Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
tommy1808
Topic Author
Posts: 12909
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:12 pm

I guess Neil Gorsuch was honest when he said he is a textualist, as he wrote the majority opinion. That I do respect in people I dont agree with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
extender
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:21 pm

As it should be.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15125
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:22 pm

The USA's Supreme Court ruled that Gender and sexual orientation including transsexuals is covered by Federal law from discrimination in employment. I am not sure if this includes religious and faith group employers like teachers in religious schools. it was a solid 6-3 majority decision. A very important and timely decision as it comes during 'pride' month.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics ... index.html
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10422
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:37 pm

I was very surprised and very pleased to hear of the ruling! What Justice Gorsuch stated: "Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," is the simple argument I have been making when discussing such discrimination. The idea that somehow people were not directly discriminating based on the sex of the person is people deluding themselves. Why otherwise does the person find the orientation of a person to be an issue?

Anyway, good to see the court system, as imperfect as it is, doing its job and most importantly key justices thinking indepedently of any preconceived notions we have of them.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13042
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:42 pm

Imagine the decision going the other way though. The uproar and damage done to the Court would be massive.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11309
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:45 pm

It is an interesting case, and part of me think that the three dissents were dissents of politics. I can't find anything compelling in the dissent other than the tired old garbage of Literal translations/Legislation of the court. It is interesting to note that we have judges to handle issues where Congress has made made laws, and then interpret how they apply in situation that don't have direct laws. . The only reason for this "literalist" interpretation is to appease the folks that don't understand how the three branches work.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 11649
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:50 pm

This is 2020, right, in a western liberal democracy?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8368
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:57 pm

Aesma wrote:
Imagine the decision going the other way though. The uproar and damage done to the Court would be massive.

There's always gonna be someone unhappy with the rulings, but this is why I think judges should not have to be elected. No doubt you'll find a lot of MAGATSs complaining about the decision today.

That being said, the image of the Supreme Court has been tarnished with McConnell's blockade. Maybe Garland's vote would not have changed the outcome. Maybe it would have been 6-3...or maybe Gorsuch would have taken Kennedy's position regardless and it would have been a 7-2 decision.

I can only hope that Biden wins and Democrats capture the Senate. Then, Ginsburg and Stevens can be asked to retire and fill their seats with younger liberals...and see if Thomas kicks the bucket as well to finally have a 5-4 liberal majority.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8368
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:59 pm

Dutchy wrote:
This is 2020, right, in a western liberal democracy?

*waiting for the "The US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy" crowd to show up and make the argument, as a means to justify denying rights to people"
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10422
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:00 pm

Dutchy wrote:
This is 2020, right, in a western liberal democracy?

Yes, but remember, we sadly have a Trump administration hard at work to appease his base at whatever cost to the rest of the nation. I also don't think "liberal democracy" could be accurately applied to the USA.

Of the dissenting opinions, I found Kavenaugh a little duplicitous with his statement of support but also saying the case should not have decided as it was. Although he did not join one of the other dissenting opinions so I can only guess guess he was somewhere between finding the current Title VII law applied directly and wanting Congress to actually pass legislation with a clear statement. But again, I would still go back to him with Gorsuch's opinion and ask how the sex of the person is not directly involved in such actions and protections?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:12 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
I guess Neil Gorsuch was honest when he said he is a textualist, as he wrote the majority opinion. That I do respect in people I dont agree with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

Best regards
Thomas


A "textualist"? It seems he is more of the "can't have it both ways" kind.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3506
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:25 pm

The decision should be a no-brainer anyway. All people are created equal and should be treated equally under the law, period.

P.S. Looks like Gorsuch will be the swing vote for years to come
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 22333
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:54 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
The decision should be a no-brainer anyway. All people are created equal and should be treated equally under the law, period.


Unless people are trying to get married at a court house or buy a wedding cake. In those cases, religion wins out for some reason.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11989
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:58 pm

Tugger wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
This is 2020, right, in a western liberal democracy?

Yes, but remember, we sadly have a Trump administration hard at work to appease his base at whatever cost to the rest of the nation. I also don't think "liberal democracy" could be accurately applied to the USA.

Of the dissenting opinions, I found Kavenaugh a little duplicitous with his statement of support but also saying the case should not have decided as it was. Although he did not join one of the other dissenting opinions so I can only guess guess he was somewhere between finding the current Title VII law applied directly and wanting Congress to actually pass legislation with a clear statement. But again, I would still go back to him with Gorsuch's opinion and ask how the sex of the person is not directly involved in such actions and protections?

