Page 2 of 2

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 3:46 pm
by kaitak
Societies evolve; times change. Back in the 1950s and 1960s (and indeed well into this century), LGBT people were known, but they were also the focus of much ire from the religious right and almost no politician would have supported them. I'm Irish and it was similar here - indeed much worse, because the Catholic Church held sway. After what was done to unmarried mothers, God help any Trans people the Church became aware of; they would have had them exorcised and there would have been absolutely no rights (as remained the case right until this century).

But we evolved; it was helped by the fact that the Church lost its moral authority, but there was also a lot of work done by people and organisations who were willing to tell the Church where to go and also, the fact that we were part of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights dictated many of the changes. If someone told you in the 1960s that one day, not only would there be gay marriage, but that our own prime minister would be gay, you'd have been laughed out of it. But it's happened and hardly anyone thinks it's in the least bit unusual or unacceptable.

Again, you go back to a basic point: the Constitution and the law exists for the good of the people and in a civilized, democratic society, the it should not operate to exclude people or to discriminate against them. Religious groups would argue that issues such as being gay or transgender are matters of choice rather than fact (they love the opportunity of misgendering Trans people and telling them how they won't afford them the dignity of recognition, because that - in their minds would be a lie), but that really only serves to emphasize the need to afford protection.

Stating that Church and State are separate and that there will be no law to recognise a particular religion is of little meaning if religious groups can then influence political parties and leaders to deny rights which should be self evident. The dissenters - on the SC and in politics - might say that this was legislation and that it should have been left to the legislature, BUT they (the dissenters) know FULL WELL that this was never going to happen, so in the absence of the legislature recognizing their obligation to treat the LGBT community fairly and honorably, it left a vacuum. The SC has now filled this vacuum.

The President, clearly hostile to any concept of rights, recognition or dignity for the Trans community, says that the government can "live with" it, but the beauty of it is, there is no choice. Of course (as happened last week), it will continue to chip away at their dignity and ability to live life without discrimination, but what has happened is clearly a step forward, which would NEVER have happened without the involvement of the SC.

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:58 pm
by Tugger
kaitak wrote:
Again, you go back to a basic point: the Constitution and the law exists for the good of the people and in a civilized, democratic society, the it should not operate to exclude people or to discriminate against them.

Heck of a post Kaitak, and this part is I think the most telling and most important part in my opinion.

It is telling when people use law and legislation to reduce/remove/eviscerate the rights of others, in particular another group whom they don't like. To remove equal treatment, make it legal to discriminate against entire classes of people.

Our nation began with a constitution that counted a certain group of people as only 1/5 of a person, that did not recognize the right to vote for more than half of the adult population. Those failures have been corrected over the years through reasoned debate and wars and everything in between and we will need to continue to address any similar shortcomings in the future.

Hopefully we as a nation will always continue to be up to the task.

Tugg

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 5:25 pm
by Dieuwer
Tugger wrote:
Hopefully we as a nation will always continue to be up to the task.

Tugg


Perhaps not quite on-topic, but I wonder if there is some sort of grand cycle where people actually move from a liberal society to a theocratic society (with zero rights) and back again to a liberal society.
After all, the Ancient Greeks were very liberal, but the following Roman Empire was less so and the European Middle Ages a disaster for liberal thought. Only after 1000+ years moved the West back to liberalism. So, who knows what will happen 1000 years from now...

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:12 pm
by GalaxyFlyer
Tugger wrote:
kaitak wrote:
Again, you go back to a basic point: the Constitution and the law exists for the good of the people and in a civilized, democratic society, the it should not operate to exclude people or to discriminate against them.

Heck of a post Kaitak, and this part is I think the most telling and most important part in my opinion.

It is telling when people use law and legislation to reduce/remove/eviscerate the rights of others, in particular another group whom they don't like. To remove equal treatment, make it legal to discriminate against entire classes of people.

Our nation began with a constitution that counted a certain group of people as only 1/5 of a person, that did not recognize the right to vote for more than half of the adult population. Those failures have been corrected over the years through reasoned debate and wars and everything in between and we will need to continue to address any similar shortcomings in the future.

Hopefully we as a nation will always continue to be up to the task.

Tugg


But this case removes reasoned thought and democratic process and substitutes the opinion of 6 people who were unelected and unaccountable to public. Is that what you seek, dictatorial rule by a 9-person committee?

Congress and the public thru the political process works but if you don’t like the outcome, go to the committee of nine? Where’s that in the Constitution?

