The Supreme Court just said employers can’t fire people for being LGBTQ

It’s hard to keep up with all of the cases before the Supreme Court, because even if you bother to read about the specifics of this or that case, it will be months before SCOTUS rulings come out. So it is with this ruling: LGBTQ rights have been before the court in various forms before, and the case which was just ruled on involved LGBTQ workplace rights and that fundamental question about whether it is unconstitutional to fire someone because they are LGBTQ. SCOTUS just said it’s unconstitutional to fire them. Huh.

Federal civil rights law protects gay, lesbian and transgender workers, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The landmark ruling will extend protections to millions of workers nationwide and is a defeat for the Trump administration, which argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination based on sex did not extend to claims of gender identity and sexual orientation.

The 6-3 opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the court’s four liberal justices.

[From CNN]

Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts said GAY RIGHTS?! I guess they did. Chief Justice Roberts is such an odd bird as a legal scholar – sometimes he’ll do something interesting, like uphold Obamacare or rule in favor of gay and trans rights. Other times, he’ll just be the Republican shill we all knew he would be. Who knows. But good for Justice Gorsuch, I guess. And it’s so not shocking that Brett Kavanugh thinks it’s fine to fire gay people just for being gay. That is entirely on-brand for him.

Trump Delivers State of the Union Address

2020 State of the Union Address

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Sander Dalhuisen and Rosemary Ketchum via Pexels

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

43 Responses to “The Supreme Court just said employers can’t fire people for being LGBTQ”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Marjorie says:

    I saw this come out over the NY Times news feed and I still don’t believe it happened. Holy moly, is there hope after all?

    • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

      Doubt it. I think this is a “Gimme”, waiting for what the republiTHUGS feel are the “bigger” cases to come. Esp. Tangerine Twitler’s taxes, which would expose him for the crook he is.

      • Snappyfish says:

        I’m personally concerned DACA will the be the case they swing back on BUT w/that concern noted it was a great decision. I loved the Gorsuch (IMPOTUS’s little religious zealot) wrote they opinion. I’m guessing he is looking up the word texturalist. I like that we saw a breaking of the conservatives w/2 descents. Thomas & Alito showed they are despicable excuses for humans in their option which basically states gays & transgendered are sick individuals & deserve no rights to Kavanaugh (who I still want impeached for lying under oath during his confirmation hearing & I want to know who bought themselves a judge by paying off all his debt) stating it shook be left to the states. Which is a stupid argument as rights like recognized marriage & civil rights need to be the same in all 50 states. The example would be you are married in VA but NC doesn’t recognize it.

        Holding out hope they force the fraud in the oval to hand over his taxes & don’t mess w/DACA

  2. Digital Unicorn says:

    Beer man is going to do whatever his paymasters tell him to.

  3. Lightpurple says:

    The opinion is extremely long and, with thousands trying to access it, the Supreme Court link to it keeps crashing. Some states already had these protections in place under state law. This means they apply everywhere.

    • Kaiser says:

      Apparently Alito wrote a 172-page rant in dissent LMAO

    • H says:

      I miss Scalia’s rants. But Alito, haha. He’s an idiot.

    • HereFoit says:

      That actually is not true, “it applies everywhere.” People have the right to sue; however, many do not have the rights to sue over discrimination. Especially those who are not listed as a protected class. Although many states recognize it, a party has a right to appeal. Thus, it is a matter of the appellate courts and what the constitution holds on a federal level. That is why this is a victorious moment for those of the LGBT community being recognized as a protected class. One of the strongest arguments in support of this is that LGBT is a subset of gender, yet many textualists would argue that the biological definition for gender would not hold for LGBT rights.

  4. Some chick says:

    Awesome news! Thanks for posting this.

    I’m also appreciative of the byline at the end of the article. I always go right for the tea and then want to know who wrote it (although I can often tell from the voice and writing style).

  5. Nikki says:

    Can’t believe any morons still object to LGBTQ rights in the year 2020, but glad the ruling clarified this at least!

    • meija says:

      Right! We need a supreme court decision to tell everyone they must act like a decent human being? Wow.

  6. lucy2 says:

    “Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh all think it should be legal for employers to fire an employee simply for being gay or transgender. In 2020″

    This election is so crucial. I know a lot of people, myself included, didn’t want Biden, but the fate of the Supreme Court is at stake here. If the GOP stays in power, they’re going to use every opportunity to put more Kavanaughs on there. Please VOTE, especially if you are in a swing state.