Tugg


It’s almost like he doesn’t realize justices’ written opinions are on record forever. How embarrassing for his kids and legacy :lol:
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11989
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:00 pm

seb146 wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
The decision should be a no-brainer anyway. All people are created equal and should be treated equally under the law, period.


Unless people are trying to get married at a court house or buy a wedding cake. In those cases, religion wins out for some reason.


Court house - no place for religion to dictate there. Wedding cake? C’mon - private businesses can reflect their religious beliefs in their conduct. It’s their sales and reputation to risk, and a wedding cake is not an essential public service enshrined in law. Have apple pies instead!
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10422
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:02 pm

seb146 wrote:
Unless people are trying to get married at a court house or buy a wedding cake. In those cases, religion wins out for some reason.

Which I never understood as many religions did honor and recognize LGBTQ+ weddings for looong before it was "legal".

The "religious freedom" argument should have won out long ago if that was the case.

The reality is there was deep ignorance/discrimination/fear/hate/etc. ingrained in many people even if they could not admit it. That the back of that has been utterly broken is one of the most stupendous things that occurred in the US in the early 2000's. It still exists sadly but there is little broad support or traction for it anymore outside small groups and individuals.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
apodino
Posts: 3880
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:10 pm

Tugger wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
This is 2020, right, in a western liberal democracy?

Yes, but remember, we sadly have a Trump administration hard at work to appease his base at whatever cost to the rest of the nation. I also don't think "liberal democracy" could be accurately applied to the USA.

Of the dissenting opinions, I found Kavenaugh a little duplicitous with his statement of support but also saying the case should not have decided as it was. Although he did not join one of the other dissenting opinions so I can only guess guess he was somewhere between finding the current Title VII law applied directly and wanting Congress to actually pass legislation with a clear statement. But again, I would still go back to him with Gorsuch's opinion and ask how the sex of the person is not directly involved in such actions and protections?

Tugg

I understand the logic behind what Kavanaugh said. Basically, my understanding of what Kavanaugh said is that Kavanaugh personally believes that nobody should be fired for being Gay. However, because Sexual Orientation was not explicitly stated in the 1960's law, the court had no power to add Sexual Orientation to the law without the approval of congress. (Basically adding such protections is Legislating from the Bench, which the court does not have constitutional authority to do.) This is basically the rationale behind the dissenting opinions. It's not that they believed that LGBT people should be fired for who they are, its that the court did not have the power solely to add those protections, only congress does.

Which raises another question, why has Congress not specifically passed such a law in the first place? The democrats could have easily passed this law in 2009 when they had the White House and the Court would not have specifically had to rule on this case this way. It seems to me that Liberals rather than pass laws that should be no brainers on these issues, would rather leave it to the Courts to decide these matters, and that to me is very dangerous. It basically allows congress to not do anything and let the courts do all the work for them. Which brings me to...

einsteinboricua wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Imagine the decision going the other way though. The uproar and damage done to the Court would be massive.

There's always gonna be someone unhappy with the rulings, but this is why I think judges should not have to be elected. No doubt you'll find a lot of MAGATSs complaining about the decision today.

That being said, the image of the Supreme Court has been tarnished with McConnell's blockade. Maybe Garland's vote would not have changed the outcome. Maybe it would have been 6-3...or maybe Gorsuch would have taken Kennedy's position regardless and it would have been a 7-2 decision.

I can only hope that Biden wins and Democrats capture the Senate. Then, Ginsburg and Stevens can be asked to retire and fill their seats with younger liberals...and see if Thomas kicks the bucket as well to finally have a 5-4 liberal majority.


I respectfully disagree. This is why I actually find liberal justices dangerous, as Liberal justices will try to twist and turn meanings, in order that the law changes from the way it is written to try to adapt to modern times. To me this is dangerous. The Constitution clearly says that this power is given to Congress, not to the courts. I think the system was meant more for originalists who see the constitution and the law as nothing more than what is written in the law. If congress is doing its job properly, cases like this and Obergfell should never have reached the supreme court. And leaving these issues to the courts creates two problems. One it causes lawmakers to be lazy, and not actually pass laws on this subject. (Has congress ever passed a law overturning the Defense of Marriage act, and providing for Same Sex marriage?) Two, the need for politicians to administer litmus tests to prospective justices is magnified. Now the emphasis on Supreme Court nominees from the Left is protect Roe v Wade, protect Obergfell at all costs regardless of what the laws actually say. The emphasis on a good justice should be on what the law says and nothing more.