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:12 pm
by seahawk
I would be very careful with celebrating this. If you read the majority opinion it already contains a way to circumvent the ruling - just claim you are exercising your religious freedom.

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:43 pm
by Tugger
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Tugger wrote:
kaitak wrote:
Again, you go back to a basic point: the Constitution and the law exists for the good of the people and in a civilized, democratic society, the it should not operate to exclude people or to discriminate against them.

Heck of a post Kaitak, and this part is I think the most telling and most important part in my opinion.

It is telling when people use law and legislation to reduce/remove/eviscerate the rights of others, in particular another group whom they don't like. To remove equal treatment, make it legal to discriminate against entire classes of people.

Our nation began with a constitution that counted a certain group of people as only 1/5 of a person, that did not recognize the right to vote for more than half of the adult population. Those failures have been corrected over the years through reasoned debate and wars and everything in between and we will need to continue to address any similar shortcomings in the future.

Hopefully we as a nation will always continue to be up to the task.

Tugg


But this case removes reasoned thought and democratic process and substitutes the opinion of 6 people who were unelected and unaccountable to public. Is that what you seek, dictatorial rule by a 9-person committee?

Congress and the public thru the political process works but if you don’t like the outcome, go to the committee of nine? Where’s that in the Constitution?

Actually, how does it remove "reasoned thought and democratic process"? The judicial process is designed into the "democratic process" as it is used as the tool t assist in questions on applying the laws and "democratic process".

There is no imposition by 6 unelected people, there is the law and there was a question as to how it applied. That is what the courts are democratically tasked with. That people had not thought about this previously is not a failing or a flaw. The law was passed and this is what the law does. Throughout the history of the USA laws have been passed and then later been reviewed, as part of our constitutional and democratic process, to understand clearly any questions people have of how said law applies. Whether freedom of speech or gun ownership, or voting access and what rules apply to a taco truck, laws are applied by and enforced by the court system once passed.

And ultimately this law applies to the sex of a person and how that is allowed to be used in treating others the same or differently. How is that improper or some new invention? And if one is seeking to treat people unequally, then you need to raise your voice and seek legislation to address and allow that. However I have one question: WHY would anyone want that?

Tugg

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:23 pm
by LittleFokker
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But this case removes reasoned thought and democratic process and substitutes the opinion of 6 people who were unelected and unaccountable to public. Is that what you seek, dictatorial rule by a 9-person committee?

Congress and the public thru the political process works but if you don’t like the outcome, go to the committee of nine? Where’s that in the Constitution?


Unelected? This is the stupidest damn argument you weak minded conservatives can come up with when things don't go your way. There are only 535 positions in the federal government that are directly elected by the people, 2 that are quasi elected by the people, and tens of thousands that are not elected by anyone. Judges, by design, are nominated by the Executive branch and are (supposed to be) vetted and approved by the Senate. In theory, that process should be sufficient - in fact, it does allow for a small amount of partisanship and can still be effective. But McConnell has forever tainted the process of nominating and approving judges. There's an organization dedicated to finding any schmo in the country with a law related degree, willing to say they hate abortion, and fluffing them up to thinking they're deserving of a federal judiciary position.

Repeat after me: THERE. IS. NO. LIBERAL. EQUIVALENT. TO. THE. HERITAGE. FOUNDATION. You will not find one organization with a direct line to the top of the DNC whose purpose is promoting any person to high level judicial positions just because they say guns are bad. Go ahead, look, you won't find one.

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:04 pm
by GalaxyFlyer
LittleFokker wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But this case removes reasoned thought and democratic process and substitutes the opinion of 6 people who were unelected and unaccountable to public. Is that what you seek, dictatorial rule by a 9-person committee?

Congress and the public thru the political process works but if you don’t like the outcome, go to the committee of nine? Where’s that in the Constitution?


Unelected? This is the stupidest damn argument you weak minded conservatives can come up with when things don't go your way. There are only 535 positions in the federal government that are directly elected by the people, 2 that are quasi elected by the people, and tens of thousands that are not elected by anyone. Judges, by design, are nominated by the Executive branch and are (supposed to be) vetted and approved by the Senate. In theory, that process should be sufficient - in fact, it does allow for a small amount of partisanship and can still be effective. But McConnell has forever tainted the process of nominating and approving judges. There's an organization dedicated to finding any schmo in the country with a law related degree, willing to say they hate abortion, and fluffing them up to thinking they're deserving of a federal judiciary position.

