US Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County

[Recusant]

I think the name of this case will become familiar to a certain element of the population in the United States in the coming years. The decision says that employers cannot legally dismiss employees because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Much to the dismay of the conservative evangelical Christians, the successful Republican scheme to pack the highest court in the land didn't result in the decision that they hoped for.

"Conservatives blast Gorsuch after LGBTQ discrimination decision: 'Among the worst jurists in the history of the United States'" | The Week

Justice Neil Gorsuch on Monday unexpectedly wrote the majority opinion as the Supreme Court ruled LGBTQ employees are protected from discrimination in the workplace, drawing ire from some on the right.

The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on Monday found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees from workplace discrimination, with Gorsuch, who was nominated to the court by President Trump, writing that "an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law." The historic ruling was celebrated by LGBTQ rights advocates, while many social conservatives decried Gorsuch's decision.

"The crisis moment for the 'conservative legal movement' has arrived," tweeted Newsweek's Josh Hammer, who previously said this decision by Gorsuch would be "an unprecedented betrayal." The American Conservative's Rod Dreher, meanwhile, wrote that it's "hard to overstate the magnitude of this loss for religious conservatives," while Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino argued that "Justice Scalia would be disappointed" and that "this was not judging, this was legislating." The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles also declared that conservatives will count Gorsuch as "among the worst jurists in the history of the United States," and Ben Shapiro said Gorsuch made "a bad, outcome-driven legal decision."

Erick Erickson additionally speculated this could damage Trump's re-election prospects, arguing that "all those evangelicals who sided with Trump in 2016 to protect them from the cultural currents, just found their excuse to stay home in 2020." Politico reporter Gabby Orr was skeptical, countering that it "seems likelier that they will attack Gorsuch/the Court than abandon Trump."

[Continues . . .]

Text of the decision and dissenting opinions can be found at the link below.

Bostock v. Clayton County | Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute

[No one]

Rules are made to be broken, or at the very least the can be bent extraordinarily.

Being of a LBGT lifestyle is not a reason you can "legally" fire someone, but everyone knows that there are ways around that.

[Tank]

Rules are made to be broken, or at the very least the can be bent extraordinarily.

Being of a LBGT lifestyle is not a reason you can "legally" fire someone, but everyone knows that there are ways around that.

What you say is true. But if you are of the LBGT persuasion and you get dismissed on a trumped up (how appropriate) reason you can now make the business owners life difficult. Of course the side effect of this is that homophobic employer will take great care not to hire an LGBT person in the first place as they can't just 'let them go' later. So the net effect could well be to reduce the employability of LGBT people. It's also a possible side effect that if an obviously LGBT person applies for a job for a non-homophobic employer that employer may be slightly less likely to employ them because they are worried they will play the LGBT card even when dismissed for a legitimate reason. Ramble over.

[No one]

Long story short, people suck.

[Tank]

Long story short, people suck.

Not all of them. But they tend to be prudish.

[No one]

Very clever. Thanks for the laugh.

[hermes2015]

Long story short, people suck.

Not all of them. But they tend to be prudish.

[Recusant]

Prompt response from a prominent bigot who cloaks his bigotry in religion. Note that his argument fails on its first logical hurdle--this ruling doesn't hinder his right to hold whatever noxious beliefs he likes. It does act as a deterrent to his use of those beliefs as justification for discrimination.

"Franklin Graham Fumes Over SCOTUS Ruling: My Rights to Fire LGBTQ People 'Are the Freedoms Our Nation Was Founded On'" | New Civil Rights Movement

Anti-LGBTQ activist Franklin Graham is furious over Monday's Supreme Court ruling that finds Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination, and says America was founded on his right to fire them.

"As a Bible-believing follower of Jesus Christ, my rights should be protected," Graham writing on Facebook about the SCOTUS decision, insists. "Even if my sincerely held religious beliefs might be the minority, I still have a right to hold them. The same holds true for a Christian organization. These are the freedoms our nation was founded on."

"I believe this decision erodes religious freedoms across this country," the evangelical Christian preacher continued. "People of sincere faith who stand on God's Word as their foundation for life should never be forced by the government to compromise their religious beliefs."

That's just plain false. For example, it's also the argument pedophile polygamist Warren Jeffs, President of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints made. The courts disagreed. (The FLDS is not the Mormon Church.)

Graham wasn't finished.

"Christian organizations should never be forced to hire people who do not align with their biblical beliefs and should not be prevented from terminating a person whose lifestyle and beliefs undermine the ministry's purpose and goals," he added.

Graham also falsely characterized the Supreme Court's historic ruling, claiming it "enacted a new law that adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the 1964 Civil Rights Act as 'protected classes.'"

That, too, is just plain false.

What the SCOTUS justices did was what other courts for more than a decade had already done: understand and realize that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is sex discrimination. They didn't "enact a new law," they recognized the existing law already protects LGBTQ people.

[Continues briefly . . .]

[billy rubin]

it all boils down to the public covenant.

if you want to do public business in the public theatre, then you must abide by the public rules that obtain there.

there's no reason why you can't be a bigot on your own property, on your own time. nobody requires you to invite black people to your birthday party or makes you allow gays to join your private picnic.

however.

if your run a company that deals with the public, its the public rules that govern the exchange, not those at your birthday party.

you don't have to have black people over for dinner, but you can't run a lunch counter open to the public and not let them sit down.

this guy has forgotten the difference between the public and the private sphere, and the public needs to be protected from him.

[No one]

Asshats like graham should do society a favor, and choke on a bag a dicks!

[hermes2015]

Asshats like graham should do society a favor, and choke on a bag a dicks!

No, I think he deserves punishment.

[Dark Lightning]

Asshats like graham should do society a favor, and choke on a bag a dicks!

No, I think he deserves punishment.

A bag of dicks isn't necessarily a punishment, amirite!? Depends on one's sexual persuasion.

[hermes2015]

Asshats like graham should do society a favor, and choke on a bag a dicks!

No, I think he deserves punishment.

A bag of dicks isn't necessarily a punishment, amirite!? Depends on one's sexual persuasion.

[No one]

I assumed the choking part was the punishment.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

They wanted a textualist, and that's what they got with Gorsuch.  The law forbids discrimination based on sex.  You can't separate "sex" from someone who is sexually attracted to a person of the same gender.  Conservatives don't like gays because of "sex".  Very simple. At least Gorsuch and Roberts had the integrity to stick by their principles and not be results oriented.  They have someone with integrity, not a lapdog. That pisses them off.