the ACLU and ACLU of Michigan where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of a transgender woman fired from her job as a funeral director when she informed her boss she intended to transition. Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief and argued the Zarda case before the full Second Circuit in September 2017. Lambda Legal also filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the Georgia and Michigan cases.

This should be real interesting given the change in complexion of the supreme court since the appointment of two new Justices by trump-the first changes since Windsor and Obergefell . The first of those appointments replaces Scalia so it did not represent a net change in the court. The second of course replaced Justice Kennedy who was considered a conservative for the most part, but was an influential swing voter- particularly on gay rights issue. My guess is that Roberts- who is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court will not allow it to move to far to the right and will become the new swing voter and side with the liberal wing of the court on this and other civil rights issues.

The second interesting but more predictable aspect of this case is the position that the Trump administration will take on it. The Obama Administration's policy was that this issue is absolutely covered by the Civil Rights Act.. Not so the Trump Administration, despite his bloviating about how good he would be for the LGBT population during his campaign, We shall see

The Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn't protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination

The Department of Justice filed a brief Wednesday night arguing that a landmark federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

When I was working as a fire alarm tech for the General Services Admin, I was passed over for promotion because I was white, not quite old enough, male and a Christian. I went to the equal opportunity office, and was told that because of who I was they couldn't represent me. I was totally discriminated against, so fuck off to the fagots, queers and insane assholes. Take a fucking number. Welcome to the "white" man's world where you dont get shit because of who you are.

 

[TNHarley]

This is not a federal issue. There are no federal public accommodation laws for that but there are state laws. Or lack thereof.
Why would you support this anyhow? I thought you were for equal rights?

 

[Oddball]

This is not a federal issue. There are no federal public accommodation laws for that but there are state laws. Or lack thereof.
Why would you support this anyhow? I thought you were for equal rights?

Homo laws give him his favorite opportunity to virtue signal.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is not a federal issue. There are no federal public accommodation laws for that but there are state laws. Or lack thereof.
Why would you support this anyhow? I thought you were for equal rights?

Not a federal issue? So civil rights is not a federal issue. ? There were no federal public accommodation laws to protect blacks either prior to the civil rights act. There are state laws to protect LGBT people but not in every state so just what the fuck are you talking about. ?

 

[TNHarley]

This is not a federal issue. There are no federal public accommodation laws for that but there are state laws. Or lack thereof.
Why would you support this anyhow? I thought you were for equal rights?

Not a federal issue? So civil rights is not a federal issue. ? There were no federal public accommodation laws to protect blacks either prior to the civil rights act. There are state laws to protect LGBT people but not in every state so just what the fuck are you talking about. ?

Its not a federal issue because there are no federl laws for this. You are hoping the SC rules from the bench.
I know there are state laws. I know there are states with no laws addressing it. Thats what i said.
Why are you for institutionalized discrimination? I thought you were f9r equal rights?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is not a federal issue. There are no federal public accommodation laws for that but there are state laws. Or lack thereof.
Why would you support this anyhow? I thought you were for equal rights?

Not a federal issue? So civil rights is not a federal issue. ? There were no federal public accommodation laws to protect blacks either prior to the civil rights act. There are state laws to protect LGBT people but not in every state so just what the fuck are you talking about. ?

Its not a federal issue because there are no federl laws for this. You are hoping the SC rules from the bench.
I know there are state laws. I know there are states with no laws addressing it. Thats what i said.
Why are you for institutionalized discrimination? I thought you were f9r equal rights?

First of all, there is a Federal law. The Civil Rights Act. The issue before the court is whether or not gender identity and sexual orientation is covered by that law.

Secondly. there is the constitution which requires equal protection under the law.

Lastly, there is no legal precedent that requires that the Federal courts must have an existing federal law as a starting point in order to decide matter rule on matters of civil rights. If you can find such a precedent please show it to us.

Me institutionalizing discrimination? That does not make a lick of sense, but then again, you never do.

 

[DGS49]

This is the worst case of "judicial activism" in recent memory. Here we have federal court judges saying, "The law doesn't say this, but we think it should, so we will 'interpret' the law as though it were in there."

Total, total bullshit. "Legislating from the bench."

If there is a legal "God," the judges who have ruled this way should be removed from office.

There is absolutely no question about how the recently Sani-fied court will rule in this case. Read it and weep.

And notice that the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES has not moved to include sexually-fucked-up folks in this law...

Just sayin'

 

[TNHarley]

This is not a federal issue. There are no federal public accommodation laws for that but there are state laws. Or lack thereof.
Why would you support this anyhow? I thought you were for equal rights?