That all aside, there is absolutely no reason at all that a person should be fired for being Gay or Transgender period. The troubling part of this is that it took a court ruling, rather than congress doing their actual job, to make this happen. Even more disturbing is the fact that Government officials were trying to actually defend discrimination. This result needed to happen. I just have questions over the way it happened. But a 6-3 ruling with two conservatives joining sends a clear message.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11989
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:15 pm

apodino wrote:
Tugger wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
This is 2020, right, in a western liberal democracy?

Yes, but remember, we sadly have a Trump administration hard at work to appease his base at whatever cost to the rest of the nation. I also don't think "liberal democracy" could be accurately applied to the USA.

Of the dissenting opinions, I found Kavenaugh a little duplicitous with his statement of support but also saying the case should not have decided as it was. Although he did not join one of the other dissenting opinions so I can only guess guess he was somewhere between finding the current Title VII law applied directly and wanting Congress to actually pass legislation with a clear statement. But again, I would still go back to him with Gorsuch's opinion and ask how the sex of the person is not directly involved in such actions and protections?

Tugg

I understand the logic behind what Kavanaugh said. Basically, my understanding of what Kavanaugh said is that Kavanaugh personally believes that nobody should be fired for being Gay. However, because Sexual Orientation was not explicitly stated in the 1960's law, the court had no power to add Sexual Orientation to the law without the approval of congress. (Basically adding such protections is Legislating from the Bench, which the court does not have constitutional authority to do.) This is basically the rationale behind the dissenting opinions. It's not that they believed that LGBT people should be fired for who they are, its that the court did not have the power solely to add those protections, only congress does.

Which raises another question, why has Congress not specifically passed such a law in the first place? The democrats could have easily passed this law in 2009 when they had the White House and the Court would not have specifically had to rule on this case this way. It seems to me that Liberals rather than pass laws that should be no brainers on these issues, would rather leave it to the Courts to decide these matters, and that to me is very dangerous. It basically allows congress to not do anything and let the courts do all the work for them. Which brings me to...

einsteinboricua wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Imagine the decision going the other way though. The uproar and damage done to the Court would be massive.

There's always gonna be someone unhappy with the rulings, but this is why I think judges should not have to be elected. No doubt you'll find a lot of MAGATSs complaining about the decision today.

That being said, the image of the Supreme Court has been tarnished with McConnell's blockade. Maybe Garland's vote would not have changed the outcome. Maybe it would have been 6-3...or maybe Gorsuch would have taken Kennedy's position regardless and it would have been a 7-2 decision.

I can only hope that Biden wins and Democrats capture the Senate. Then, Ginsburg and Stevens can be asked to retire and fill their seats with younger liberals...and see if Thomas kicks the bucket as well to finally have a 5-4 liberal majority.


I respectfully disagree. This is why I actually find liberal justices dangerous, as Liberal justices will try to twist and turn meanings, in order that the law changes from the way it is written to try to adapt to modern times. To me this is dangerous. The Constitution clearly says that this power is given to Congress, not to the courts. I think the system was meant more for originalists who see the constitution and the law as nothing more than what is written in the law. If congress is doing its job properly, cases like this and Obergfell should never have reached the supreme court. And leaving these issues to the courts creates two problems. One it causes lawmakers to be lazy, and not actually pass laws on this subject. (Has congress ever passed a law overturning the Defense of Marriage act, and providing for Same Sex marriage?) Two, the need for politicians to administer litmus tests to prospective justices is magnified. Now the emphasis on Supreme Court nominees from the Left is protect Roe v Wade, protect Obergfell at all costs regardless of what the laws actually say. The emphasis on a good justice should be on what the law says and nothing more.


That all aside, there is absolutely no reason at all that a person should be fired for being Gay or Transgender period. The troubling part of this is that it took a court ruling, rather than congress doing their actual job, to make this happen. Even more disturbing is the fact that Government officials were trying to actually defend discrimination. This result needed to happen. I just have questions over the way it happened. But a 6-3 ruling with two conservatives joining sends a clear message.


As an employer, I take the majority’s reading a little differently. Perhaps you can say the 1960s parameters were expanded, but that’s not how the majority saw it. 100s of pages later everything boils down to this: Title VII protects everyone from sex-based discrimination. Orientation is inherently sex-based categorization of persons, therefore it’s under the Title VII umbrella. Everything else is window-dressing.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19044
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:16 pm

Dutchy wrote:
This is 2020, right, in a western liberal democracy?