Repeat after me: THERE. IS. NO. LIBERAL. EQUIVALENT. TO. THE. HERITAGE. FOUNDATION. You will not find one organization with a direct line to the top of the DNC whose purpose is promoting any person to high level judicial positions just because they say guns are bad. Go ahead, look, you won't find one.


And that’s the best you can do? We don’t have an organization, so we’re better? Really?

No court in the land can make final decisions in the manner of the SCOTUS. They can make laws out of thin air. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, no one dreamed the word “sex” meant what the SCOTUS said it meant this week. Why are you so damned afraid of actually persuading the public and the Congress to write laws or amend laws when society changes, rather than have 9 people change it for you. Read the legislative history, “.six” was added to kill the bill in ‘64

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:14 pm
by scbriml
LittleFokker wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But this case removes reasoned thought and democratic process and substitutes the opinion of 6 people who were unelected and unaccountable to public. Is that what you seek, dictatorial rule by a 9-person committee?

Congress and the public thru the political process works but if you don’t like the outcome, go to the committee of nine? Where’s that in the Constitution?


Unelected? This is the stupidest damn argument you weak minded conservatives can come up with when things don't go your way. There are only 535 positions in the federal government that are directly elected by the people, 2 that are quasi elected by the people, and tens of thousands that are not elected by anyone. Judges, by design, are nominated by the Executive branch and are (supposed to be) vetted and approved by the Senate. In theory, that process should be sufficient - in fact, it does allow for a small amount of partisanship and can still be effective. But McConnell has forever tainted the process of nominating and approving judges. There's an organization dedicated to finding any schmo in the country with a law related degree, willing to say they hate abortion, and fluffing them up to thinking they're deserving of a federal judiciary position.

Repeat after me: THERE. IS. NO. LIBERAL. EQUIVALENT. TO. THE. HERITAGE. FOUNDATION. You will not find one organization with a direct line to the top of the DNC whose purpose is promoting any person to high level judicial positions just because they say guns are bad. Go ahead, look, you won't find one.


Those same weak-minded conservatives are also delighted when the unelected SC rules the way they want! :rotfl:

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:14 pm
by Pellegrine
I want to caution other people celebrating this that if you go through this type of lawsuit you're going to need proof that you're firing was sexual orientated. I've sued 2 ex-employers in the past, one over money and my sexuality. (DC had a law against this before this SCOTUS ruling.) The sexuality part was thrown out because the employer knew I was gay before he fired me, even though he sent me nasty homophobic messages. I settled the money issue to my benefit. In any employer/employee relation SAVE THE RECEIPTS. Save things that you don't even think you need or have the authorization to. If it comes across your computer or mobile...save it to a device that you personally own.

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:29 pm
by Tugger
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
When the Civil Rights Act was passed, no one dreamed the word “sex” meant what the SCOTUS said it meant this week.

Look not to be pedantic or go off topic, but do you think the founders had machine guns and high capacity automatics with hollow tip bullets in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment? Based on your argument that should have an impact on that law/right as well.

Do you agree? And if not why? The framers did not have such things in mind when the law was made.

And again, how do you, you yourself, apply anything regarding homosexuality, transgender, or any other related element WITHOUT having the actual born sex of the person not apply?

Tugg

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:33 pm
by Dieuwer
Pellegrine wrote:
I want to caution other people celebrating this that if you go through this type of lawsuit you're going to need proof that you're firing was sexual orientated. I've sued 2 ex-employers in the past, one over money and my sexuality. (DC had a law against this before this SCOTUS ruling.) The sexuality part was thrown out because the employer knew I was gay before he fired me, even though he sent me nasty homophobic messages. I settled the money issue to my benefit. In any employer/employee relation SAVE THE RECEIPTS. Save things that you don't even think you need or have the authorization to. If it comes across your computer or mobile...save it to a device that you personally own.


Receiving nasty homophobic messages is harassment by your employer. Which is illegal in many states. I cannot imagine any reasonable judge tossing that out.

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:44 pm
by Pellegrine
Dieuwer wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
I want to caution other people celebrating this that if you go through this type of lawsuit you're going to need proof that you're firing was sexual orientated. I've sued 2 ex-employers in the past, one over money and my sexuality. (DC had a law against this before this SCOTUS ruling.) The sexuality part was thrown out because the employer knew I was gay before he fired me, even though he sent me nasty homophobic messages. I settled the money issue to my benefit. In any employer/employee relation SAVE THE RECEIPTS. Save things that you don't even think you need or have the authorization to. If it comes across your computer or mobile...save it to a device that you personally own.


