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

[roamer_1]

If he/she is a good worker, why should we/they care what problems them/they are working through regarding they/their gender and/or sexual identity?

In the first place, it's my business. What right has the government to intrude on that voluntary contract? Haven't I as much right to terminate that contract as the other? The employee can walk off on a moment's notice for literally any reason, with no recompense to me, so why shouldn't my right to terminate be just as fluid?

In the second place, it is my business, mine to shape as I see fit. To project an image that I think will bring me increase... However I see that should be my decision. As a matter of fact, my tech business services machinery for religious institutions and fairly religious people - Folks that I KNOW would not be comfortable with a flagrantly gay employee. To which do I owe my allegiance?

And finally the case of religious institutions and the like, which by their definition would not have a homosexual according to ancient mores - If they owe allegience to doctrine - the reason for and nature of their existence, What right does the government have to intrude upon that religious sanctity?

Bottom line... It is my business, my money, and my risk. I should be free to do as I see fit.

[Bigun]

In the first place, it's my business. What right has the government to intrude on that voluntary contract? Haven't I as much right to terminate that contract as the other? The employee can walk off on a moment's notice for literally any reason, with no recompense to me, so why shouldn't my right to terminate be just as fluid?

In the second place, it is my business, mine to shape as I see fit. To project an image that I think will bring me increase... However I see that should be my decision. As a matter of fact, my tech business services machinery for religious institutions and fairly religious people - Folks that I KNOW would not be comfortable with a flagrantly gay employee. To which do I owe my allegiance?

And finally the case of religious institutions and the like, which by their definition would not have a homosexual according to ancient mores - If they owe allegience to doctrine - the reason for and nature of their existence, What right does the government have to intrude upon that religious sanctity?

Bottom line... It is my business, my money, and my risk. I should be free to do as I see fit.

 

[libertybele]

In the first place, it's my business. What right has the government to intrude on that voluntary contract? Haven't I as much right to terminate that contract as the other? The employee can walk off on a moment's notice for literally any reason, with no recompense to me, so why shouldn't my right to terminate be just as fluid?

In the second place, it is my business, mine to shape as I see fit. To project an image that I think will bring me increase... However I see that should be my decision. As a matter of fact, my tech business services machinery for religious institutions and fairly religious people - Folks that I KNOW would not be comfortable with a flagrantly gay employee. To which do I owe my allegiance?

And finally the case of religious institutions and the like, which by their definition would not have a homosexual according to ancient mores - If they owe allegience to doctrine - the reason for and nature of their existence, What right does the government have to intrude upon that religious sanctity?

Bottom line... It is my business, my money, and my risk. I should be free to do as I see fit.

  

[montanajoe]

As I've mentioned before a "Conservative" justice is not necessarily a political Conservative. Robert's philosophy which appears to be shared by Gorsuch is that it's up to Congress to change the law and not the SC....

Problem is Congress kritter's are to damn lazy to do what they say they will do when running for office....

[skeeter]

In the first place, it's my business. What right has the government to intrude on that voluntary contract? Haven't I as much right to terminate that contract as the other? The employee can walk off on a moment's notice for literally any reason, with no recompense to me, so why shouldn't my right to terminate be just as fluid?

In the second place, it is my business, mine to shape as I see fit. To project an image that I think will bring me increase... However I see that should be my decision. As a matter of fact, my tech business services machinery for religious institutions and fairly religious people - Folks that I KNOW would not be comfortable with a flagrantly gay employee. To which do I owe my allegiance?

And finally the case of religious institutions and the like, which by their definition would not have a homosexual according to ancient mores - If they owe allegience to doctrine - the reason for and nature of their existence, What right does the government have to intrude upon that religious sanctity?

Bottom line... It is my business, my money, and my risk. I should be free to do as I see fit.

Truth.

I am so discouraged by this. We're used to Roberts being a flake, but what in the hell is wrong with Gorsuch.

[roamer_1]

Truth.

