Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender, Supreme Court rules

a reply to: Boadicea

Any and all sex-based rights and protections that have been taken away by inclusion of the opposite sex

Which rights are defined by sex?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your freedom of "thought" argument is moot, since "expression", not thought, is the operative word. I'll leave the thought policing to the religious community.

It is very clear you aren't familiar with the philosophical construction of the US constitution.

Trans people are expressing themselves as a 1st Amendment right. You're upset that you might have to recognize that expression as a right to wear whatever attire suits them, but I bet you don't have a problem with religious people's exercise of their religious rights by wearing robes, scarves and habits.

If you think this is about what people wear you are even further away from the conversation than I thought.

But, SCOTUS' ruling today wasn't about the 1st Amendment. It was about the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and whether or not LGBT folk at included in Title VII's protections. They are, according to SCOTUS.

Yes. Not the argument I'm making at all. My initial response to you had more to do with the actions the Trump administration took rather than what you're saying here.

You're not even paying attention to what you're writing.

a reply to: Phage

Some examples of the sex-based rights and protections I'm talking about include women and girls competitive sports, shelters and refuges for victims of rape and domestic violence, anyplace a woman/girl partly or completely undresses, the right to a female doctor for medical treatment, or female examiners if I am raped, a female officer to search my body if I am arrested...

Other women, at different stages of life, with additional needs and conditions particular to being female, will likewise have their rights and protections being usurped.

a reply to: projectvxn

LOL

I think you're the one having a heard time following a line of thought. But, I'll make this real simple for you.

The SCOTUS ruling, that the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Title VII includes the LGBT community is not giving LGBT folks special rights.

Nobody is violating your civil rights by forcing you to say anything.

Equal treatment under law does not mean that anyone is forced to believe anything.

It's an absurd claim.

a reply to: Boadicea

I do agree that it may not be sportsmanlike for transwomen to compete in some "women's" sports. I don't think sportsmanship is a right, however. And there are transmen who chose to compete in "men's" sports.

As far as I know, one can still consult a doctor of one's choosing.

Other women, at different stages of life, with additional needs and conditions particular to being female, will likewise have their rights and protections being usurped.

How so?

a reply to: Phage

Samual Alito disagrees with you.

The courts dissent outlines 7 areas where this ruling could impact years of court cases because of how it was decided. He outlined sports as just one of the areas where this ruling will cause problems for the court to have to work out.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Phage

Samual Alito disagrees with you.

The courts dissent outlines 7 areas where this ruling could impact years of court cases because of how it was decided. He outlined sports as just one of the areas where this ruling will cause problems for the court to have to work out.

I think that's generally referred to as a Dissenting Opinion for a reason.

2nd

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Boadicea

I do agree that it may not be sportsmanlike for transwomen to compete in some "women's" sports. I don't think sportsmanship is a right, however. And there are transmen who chose to compete in "men's" sports.

I would agree that sex-based competitive sports are not a human right" endowed by Nature and Nature's God," but it is a civil right, duly enacted by those with the Constitutional authority to do so.

As far as I know, one can still consult a doctor of one's choosing.

In some situations, like an emergency, a doctor may be assigned, and sex-based rights guarantee we must be assigned a doctor by sex if requested and available; self-ID would allow men to self-identify themselves into that position, and women would not be allowed to refuse them. Likewise for other sensitive situations in which women need to right and protection to refuse male-bodied people.

How so?

Pregnant women who want a female midwife... a new mother that wants a female breastfeeding coach... incarcerated women who are housed with violent sexual predators...

a reply to: Gryphon66

He raises valid points. All of the areas in question are currently covered by laws that rely on "sex" in their language, and the current ruling opens the door to legal wrangling that will likely reach the SCOTUS and require more such rulings as the one today.

When does "sex" legally mean gender identity too and when does it only mean biology? That can of worms was opened today with this ruling creating a precedent that will almost certainly haunt the court for years to come, and that was the basis of Alito's dissent. It wasn't that he didn't think there should be protections, rather that it should have been the legislature's job to rewrite legal protections and wording to make this clear over the court's to deem a word as having this or that meaning.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well, perhaps we will have legislation in the future to address these issues.

This decision addressed Title VII.

What about a church or religious institution, most of the institutionalized religions might be against this. I would imagine this issue will turn up in that venue real soon and have a lot of lawsuits coming.


Does this solve that?

a reply to: Bluntone22

Informally, I have heard echoes of your standpoint over the years. Rather than risk violating New Zealand's anti-discrimination laws, some employers, won't reveal their true reasons for not hiring an individual or renewing their contract.