Receiving nasty homophobic messages is harassment by your employer. Which is illegal in many states. I cannot imagine any reasonable judge tossing that out.


It was complex and I wasn't pure as the snow is white. I was also paying out the ass for a K Street lawyer at a decent size firm. I got more than I was owed money-wise + lawyer's fees so I was happy at the end. It didn't go to trial, it was a settlement. It was "thrown out" between lawyers, not a judge. My mistake.

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

Posted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:22 pm
by LittleFokker
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
LittleFokker wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
But this case removes reasoned thought and democratic process and substitutes the opinion of 6 people who were unelected and unaccountable to public. Is that what you seek, dictatorial rule by a 9-person committee?

Congress and the public thru the political process works but if you don’t like the outcome, go to the committee of nine? Where’s that in the Constitution?


Unelected? This is the stupidest damn argument you weak minded conservatives can come up with when things don't go your way. There are only 535 positions in the federal government that are directly elected by the people, 2 that are quasi elected by the people, and tens of thousands that are not elected by anyone. Judges, by design, are nominated by the Executive branch and are (supposed to be) vetted and approved by the Senate. In theory, that process should be sufficient - in fact, it does allow for a small amount of partisanship and can still be effective. But McConnell has forever tainted the process of nominating and approving judges. There's an organization dedicated to finding any schmo in the country with a law related degree, willing to say they hate abortion, and fluffing them up to thinking they're deserving of a federal judiciary position.

Repeat after me: THERE. IS. NO. LIBERAL. EQUIVALENT. TO. THE. HERITAGE. FOUNDATION. You will not find one organization with a direct line to the top of the DNC whose purpose is promoting any person to high level judicial positions just because they say guns are bad. Go ahead, look, you won't find one.


And that’s the best you can do? We don’t have an organization, so we’re better? Really?


Yes, that's exactly it. If there isn't a formal organization handing the President a list of names and saying "choose one of these people or else we pull funding," then it makes it far more likely that people are considered for judgeships based on actual qualifications.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No court in the land can make final decisions in the manner of the SCOTUS. They can make laws out of thin air. When the Civil Rights Act was passed, no one dreamed the word “sex” meant what the SCOTUS said it meant this week. Why are you so damned afraid of actually persuading the public and the Congress to write laws or amend laws when society changes, rather than have 9 people change it for you. Read the legislative history, “.six” was added to kill the bill in ‘64


The three branches of government should work in concert together. If the legislative branch doesn't do it's job to clarify laws, then the judicial branch will fill that role. If the legislative branch fails to pass laws/bills to correct a current need, then the executive branch fills in. If the Executive branch overreaches, the legislative or judicial can step in. If the Judicial side issues a bad ruling, the legislative can pass a law to override it, impeach the judge if proper to, and the executive branch can nominate a replacement. Works great in theory, but if the powers get out of balance without correction, then we're in trouble. I am against election of judges - I don't want them to be politicians, and it's really hard to judge judges based on cases worked without knowing the individual details of the case. The public just doesn't have the opportunity or intellectual thirst to decide who should be a judge.

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

Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 12:23 am
by alfa164
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
No court in the land can make final decisions in the manner of the SCOTUS. They can make laws out of thin air.


The law was passed by Congress (one branch of government), and signed by the Chief Executive (the second branch). It is the duty of the Supreme Court (third branch) to interpret it when any question arises.

If you have an argument with the Constitution.... teleport yourself back to 1776 and talk to Ben, et al...


GalaxyFlyer wrote:
When the Civil Rights Act was passed, no one dreamed the word “sex” meant what the SCOTUS said it meant this week.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Read the legislative history, “.six” (sic) was added to kill the bill in ‘64


In two sentences, you have already contradicted yourself...


:roll:


LittleFokker wrote:
The three branches of government should work in concert together. If the legislative branch doesn't do it's job to clarify laws, then the judicial branch will fill that role. If the legislative branch fails to pass laws/bills to correct a current need, then the executive branch fills in. If the Executive branch overreaches, the legislative or judicial can step in. If the Judicial side issues a bad ruling, the legislative can pass a law to override it, impeach the judge if proper to, and the executive branch can nominate a replacement. Works great in theory, but if the powers get out of balance without correction, then we're in trouble. I am against election of judges - I don't want them to be politicians, and it's really hard to judge judges based on cases worked without knowing the individual details of the case. The public just doesn't have the opportunity or intellectual thirst to decide who should be a judge.