You're going to offend an awful lot of Americans by using the L-word. :lol:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10422
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:19 pm

apodino wrote:
Which raises another question, why has Congress not specifically passed such a law in the first place? The democrats could have easily passed this law in 2009 when they had the White House

If I recall correctly, there were not enough votes in congress to override a filibuster and the Dems were not willing to take it upon themselves to destroy the filibuster.

apodino wrote:
I understand the logic behind what Kavanaugh said. Basically, my understanding of what Kavanaugh said is that Kavanaugh personally believes that nobody should be fired for being Gay. However, because Sexual Orientation was not explicitly stated in the 1960's law, the court had no power to add Sexual Orientation to the law without the approval of congress. (Basically adding such protections is Legislating from the Bench, which the court does not have constitutional authority to do.) This is basically the rationale behind the dissenting opinions. It's not that they believed that LGBT people should be fired for who they are, its that the court did not have the power solely to add those protections, only congress does.

But I still go back to the fact that Gosuch highlighted: How do you separate the sex of a person from discrimination based on "orientation". It is (pardon the pun) physically impossible to do so. Is it not?

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9302
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:22 pm

Aesma wrote:
Imagine the decision going the other way though. The uproar and damage done to the Court would be massive.


Hardly. Title VII is a statutory law that Congress has drafted bills to amend several times. If the Court had arrived at a different decision, it would be no different than the status quo when we went to bed yesterday in which Congress has failed to act all these years. That it even came to the USSC is the real uproar because it shows that the art of moving bills between both parties has completely collapsed in Congress.

For me, the only surprise with Gorsuch joining the majority isn’t the matter of principle, but the matter of practice that he has said many times the USSC should not be bailing out Congress for their inability to write and pass clear laws.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11989
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:25 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Aesma wrote:
Imagine the decision going the other way though. The uproar and damage done to the Court would be massive.


Hardly. Title VII is a statutory law that Congress has drafted bills to amend several times. If the Court had arrived at a different decision, it would be no different than the status quo when we went to bed yesterday in which Congress has failed to act all these years. That it even came to the USSC is the real uproar because it shows that the art of moving bills between both parties has completely collapsed in Congress.

For me, the only surprise with Gorsuch joining the majority isn’t the matter of principle, but the matter of practice that he has said many times the USSC should not be bailing out Congress for their inability to write and pass clear laws.


The failures of update/amendment in Congress are a wholly peripheral matter to the crux of what Title VII actually protects, was his calculation.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
apodino
Posts: 3880
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:28 pm

Tugger wrote:
apodino wrote:
Which raises another question, why has Congress not specifically passed such a law in the first place? The democrats could have easily passed this law in 2009 when they had the White House

If I recall correctly, there were not enough votes in congress to override a filibuster and the Dems were not willing to take it upon themselves to destroy the filibuster.

apodino wrote:
I understand the logic behind what Kavanaugh said. Basically, my understanding of what Kavanaugh said is that Kavanaugh personally believes that nobody should be fired for being Gay. However, because Sexual Orientation was not explicitly stated in the 1960's law, the court had no power to add Sexual Orientation to the law without the approval of congress. (Basically adding such protections is Legislating from the Bench, which the court does not have constitutional authority to do.) This is basically the rationale behind the dissenting opinions. It's not that they believed that LGBT people should be fired for who they are, its that the court did not have the power solely to add those protections, only congress does.

But I still go back to the fact that Gosuch highlighted: How do you separate the sex of a person from discrimination based on "orientation". It is (pardon the pun) physically impossible to do so. Is it not?

Tugg

I never said that I disagreed with the decision. What I said was I understand why three Justices dissented and their reason for dissenting makes perfect sense. But if the exact words in the law are "Sex Based", then there is no doubt in my mind that this decision was correct.

As for the first part, the Democrats literally had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, with 60 seats. I am not buying that argument at all. The only reason it became filibuster proof is because hell literally froze over and MA voters actually elected a republican to the Senate.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 18076
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:28 pm

Tugger wrote:
I was very surprised and very pleased to hear of the ruling! What Justice Gorsuch stated: "Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," is the simple argument I have been making when discussing such discrimination. The idea that somehow people were not directly discriminating based on the sex of the person is people deluding themselves. Why otherwise does the person find the orientation of a person to be an issue?

It's interesting to see the originalists and textualists tie themselves up in knots trying to impute intention and meaning onto the word sex, when it's so simple: whether you're male, female, half 'n half, part centaur, both depending on the day of the week--it doesn't matter: you can't be discriminated for it.

Dutchy wrote:
This is 2020, right, in a western liberal democracy?

Does the USA qualify? I'm not so sure :rotfl:

Tugger wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Unless people are trying to get married at a court house or buy a wedding cake. In those cases, religion wins out for some reason.

Which I never understood as many religions did honor and recognize LGBTQ+ weddings for looong before it was "legal".

The "religious freedom" argument should have won out long ago if that was the case.

