WWTBAM Bored

In a 6-3 decision with Chief Justice Roberts and Gorsuch (who wrote the opinion) joining the liberals, the Court said that the Civil Rights Act covers discrimination based on sexual orientation. Key language:

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. There is simply no escaping the role intent plays here: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics ... index.html

Good.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Mon Jun 15, 2020 9:12 am

In a 6-3 decision with Chief Justice Roberts and Gorsuch (who wrote the opinion) joining the liberals, the Court said that the Civil Rights Act covers discrimination based on sexual orientation. Key language:

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. There is simply no escaping the role intent plays here: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics ... index.html

Conservative heads must have been exploding today. Moscow Mitch and the Senate GOP spent nearly a year stealing Merrick Garland's Supreme Court seat in the hope that their thirty pieces of silver, Gorsuch, would marginalize and delegitimize the LGBTQ community on cases like this... and instead, Gorsuch ruled the correct way.

I find it particularly hilarious that Drump tried to bothsides the decision by saying that he didn't agree with the decision but would abide by it. Right. If Republicans actually cared about abiding by judicial decisions, they wouldn't have spent the past 10 years trying to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, the past 50 years trying to overturn Roe v. Wade, or the past 55 years trying to gut the Civil Rights Act.

On a related note, SCOTUS also refused to hear arguments from the Justice Department on California's "sanctuary cities" and from pro-Second Amendment groups on New York's assault weapons ban. A great day for America and a terrible day for conservatives.

https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/s ... ing/29750/