:checkmark: This. It is amazing how much "Constitutionalists" love the Constitution - until it interferes with their dogma, hatreds, and bully tactics...

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

Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 1:46 am
by maverick4002
So silly question, anyone knows how the results are actually determined? There are 9 justices,so what do the do?

Put a ballot in a box and have an outsider count the votes? Is their a group discussion like say in jury deliberations? How exactly is the final result realized?

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

Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:06 am
by LittleFokker
maverick4002 wrote:
So silly question, anyone knows how the results are actually determined? There are 9 justices,so what do the do?

Put a ballot in a box and have an outsider count the votes? Is their a group discussion like say in jury deliberations? How exactly is the final result realized?


The cases are typically litigated back in November-February, but they wait to announce decisions. I'm sure after arguments for each side (each justice has the opportunity to ask questions of the representative), there is private debate among the justices. They vote within themselves, and a majority judge is chosen to write the court opinion while a minority justice is chosen to write the dissent. Probably based on workload of the cases, who votes how, if one feels more passionately about the case, etc. Then in June (typical USSC decision season), the verdicts are delivered orally and the written opinions are submitted for public viewing. Cameras are not allowed in the courtroom, so journalists are often seen running out of the court after a decision to be the first to get the verdict out there.

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

Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 2:47 am
by maverick4002
LittleFokker wrote:
maverick4002 wrote:
So silly question, anyone knows how the results are actually determined? There are 9 justices,so what do the do?

Put a ballot in a box and have an outsider count the votes? Is their a group discussion like say in jury deliberations? How exactly is the final result realized?


The cases are typically litigated back in November-February, but they wait to announce decisions. I'm sure after arguments for each side (each justice has the opportunity to ask questions of the representative), there is private debate among the justices. They vote within themselves, and a majority judge is chosen to write the court opinion while a minority justice is chosen to write the dissent. Probably based on workload of the cases, who votes how, if one feels more passionately about the case, etc. Then in June (typical USSC decision season), the verdicts are delivered orally and the written opinions are submitted for public viewing. Cameras are not allowed in the courtroom, so journalists are often seen running out of the court after a decision to be the first to get the verdict out there.


oh interesting, thank you

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

Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:48 pm
by tommy1808
maverick4002 wrote:
LittleFokker wrote:
maverick4002 wrote:
So silly question, anyone knows how the results are actually determined? There are 9 justices,so what do the do?

Put a ballot in a box and have an outsider count the votes? Is their a group discussion like say in jury deliberations? How exactly is the final result realized?


The cases are typically litigated back in November-February, but they wait to announce decisions. I'm sure after arguments for each side (each justice has the opportunity to ask questions of the representative), there is private debate among the justices. They vote within themselves, and a majority judge is chosen to write the court opinion while a minority justice is chosen to write the dissent. Probably based on workload of the cases, who votes how, if one feels more passionately about the case, etc. Then in June (typical USSC decision season), the verdicts are delivered orally and the written opinions are submitted for public viewing. Cameras are not allowed in the courtroom, so journalists are often seen running out of the court after a decision to be the first to get the verdict out there.


oh interesting, thank you


I wonder how much thought goes into who is writing. The choice in this case would seem like a statement ala "this is not some leftwing liberal activist judge ruling".

Best regards
Thomas

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

Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 2:42 pm
by MaverickM11
seahawk wrote:
I would be very careful with celebrating this. If you read the majority opinion it already contains a way to circumvent the ruling - just claim you are exercising your religious freedom.

Nothing new there--christians used religious freedom to support slavery, segregation, and now Trump. Even evangelical scum gave up on segregation when it became politically incorrect--but #praiseHim with their Messiah Trump I'm sure they're chomping at the bit to hang whites only signs in their establishments asap. For religious liberty of course.

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

Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 2:46 pm
by MaverickM11
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
When the Civil Rights Act was passed, no one dreamed the word “sex” meant what the SCOTUS said it meant this week. Why are you so damned afraid of actually persuading the public and the Congress to write laws or amend laws when society changes, rather than have 9 people change it for you. Read the legislative history, “.six” was added to kill the bill in ‘64


God textualist tears are the most delicious. Almost as tasty as social conservative tears. It's fun to watch textualists and originalists backpedal furiously to divine what "was really meant" by the text, when the text is plain as day.