Religious liberty was used to support slavery and segregation. Liberty University was started as whites only in the 70s because of "religious liberty". Religious liberty needs a Frank Luntz rebrand to what it really is: Christian discrimination, and it will evaporate about as fast as Evangelicals' support for segregation when it was no longer kosher in polite society.
I don't take responsibility at all
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 11989
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:30 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
Tugger wrote:
I was very surprised and very pleased to hear of the ruling! What Justice Gorsuch stated: "Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," is the simple argument I have been making when discussing such discrimination. The idea that somehow people were not directly discriminating based on the sex of the person is people deluding themselves. Why otherwise does the person find the orientation of a person to be an issue?

It's interesting to see the originalists and textualists tie themselves up in knots trying to impute intention and meaning onto the word sex, when it's so simple: whether you're male, female, half 'n half, part centaur, both depending on the day of the week--it doesn't matter: you can't be discriminated for it.

Dutchy wrote:
This is 2020, right, in a western liberal democracy?

Does the USA qualify? I'm not so sure :rotfl:

Tugger wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Unless people are trying to get married at a court house or buy a wedding cake. In those cases, religion wins out for some reason.

Which I never understood as many religions did honor and recognize LGBTQ+ weddings for looong before it was "legal".

The "religious freedom" argument should have won out long ago if that was the case.

Religious liberty was used to support slavery and segregation. Liberty University was started as whites only in the 70s because of "religious liberty". Religious liberty needs a Frank Luntz rebrand to what it really is: Christian discrimination, and it will evaporate about as fast as Evangelicals' support for segregation when it was no longer kosher in polite society.


The one and only Lady Luntz! Funny stuff :lol:
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:33 pm

It was clearly important to SCOTUS, otherwise they could have simply declined to hear the case.

apodino wrote:
As for the first part, the Democrats literally had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, with 60 seats. I am not buying that argument at all. The only reason it became filibuster proof is because hell literally froze over and MA voters actually elected a republican to the Senate.


...which didn't last long.
Besides, IMO the Filibuster is anti-Democratic and needs to go.
 
stlgph
Posts: 11210
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:36 pm

A no brainer ruling but at the end of the day, if an employer wants to terminate your position, an employer can still do just that through other ways and means.
if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3811
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:40 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
The decision should be a no-brainer anyway. All people are created equal and should be treated equally under the law, period.

P.S. Looks like Gorsuch will be the swing vote for years to come


As long as Ginsburg is still on the court Roberts is usually the swing vote and I think if Roe v. Wade ever was challenged again he would vote with the liberal justices.
You may not agree with him but he seems to be consistent on maintaining people's rights most of the time.

Granted I am by no means a supreme court junkie though.

Tugger wrote:
apodino wrote:
Which raises another question, why has Congress not specifically passed such a law in the first place? The democrats could have easily passed this law in 2009 when they had the White House

If I recall correctly, there were not enough votes in congress to override a filibuster and the Dems were not willing to take it upon themselves to destroy the filibuster.



If Biden wins and the democrats take the senate they better get rid of it.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15125
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:44 pm

stlgph wrote:
A no brainer ruling but at the end of the day, if an employer wants to terminate your position, an employer can still do just that through other ways and means.

Sadly, it will still happen. They will look for other ways for sure, as done with race, religion, disability factors.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10422
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:51 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
Besides, IMO the Filibuster is anti-Democratic and needs to go.


StarAC17 wrote:
If Biden wins and the democrats take the senate they better get rid of it.

For me, I see the respect for the filibuster, as antithetical as it may seem to "democracy", as a very real and needed nod to what the USA is: A Republic with and ingrained need to respect minority views. Now obviously that is mostly out the window nowadays but I do see it that way. I prefer the respect cooperation and compromise over the bull-in-the-china shop, "might makes right" modes we seem to have now. I'm just a romantic at heart wishing for times past I guess.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
tommy1808
Topic Author
Posts: 12909
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:12 pm

apodino wrote:
Which raises another question, why has Congress not specifically passed such a law in the first place?


According to the supreme court they did. You can not be discriminated against because of your sex, when you get fired because you love men, you do so because you are not a woman. A woman would keep her job in the same position, because she is a woman.
That is logically entirely consistent, and since it so obviously is included in the text, the question is rather why didn't congress explicitly exclude it? They did already have gay people back then, no?

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
apodino
Posts: 3880
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:03 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
apodino wrote:
Which raises another question, why has Congress not specifically passed such a law in the first place?


According to the supreme court they did. You can not be discriminated against because of your sex, when you get fired because you love men, you do so because you are not a woman. A woman would keep her job in the same position, because she is a woman.
That is logically entirely consistent, and since it so obviously is included in the text, the question is rather why didn't congress explicitly exclude it? They did already have gay people back then, no?