I am so discouraged by this. We're used to Roberts being a flake, but what in the hell is wrong with Gorsuch.

I am angry about it of course, but expected this kind of thing from the start... I was suspicious that Heritage Foundation was sullied, and this only confirms it.

[Smokin Joe]

If he/she is a good worker, why should we/they care what problems them/they are working through regarding they/their gender and/or sexual identity?

Besides the PITA it raises with the whole ‘address me as’ issue, should an employer look forward to headaches and legal fees when an employee says that he’s ‘confused’ and shows up for work one day wearing a tutu, fire-red fingernails and lashes, and 5-day old beard and you’re thinking of canning him?

How does an employer make the case that this employee is just lazy, late and inept, so I fired him? And not just because that his incongruous choice of sexual/gender identity clashes with his job selling tractors?

Therein lies the problem. I don't care about gender identity or any of that rot so long as it does not keep the employee from doing a good job in a timely fashion nor interfere with others doing the same, and outside of that they can call themselves a hermaphroditic Duesenberg for all I care. 
But I can easily see where it could be hard to fire such an employee for any reason of job performance without them claiming it was over their gender identity.

Unfortunately for them, I can see where this might work against the GLBTQXYZ set, because who would want to hire someone and take a chance on that lawsuit?

[Smokin Joe]

Nobody, I'm sure except those on the vulturous left who know a big door was opened today, really seems to understand what it means to give transgenders special status and 'civil rights'.

If facts aren't facts, science isn't science, and in this case biology aren't biology, then any enterprising lawyer will now say definitions are what you wish them to be in any situation. They will then be able to manipulate the law in any direction they wish via the courts.

Which renders the concept of law meaningless, because without solid definitions, you have no law.

Well, there is a version. Not by what someone or something is, but it will be defined by what it is not. For all of us "breeders" out here, that has ominous possibilities.

[Smokin Joe]

Now that they have achieved protected class status, you cannot fire them UNLESS you can prove your not homophobic....

Next the employer is required to pay the insurance to cover sex changes and therapies.

From: https://www.verywellhealth.com/transgender-healthcare-and-health-insurance-4065151
By this ruling, that expansion is taken care of, I believe:

ACA Section 1557 has been in effect since 2010, but it's only a couple paragraphs long and very general in nature. To clarify the nondiscrimination requirements, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published a 362-page final rule for implementation of Section 1557 in May 2016.1

Section 1557 prohibits discrimination based on existing guidelines—the Civil Rights Act, Title IX, the Age Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act—that are already very familiar to most Americans (i.e., age, disability, race, color, national origin, and sex). Section 1557 of the ACA applies those same non-discrimination rules to health plans and activities that receive federal funding.

By expanding the definition of "sex" to mean something other than biological (genetic) definitions, the change in the legislation becomes apparent.

[skeeter]

I am angry about it of course, but expected this kind of thing from the start... I was suspicious that Heritage Foundation was sullied, and this only confirms it.

At this point, is there anything that hasn't been corrupted?

They let a bunch of sh*tty lower 2A court rulings stand as well.

I may find a cave on a mountain of my own soon.

[roamer_1]

At this point, is there anything that hasn't been corrupted?

They let a bunch of sh*tty lower 2A court rulings stand as well.

I may find a cave on a mountain of my own soon.

Nope. Value Voters, NRA, Heritage... All sullied. I will not abide by any like I once did. Used to be that Conservative houses could be trusted. Not anymore. Or maybe I was just more gullible back then 

[Chosen Daughter]

At this point, is there anything that hasn't been corrupted?

They let a bunch of sh*tty lower 2A court rulings stand as well.

I may find a cave on a mountain of my own soon.

Neither one of them Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is Conservative.

This ruling is incredible. 

[libertybele]

Truth.

I am so discouraged by this. We're used to Roberts being a flake, but what in the hell is wrong with Gorsuch.

...ummm....he's showing his true colors?

[mountaineer]

Neither one of them Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is Conservative.

This ruling is incredible.