I support the (U.S.) Supreme Court's ruling on this matter. Nevertheless, the wildcard is aspects of the unusual times we are living through. The Mugabe types who support defunding urban police departments threatening every person in their domains, who don't have access to private security (more like armies) firms. LGBT rights are meaningless if, in the absence of law enforcement, anarchy reigns supreme in neighbourhoods.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Phage

Samual Alito disagrees with you.

The courts dissent outlines 7 areas where this ruling could impact years of court cases because of how it was decided. He outlined sports as just one of the areas where this ruling will cause problems for the court to have to work out.

I just read your link... And I don't understand his logic. I need to read the decision itself now (not just someone's summary).

I read the original court arguments, and they were clearly arguing on the basis of what is expected of men vs. women. That was the crux of it all. Can an employer fire these men for doing what they would not fire a woman for doing. In the case of the transgender funeral parlor employee, the employer had a specific dress code requiring pants for men and skirts/dresses for women. So the question before the court is can the employer fire a male employee for wearing something it would be okay for a woman employee to wear. In the case of the gay employee, it came down to whether the employer can fire a man for having a relationship with a man, when they would not fire a woman for having a relationship with a man.

One of the analyses of the arguments I read made the point that based on the arguments presented for the funeral home, the employer could have simply changed the dress code to ALL employees wear pants, not allowing women to wear dresses/skirts either, and the case would have been over. At that point, theoretically, the employer would not be discriminating based upon sex, because the dress code applied equally to both men and women. So, at least, according to what I read then, this ruling in effect clearly establishes sex (not gender identity) as separate, but with equal rights and equal expectations. This decision is not re-defining sex, but ruling strictly according to sex (not gender identity).

The issue of sex-based sports or other sex-based rights and protections is a different question, because both sexes are equally covered so there is no discrimination. There are both men and women's sports, both men and women's bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, shelters, prisons, etc. This is where the court would have to literally re-define sex in order to rule for a gender identity to replace biological sex. Such as in the Connecticut school girls case. It's not a matter of girls having a track team and boys not having a track team. There is no sex discrimination here. It is literally a matter of defining the sexes.

I've read several summaries of the decision, but I haven't found the decision itself to read for myself yet. But this is how I understood the legal arguments, so I'm not sure why Alito feels different, and his arguments don't really explain.

a reply to: Boadicea

Bostock v. Clayton County

Also, since we wanted to disagree with each other the other day ... can you tell me how different facilities based on two sexes is not a continuation of the discarded idea of "separate but equal."

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Bostock v. Clayton County

Thank you!

Also, since we wanted to disagree with each other the other day ... can you tell me how different facilities based on two sexes is not a continuation of the discarded idea of "separate but equal."

Sure... easy peasy. There are distinct anatomical/biological (sex based) functional differences between men and women, creating different circumstances and conditions for men and women, and therefore different needs for the sexes. For example, while not every woman is menstruating all the time, there are always women who are menstruating at any given time, and they have specific needs... no man ever menstruates and therefore never has the same specific needs.

So "separate but equal" does not apply in same sense as segregationist laws, which created separate facilities for the same functions. Like drinking fountains. While everyone needs to drink water, not everyone needs tampons or a place to tend to those needs. While male bodied people just need a place to pee, female bodied people often need a place to do more than just pee. And it is a clear anatomical and functional difference between a male body and a female body. It has nothing to do with gender identity. A man who identifies as a woman will never menstruate... a manstruating female that identifies as a man will still menstruate (unless and until rendered dysfunctional by pharmaceutical/surgical means).

a reply to: Boadicea

Okay. I will attest to the fact that males and females have some functional biological differences.

It seems reasonable, generally, that those functional differences could require different styled facilities.

Although, pardon my ignorance, I'm not sure how the facilities for mensturating humans differ from standard facilities.

However, since that is the issue you have offered as an example, would you say that transmen should have to use the Ladies facilities?

Or we can skip ahead ...

My suggestion is and has been that public facilities (like bathrooms, showers, etc.) that provide facilities for very private needs should be private. These spaces should not be communal for multiple reasons, mostly privacy and safety. (And our past conversations have helped me arrive at that conclusion, btw.)

Mmm, I view this decision as judicial overreach. As in the Flynn case, the Judicial Branch is trying to legislate from the bench.

Our government representatives are forgetting that the Legislative Branch makes the laws, the Executive Branch enforces those laws, and the Judicial Branch interprets them.

The FF intentionally designed it this way to prevent any one branch from wielding more power than the other two.

Checks and balances.

Down the toilet, apparently.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

Not down the toilet at all.

The law that was interpreted by the Supreme Court here was passed by Congress in 1964.

Congress passed the law.

SCOTUS interpreted it in the judicial process.

System working as intended.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

The Supreme Court has reduced itself to deciding things that society would iron out itself. They need to be "hands off" with minor society issues, just like they are with radicals taking over a section of Seattle.