Not a federal issue? So civil rights is not a federal issue. ? There were no federal public accommodation laws to protect blacks either prior to the civil rights act. There are state laws to protect LGBT people but not in every state so just what the fuck are you talking about. ?

Its not a federal issue because there are no federl laws for this. You are hoping the SC rules from the bench.
I know there are state laws. I know there are states with no laws addressing it. Thats what i said.
Why are you for institutionalized discrimination? I thought you were f9r equal rights?

First of all, there is a Federal law. The Civil Rights Act. The issue before the court is whether or not gender identity and sexual orientation is covered by that law.

Secondly. there is the constitution which requires equal protection under the law.

Lastly, there is no legal precedent that requires that the Federal courts must have an existing federal law as a starting point in order to decide matter rule on matters of civil rights. If you can find such a precedent please show it to us.

Me institutionalizing discrimination? That does not make a lick of sense, but then again, you never do.

The civil rights act doesnt cover gays and trannies. It is quite clear.
Protected classes are institutional discrimination. You dont seem to be for equal rights. Not ACTUAL equal rights anyways. Just your biased version.
Yes, equal protection which goes AGAINST protected classes.

 

[jillian]

The Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn't protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it will review three cases that address whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion.

The three cases include: Altitude Express v. Zarda, a New York case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the estate of a skydiving instructor who was fired because he was gay; Bostock v. Clayton County, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against a Clayton County, Georgia, child welfare services coordinator fired when his employer discovered he was gay; and: R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v.EEOC, a Michigan case brought by the ACLU and ACLU of Michigan where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of a transgender woman fired from her job as a funeral director when she informed her boss she intended to transition. Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief and argued the Zarda case before the full Second Circuit in September 2017. Lambda Legal also filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the Georgia and Michigan cases.

This should be real interesting given the change in complexion of the supreme court since the appointment of two new Justices by trump-the first changes since Windsor and Obergefell . The first of those appointments replaces Scalia so it did not represent a net change in the court. The second of course replaced Justice Kennedy who was considered a conservative for the most part, but was an influential swing voter- particularly on gay rights issue. My guess is that Roberts- who is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court will not allow it to move to far to the right and will become the new swing voter and side with the liberal wing of the court on this and other civil rights issues.

The second interesting but more predictable aspect of this case is the position that the Trump administration will take on it. The Obama Administration's policy was that this issue is absolutely covered by the Civil Rights Act.. Not so the Trump Administration, despite his bloviating about how good he would be for the LGBT population during his campaign, We shall see

The Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn't protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination

The Department of Justice filed a brief Wednesday night arguing that a landmark federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Are you surprised that the position of the “president” is designed to hurt as many people as he can?

The pretend Christians love it though

 

[BlackFlag]

If Gorsuch and the rapist side in favor of discrimination there can be no more pretending by the Trump sheep that they're not out to punish and injure people who are gay.

 

[Pete7469]

Oh boy... another one of regressiveparasite's cut/pasted agitprop threads advocating for perverts and deviants, against the interest of US culture and morality.

Change the fucking record already, or at least try a different song.

 

[TNHarley]

The Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn't protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it will review three cases that address whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion.

The three cases include: Altitude Express v. Zarda, a New York case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the estate of a skydiving instructor who was fired because he was gay; Bostock v. Clayton County, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against a Clayton County, Georgia, child welfare services coordinator fired when his employer discovered he was gay; and: R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v.EEOC, a Michigan case brought by the ACLU and ACLU of Michigan where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of a transgender woman fired from her job as a funeral director when she informed her boss she intended to transition. Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief and argued the Zarda case before the full Second Circuit in September 2017. Lambda Legal also filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the Georgia and Michigan cases.

This should be real interesting given the change in complexion of the supreme court since the appointment of two new Justices by trump-the first changes since Windsor and Obergefell . The first of those appointments replaces Scalia so it did not represent a net change in the court. The second of course replaced Justice Kennedy who was considered a conservative for the most part, but was an influential swing voter- particularly on gay rights issue. My guess is that Roberts- who is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court will not allow it to move to far to the right and will become the new swing voter and side with the liberal wing of the court on this and other civil rights issues.

The second interesting but more predictable aspect of this case is the position that the Trump administration will take on it. The Obama Administration's policy was that this issue is absolutely covered by the Civil Rights Act.. Not so the Trump Administration, despite his bloviating about how good he would be for the LGBT population during his campaign, We shall see

The Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn't protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination

The Department of Justice filed a brief Wednesday night arguing that a landmark federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Are you surprised that the position of the “president” is designed to hurt as many people as he can?