    • lucy says:

      You are so right!!! That is what I afraid people do not get….I am seeing so many posts saying people are not voting for Biden and can’t stand Trump so they will sit out again. This affects Supreme Court and I do not think these people get it! I am hoping with all the stuff that has been going on they will when the time comes.

    • Mia4s says:

      I’ve been saying this to so many American friends. So many. I don’t care what you think about Biden. I really don’t. Your government is a disaster and Ruth Bader Ginsberg is not immortal and in fact is likely going to die very soon. That’s why you vote Biden. Everyday and twice on Sunday. THEN you at least have bought yourself some time to work on deeper reforms.

    • Mamalama says:

      An election is not a marriage – you’re not waiting for the “perfect person.” An election is public transportation – if you’re waiting for a bus, and there isn’t one that goes right to where you want to go, you get on the one that gets you the closest. Bus Biden!!!

  7. Badrockandroll says:

    The SCOTUS will never make a ruling on whether it’s ok to fire people just for being a$$holes, because if they did, it would clear their bench.
    And yeah, Kavanaugh, I’m looking at you, you lying incompetent bribe-taking, woman-hating a$$hole.

  8. Jerusha says:

    I don’t hold out much hope, but it would be so great if Gorsuch pulled a David Souter and drifted moderate, defying his backers who thought they had a sure thing. Someone who’s more versed in the law can weigh in on this.

    • Becks1 says:

      I doubt it. He’s extremely literal and interprets statutes very strictly. For example, in this opinion, he said “when the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, its no contest. Only the written word is the law.”

      I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but the opening suggests that he probably wishes he could have found such discrimination legal.

  9. Other Renee says:

    I’m so disappointed that in 2020 a person of color — Clarence Thomas — would vote against this decision. What if the subject had been “black” or “African American” instead of LGBTQ? Would he have still voted this way? Why aren’t the injustices that are being protested across this country enough to wake him up?

    Not surprised about the other two idiots. Disgusted but not surprised.

    • lucy2 says:

      Thomas has been that way forever. I’ve never understood it.

    • SamC says:

      He probably would have voted the same. Google Clarence Thomas and his views on affirmative action and race issues.

    • Jerusha says:

      Thomas is married to a white, racist POS.

    • Chica1971 says:

      You have to remember that Thomas adheres to the post Reconstruction laws that allowed for Jim Crow etc because he believes it helps Blacks be more successful etc Then his rulings and self hatred is understandable.

    • anon says:

      Clarence only looks like a person of colour; inside he’s 100% white supremacist.

      • TuxCat5 says:

        In the ’80s he was called an Oreo cookie–black on the outside, white on the inside.

    • Otaku fairy says:

      Unfortunately, it can be a problem in any community. Being in more than can put you in the position of dealing with someone who’s against discrimination for one, but all for it when it comes to other. 😣

  10. Hexicon says:

    This is not a ruling that interprets the Constitution. The court did not declare a statute or government action to be unconstitutional. This ruling interprets Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a statute enacted by Congress. The Constitution addresses discriminatory actions of the state and federal governments (laws and practices), whereas Title VII also addresses private employers as defined by the statute. The court said that Title VII prohibits these types of discrimination.

  11. Dragonlady sakura says:

    It’s 2020! Why is this even up for debate? What is wrong with society that giving people equal rights has to be debated about.

  12. Amelie says:

    WOW! This is huge.

    However I’m already majorly side eyeing religious institutions. Does this mean religious schools can’t fire teachers for being openly LGBTQ? I’m thinking mostly Catholic or Christian schools. All you have to do is google to see that many teachers over the years have been terminated once it was revealed they were in a same sex relationship or fired once they got married. A lot of Catholic schools have “morality clauses” and being in a same sex relationship is often considered violating that clause. So I’m doubting these protections will extend to any kind of religious school.

    These same kind of schools have also fired women for being pregnant and unmarried which is also unbelievable. These also supposedly violate these medieval “morality clauses.” It’s one of the reasons I would never work for a Catholic organization (and I’m Catholic so I’m all too aware of the discrimination the church perpetuates).

  13. The Other Katherine says:

    I just sobbed for about 5 minutes when I read the news. I had expected the worst and hadn’t allowed myself to hope for anything. It broke my heart open to see a victory for justice, at a time when it seems like justice is so hard to come by.

  14. meija says:

    We need a supreme court decision to tell is to be decent human beings? Pitiful.

  15. TuxCat5 says:

    It’s about goddamn time!

  16. CJ says:

    I can’t unsee the mental picture of RBG sitting there saying “well I’ve told you time and time again that we dont discriminate on the basis of sex” and it is giving me LIFE.