Best regards
Thomas

Apparently, when title VII was first debated, people in Congress tried to add an amendment to specifically add LGBT protections and it didn't pass.

Also, someone else pointed out that there is no way in the 1960's that anyone would ever imagine the word sex to be applied in this manner either.

Again, I am not saying I disagree with the ruling. But if congress does their job properly, everything is spelled out in Plain English so the court doesn't have to get involved with these types of interpretations.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11309
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:26 pm

apodino wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
apodino wrote:
Which raises another question, why has Congress not specifically passed such a law in the first place?


According to the supreme court they did. You can not be discriminated against because of your sex, when you get fired because you love men, you do so because you are not a woman. A woman would keep her job in the same position, because she is a woman.
That is logically entirely consistent, and since it so obviously is included in the text, the question is rather why didn't congress explicitly exclude it? They did already have gay people back then, no?

Best regards
Thomas

Apparently, when title VII was first debated, people in Congress tried to add an amendment to specifically add LGBT protections and it didn't pass.

Also, someone else pointed out that there is no way in the 1960's that anyone would ever imagine the word sex to be applied in this manner either.

Again, I am not saying I disagree with the ruling. But if congress does their job properly, everything is spelled out in Plain English so the court doesn't have to get involved with these types of interpretations.



Interpretations are why we have judicial branch. They have to decide each cased based on the merits of the laws before them. As seen below, sex has everything to do with why these people are being fired, and nothing to do with their job performance.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13042
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:13 pm

apodino wrote:
Which raises another question, why has Congress not specifically passed such a law in the first place? The democrats could have easily passed this law in 2009 when they had the White House and the Court would not have specifically had to rule on this case this way. It seems to me that Liberals rather than pass laws that should be no brainers on these issues, would rather leave it to the Courts to decide these matters, and that to me is very dangerous. It basically allows congress to not do anything and let the courts do all the work for them. Which brings me to...


Why didn't Trump ban abortion when he could ? Or religious zealot W ? Or their Republican predecessors ?
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
kaitak
Posts: 9872
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Mon Jun 15, 2020 10:09 pm

I think the problem is that if such a law were passed by a Democratic-led congress, a Republican congress - backed and pushed into it by evangelists and other Religious groups, would seek to overturn it. Having a "SC" stamp on it protects it much more than legislation would.

I think it's a great day and I am all the more pleased that it was Gorsuch who wrote the majority judgment. As to the dissenting judgments and the literalist approach, the following points should be made:
1) Given the current administration's stance on LGBT issues, as evidenced by its opposition to transgender people in the military and various other developments, there wasn't an icicle's chance in hell that they would lift a finger to protect LGBT rights,
2) In a democratic society, the state (which includes its constitution) exists for the good of the people and should be interpreted that way. Arguments such as those put forward by dissenting judges seem not to see the wood for the trees.
3) Society benefits when people are not subject to discrimination; this is a good result, not just for LGBT people, but for America. True, a company could find another method of getting rid of people, but if a court were to find that those other reasons were just a diversion, then that would be more than a little harmful (and costly!) to the companies in question.
4) Although (thankfully) religion didn't play a massive role in the judgment, it is very much at the center of opposition to LGBT rights and (further to No2, above) this judgment should be seen as a further reminder that religious groups cannot expect to allowed to maintain discrimination against groups of which it disapproves. The state exists for ALL of the people; it does not exist for the good of any religion and the people do not exist for the good of any religion.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 13938
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 1:57 am

About damn time to me. The religious wacks must be furious and also the prejudiced and the haters. Imagine having to fight this to the USSC in this day and age. Good for Justice Roberts and Gorsuch. Dare I include some of the far right religious corporations also. Screw all of them.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
KFTG
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:47 am

Excellent news.
 
tommy1808
Topic Author
Posts: 12909
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:36 am

apodino wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
apodino wrote:
Which raises another question, why has Congress not specifically passed such a law in the first place?


According to the supreme court they did. You can not be discriminated against because of your sex, when you get fired because you love men, you do so because you are not a woman. A woman would keep her job in the same position, because she is a woman.
That is logically entirely consistent, and since it so obviously is included in the text, the question is rather why didn't congress explicitly exclude it? They did already have gay people back then, no?

Best regards
Thomas

Apparently, when title VII was first debated, people in Congress tried to add an amendment to specifically add LGBT protections and it didn't pass.


The guy that introduced Sex as protected did so to fail the whole law, he ended up voting against it.
Obviously people may say something and mean the opposite. How do you know that no on realized that was covered by the sex and figured that the explicit LGBT protection wasn´t needed to get it....