The pretend Christians love it though

Is it a position, or can he just read the law?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The civil rights act doesnt cover gays and trannies. It is quite clear.

It is not at all clear. If it were clear , the lower courts would not have ruled for the plaintiffs. Tell us where you got your degree in constitutional law, slick.

 

[Meathead]

The Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn't protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court today announced it will review three cases that address whether discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin and religion.

The three cases include: Altitude Express v. Zarda, a New York case where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the estate of a skydiving instructor who was fired because he was gay; Bostock v. Clayton County, where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against a Clayton County, Georgia, child welfare services coordinator fired when his employer discovered he was gay; and: R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v.EEOC, a Michigan case brought by the ACLU and ACLU of Michigan where the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of a transgender woman fired from her job as a funeral director when she informed her boss she intended to transition. Lambda Legal filed a friend-of-the-court brief and argued the Zarda case before the full Second Circuit in September 2017. Lambda Legal also filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the Georgia and Michigan cases.

This should be real interesting given the change in complexion of the supreme court since the appointment of two new Justices by trump-the first changes since Windsor and Obergefell . The first of those appointments replaces Scalia so it did not represent a net change in the court. The second of course replaced Justice Kennedy who was considered a conservative for the most part, but was an influential swing voter- particularly on gay rights issue. My guess is that Roberts- who is concerned about his legacy and the legitimacy of the court will not allow it to move to far to the right and will become the new swing voter and side with the liberal wing of the court on this and other civil rights issues.

The second interesting but more predictable aspect of this case is the position that the Trump administration will take on it. The Obama Administration's policy was that this issue is absolutely covered by the Civil Rights Act.. Not so the Trump Administration, despite his bloviating about how good he would be for the LGBT population during his campaign, We shall see

The Trump administration declared that a landmark federal law doesn't protect LGBT employees from workplace discrimination

The Department of Justice filed a brief Wednesday night arguing that a landmark federal law does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Kagan should recuse herself since she's a dyke and Ginsberg too because she doesn't have a pulse.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Protected classes are institutional discrimination. You dont seem to be for equal rights. Not ACTUAL equal rights anyways. Just your biased version.
Yes, equal protection which goes AGAINST protected classes.

You have twisted yourself into a nice pretzel with that one. Metal gymnastics will not work. Protected classes are to insure equal protection, BECAUSE THEY have been discriminated against. Other have not been in the same way. The protected class will then enjoy protection equal to those who are not discriminated against. Let us know when a straight white guy is refused service for who he is and then maybe you'll have a case. Meanwhile , you so called argument is nothing more that a logical fallacy, specifically a Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

 

[TNHarley]

The civil rights act doesnt cover gays and trannies. It is quite clear.

It is not at all clear. If it were clear , the lower courts would not have ruled for the plaintiffs. Tell us where you got your degree in constitutional law, slick.

It is clear, dipshit.
Race color religion sex and nationality is what it covers.
Get congress to change the law, if you want to add gays and trannies.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The civil rights act doesnt cover gays and trannies. It is quite clear.

It is not at all clear. If it were clear , the lower courts would not have ruled for the plaintiffs. Tell us where you got your degree in constitutional law, slick.

It is clear, dipshit.
Race color religion sex and nationality is what it covers.
Get congress to change the law, if you want to add gays and trannies.

Tell it to the judges who think that it is. Again I ask, where did you get you law degree?

 

[TNHarley]

Protected classes are institutional discrimination. You dont seem to be for equal rights. Not ACTUAL equal rights anyways. Just your biased version.
Yes, equal protection which goes AGAINST protected classes.

You have twisted yourself into a nice pretzel with that one. Metal gymnastics will not work. Protected classes are to insure equal protection, BECAUSE THEY have been discriminated against. Other have not been in the same way. The protected class will then enjoy protection equal to those who are not discriminated against. Let us know when a straight white guy is refused service for who he is and then maybe you'll have a case. Meanwhile , you so called argument is nothing more that a logical fallacy, specifically a Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.

Protected classes are equality!
You heard it strait from a dumbfucks mouth!
Save the date! Lol

 

[TNHarley]

The civil rights act doesnt cover gays and trannies. It is quite clear.

It is not at all clear. If it were clear , the lower courts would not have ruled for the plaintiffs. Tell us where you got your degree in constitutional law, slick.

It is clear, dipshit.
Race color religion sex and nationality is what it covers.
Get congress to change the law, if you want to add gays and trannies.

Tell it to the judges who think that it is. Again I ask, where did you get you law degree?

I dont give a damn about judges. Judges get overruled all the time.
I can fuckin read. Im not a sheep like you and depend on everyone elses interpretation.