Kavanaugh voted with the dissent.

‘Brazen abuse of our authority’: Alito, Kavanaugh criticize LGBT SCOTUS ruling Gorsuch, Roberts voted for
June 16, 2020 | BPR Wire
Mary Margaret Olohan, DCNF

Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh condemned the Supreme Court’s decision Monday that federal law protects LGBT employees from discrimination.   ...

Kavanaugh also emphasized that the decision is an “important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans,” but he also picked apart the Supreme Court ruling and emphasized that “we are judges, not members of Congress.”

“And in Alexander Hamilton’s words, federal judges exercise ‘neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment,’” Kavanaugh wrote. “Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, our role as judges is to interpret and follow the law as written, regardless of whether we like the result. Our role is not to make or amend the law. As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation.”  ...

More

[Bigun]

Neither one of them Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is Conservative.

This ruling is incredible.

You should read the Kavanaugh dissent on this matter it is scathing! 

 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, dissenting.

Like many cases in this Court, this case boils down to one fundamental question: Who decides? Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination “because of ” an individual’s “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The question here is whether Title VII should be expanded to prohibit employment discrimination
because of sexual orientation. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, the responsibility to amend Title VII
belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court...

That is how he stars out and it gets better. you can read the rest at the link below:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

[EdinVA]

You should read the Kavanaugh dissent on this matter it is scathing! 

 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, dissenting.

That is how he stars out and it gets better. you can read the rest at the link below:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

So, the next issue... does it include what a person identifies as?   

[mountaineer]

So, the next issue... does it include what a person identifies as?   

The horse is out of the barn. No telling where it will go.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Can we add political opinions to the list as a protected class?

[aligncare]

Can we add political opinions to the list as a protected class?

Yes, political opinions will certainly be protected. But, may only be rendered when groveling on your knees before the Maoist mobs, only then may you speak your opinions. Forgot to mention...  only opinions that are approved by the BLM Central Committee may be spoken aloud. Any utterance of opinions not expressly pre-approved will be met with a 5-year stint in the RCC (the Re-education Center for CorrectThink).

[sneakypete]

I guess the employer has no rights if that is the case?

WHAT makes the workers rights more important than the rights of the owner?

Ever heard of a black-owned company being fined or sued for not hiring "enough" white,His/Her-Panic,or Asian workers?

No,and you won't either,because SOME people in 21st Century America have more rights than other people in 21st Century America.

We either ALL have the same rights and the same obligations to society as everyone else,or none of us has them.

Make up your freaking mind!

BTW,NONE of this applies to local,state,or the feral government because THEY are NOT "citizens/people" and have no rights,only obligations.

[Chosen Daughter]

Rush has gone off about this.  And several other decisions by the Supreme Court.  Not Conservative.

[Smokin Joe]

You should read the Kavanaugh dissent on this matter it is scathing! 

 JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, dissenting.

That is how he stars out and it gets better. you can read the rest at the link below:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf

thanks for the link.

What that does not address is compliance with specific religious norms as a condition of employment. To wit, that a certain standard of behaviour is expected, and that the prospective employee must sign an agreement to comply. In the event they do not, for whatever reason, that noncompliance could be cause for discharge, regardless of the form which it took.

Like Perjury, it would be moot what one had lied about, so long as one lied under oath.

But then, even though I am not formally educated in the Law, I think much more like Alito on this issue.

[Bigun]

thanks for the link.

What that does not address is compliance with specific religious norms as a condition of employment. To wit, that a certain standard of behaviour is expected, and that the prospective employee must sign an agreement to comply. In the event they do not, for whatever reason, that noncompliance could be cause for discharge, regardless of the form which it took.

Like Perjury, it would be moot what one had lied about, so long as one lied under oath.

But then, even though I am not formally educated in the Law, I think much more like Alito on this issue.

Actually they are not very far apart (We have no business WRITING law). I don't really know why Kavanaugh chose to write separately rather than just signing on to Alito's dissent.