Oh, right, because

someone else pointed out that there is no way in the 1960's that anyone would ever imagine the word sex to be applied in this manner either.


Yeah.. right.. in the 60s. You know, at the beginning of the sexual revolution people just couldn´t think of that. There was no Kinsey report either ..... well, of course there was.

Also, back in the 60s most people considered homosexuality a mental illness or developmental maladjustment. And i think people didn´t need to be told that you don´t discrimiate against sick people.

Again, I am not saying I disagree with the ruling. But if congress does their job properly, everything is spelled out in Plain English so the court doesn't have to get involved with these types of interpretations.


There is no interpretation going on, the ruling follows straight from the text. No matter how many LGBTQ haters voted for the law, the intent still was that you can´t be discriminated against because of your sex. That some num nuts in congress didn´t think all the way through to what that may entail is their problem, they ended up without adding "you can not be discriminated against, unless you are x,y,z" Its one of the rare instances where text and intend mean the same thing.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11309
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 2:07 pm

I just wonder how much effect this will have on the Im"moral Majority" in the future?

They have pushed so much money and time into shaping politics, only to be delivered decisive defeats on many of their issues. Below is an article on the reactions, and it shows some rather shining intolerance n many of the folks that are angered.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/neil ... reme-court

Those fights to get Kavanaugh and Gorsuch confirmed while holding up Garland The cost looks high and the reward? Not much.

The next case to watch is — June Medical Services v. Russo ( Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the new members at play here)

This is the Louisiana replay of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt ( 5-3) decision.( alito, roberts and thomas were the dissenters).

https://www.wwno.org/post/scotus-watch- ... sion-nears
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
apodino
Posts: 3880
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:16 pm

Interstingly enough there is very little outcry from either Trump or GOP members of congress on this, as it almost seems like they all wanted this decision or at least the result to happen. The only complaints I saw from GOP senators, noteably Populists Mitt Romney and Josh Hawley, is that adding protections for LGBT workers is the job of Congress, not the supreme court. But the GOP establishment has rightly seen that LGBT rights aren't controversial anymore and I suspect you will see very little opposition going forward from the GOP establishment on LGBT issues.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 11309
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:20 pm

apodino wrote:
Interstingly enough there is very little outcry from either Trump or GOP members of congress on this, as it almost seems like they all wanted this decision or at least the result to happen. The only complaints I saw from GOP senators, noteably Populists Mitt Romney and Josh Hawley, is that adding protections for LGBT workers is the job of Congress, not the supreme court. But the GOP establishment has rightly seen that LGBT rights aren't controversial anymore and I suspect you will see very little opposition going forward from the GOP establishment on LGBT issues.


Probably not, but there is trouble afoot with the SC's within the GOP.

https://theweek.com/articles/920057/jus ... D=ref_fark

When Trump critics accused social conservatives of having sold their souls to a president unworthy of their adoration, the stock response was now "But Gorsuch!" Translation: Trump might have flaws, but he promised to deliver us the judiciary, and on that he's made good! No matter what happened over the coming decades in the political arena, conservatives had captured the courts, and that would ensure victories on the issues that really matter to the religious right: protecting the unborn and religious freedom, and limiting gay and transgender rights.

With his 29-page majority opinion in Bostock, Gorsuch blew that electoral rationale out of the water.


If the abortion case goes the wrong way for SC's in the next few weeks, we could be at a watershed moment, where the "religious right' has to reevaluate it's posturing in politics.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
Dieuwer
Posts: 2413
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2017 6:27 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:26 pm

The SC's will probably start mass shootings everywhere if SCOTUS doesn't do their bidding a next time.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 10422
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:36 pm

apodino wrote:
But the GOP establishment has rightly seen that LGBT rights aren't controversial anymore and I suspect you will see very little opposition going forward from the GOP establishment on LGBT issues.

Then why did they just invalidate LGBTQ protections for protections for transgender patients against discrimination by doctors, hospitals and health insurance companies?

So while I think that you are correct that this is becoming less of an issue, and that the Republican party is likely seeing this more and more as a losing issue and trying to figure out how to ameliorate the ill will within their ranks, I disagree that the GOP is not against in general and overall, any "expansion" of LGBTQ rights. I think the reason they didn't come out full-throated about the decision is because it was penned by "their guy", and that won't help them in any way.

My guess? They will next support and push for a case regarding religion to carve that out as clearly as possible.

