Supreme Court Ruling: Workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender

[herring_RN, ASN, BSN]

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

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 in a landmark decision that gay and transgender employees are protected by civil rights laws against employer discrimination.

A set of cases that came before the court had asked the justices to decide whether Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of "sex," applies to gay and transgender people.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the opinion for the six-member majority, said that it does...

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/502729-supreme-court-rules-lgbt-workers-protected-by-civil-rights-law

[emtb2rn, BSN, RN, EMT-B]

Good decision.

For those who didn’t read the link, kavanaugh’s dissent includes this, to me, incongruous statement:

"...applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law’s passage — whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees in the 1960s — often may be seen as unexpected. But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms.”

Am I wrong in interpreting this as supporting the decision?

[chare]

23 hours ago, emtb2rn said:

[...]

Am I wrong in interpreting this as supporting the decision?

I think you might have misread this. From the next to last paragraph of referenced article:

Quote

[...]

In his own separate dissent, Kavanaugh added, "Our role is not to make or amend the law. As written, Title VII does not prohibit employment discrimination because of sexual orientation." ...

[...]

Continuing from the next to last paragraph:

Quote

[...]

... But Gorsuch dismissed his fellow conservatives' objections, arguing that "applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law’s passage — whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees in the 1960s — often may be seen as unexpected."

"But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms," Gorsuch continued.

And yes, this was a good decision.

[toomuchbaloney]

On 6/15/2020 at 8:51 AM, emtb2rn said:

Good decision.

For those who didn’t read the link, kavanaugh’s dissent includes this, to me, incongruous statement:

"...applying protective laws to groups that were politically unpopular at the time of the law’s passage — whether prisoners in the 1990s or homosexual and transgender employees in the 1960s — often may be seen as unexpected. But to refuse enforcement just because of that, because the parties before us happened to be unpopular at the time of the law’s passage, would not only require us to abandon our role as interpreters of statutes; it would tilt the scales of justice in favor of the strong or popular and neglect the promise that all persons are entitled to the benefit of the law’s terms.”

Am I wrong in interpreting this as supporting the decision?

Is Kavanagh competent or just grateful?