As another example the GOP still endorses that any state be allowed to define marriage as limited to only man and woman (and importantly that is as defined by chromosomes).
https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/static/ ... atform.pdf

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. - W. Shatner
There are many kinds of sentences that we think state facts about the world but that are really just expressions of our attitudes. - F. Ramsey
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5659
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:37 pm

Does anyone think the 88th Congress with Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 voted to include transgender people (a concept pretty alien then) as a protected class? Does anyone think, if you brought back LBJ, he wouldn’t be shocked at the idea? This is nine men in black robes taking over the law and bending it was ways the framers of that law wouldn’t recognize. Law is supposed to be fixed and discernible, not rubbery,

GF
 
luckyone
Posts: 3027
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:05 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Does anyone think the 88th Congress with Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 voted to include transgender people (a concept pretty alien then) as a protected class? Does anyone think, if you brought back LBJ, he wouldn’t be shocked at the idea? This is nine men in black robes taking over the law and bending it was ways the framers of that law wouldn’t recognize. Law is supposed to be fixed and discernible, not rubbery,

GF

Be careful, because that's many's argument about the second amendment--that it was written many moons ago and doesn't reflect the current gun technology. LBJ has been dead for almost 50 years. 50 years is a long time to learn new stuff. And according to the interpretation of the act, as defined, it is fixed, and based on sex and people's perception of the behavior associated with one's sex, and the argument can be made very easily that social sexual norms were in some way being challenged and discussed well before that act was passed.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5659
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:40 pm

luckyone wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Does anyone think the 88th Congress with Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 voted to include transgender people (a concept pretty alien then) as a protected class? Does anyone think, if you brought back LBJ, he wouldn’t be shocked at the idea? This is nine men in black robes taking over the law and bending it was ways the framers of that law wouldn’t recognize. Law is supposed to be fixed and discernible, not rubbery,

GF

Be careful, because that's many's argument about the second amendment--that it was written many moons ago and doesn't reflect the current gun technology. LBJ has been dead for almost 50 years. 50 years is a long time to learn new stuff. And according to the interpretation of the act, as defined, it is fixed, and based on sex and people's perception of the behavior associated with one's sex, and the argument can be made very easily that social sexual norms were in some way being challenged and discussed well before that act was passed.


Fine, then write a new by democratic representative vote like the dozens of other laws that addressed sexual orientation. Nine judges in robes don’t write the laws and the legislative history of the law is pretty clear, sex was defined as man and woman. New times call for new calls, not let judges bend the law to your desired outcomes.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3516
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:43 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Law is supposed to be fixed and discernible, not rubbery,



That is exactly what the Court ruled; in his opinion, Gorsuch went to great lengths to point out the read the law exactly as it was written - "fixed and discernable", as you say - and it was on that basis rendered their opinion.

Just because that reading doesn't align with the prejudice and bigotry of a minority of our population doesn't make it wrong.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
tommy1808
Topic Author
Posts: 12909
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:47 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Does anyone think the 88th Congress with Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 voted to include transgender people (a concept pretty alien then) as a protected class?


transgender people where not an "alien" concept, they just didn´t live as openly as they do today, and people being gay was absolutely known at the time. The natives knew that concept since essentially forever, and Transgender existed in US culture exactly as long as the US does (Public Universal Friend) with public exposure. "Glen or Glenda" came out in 1953. There where transgender clubs before 1964 (http://www.glbtqarchive.com/ssh/transge ... vism_S.pdf) ......

Do you think LBJ if brought back to say "Yeah... i signed that protection into law, but if i had to do it again i would insist a whole group of US citizens to be excluded from that""?

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
tommy1808
Topic Author
Posts: 12909
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:51 am

alfa164 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Law is supposed to be fixed and discernible, not rubbery,



That is exactly what the Court ruled; in his opinion, Gorsuch went to great lengths to point out the read the law exactly as it was written - "fixed and discernable", as you say - and it was on that basis rendered their opinion.

Just because that reading doesn't align with the prejudice and bigotry of a minority of our population doesn't make it wrong.


:checkmark:
We could make a challenge out of that...... "formulate a scenario in which you fire an LGBTQ citizen for being LGBTQ, without their sex playing any role in that argument, or shut up."

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4111
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Supreme court: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

Wed Jun 17, 2020 1:04 pm

Human sexuality has been somewhat constant in every age and era. There have always been mythical ideas, mythical standards, and laws. Their enforcement has always been inconsistent, unfair, and whatever the current ruler/ruling elite wanted they got. In a certain sense progressive laws and rulings on sexuality are revolutionary, in that they simply conform to an acceptance of what actually happens, harm reduction, and protection of the weak. I challenged a noted conservative blogger to come up with an era and civilization in which his narrow interpretation of Christian sexual ethics was actually observed. I know, and he knows he can't.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dutchy, olle and 54 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos