https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/15/supreme-court-denies-job-protection-lgbt-workers/4456749002/

Today in a 6-3 decision, the SCotUS including sexual orientation in title VII protections for workers.

Dissent took the from of criticism of legislating from the bench, which is an apt criticism in general.

This post was edited by Santara on Jun 15 2020 08:37am

It is important for judges to provide definitions and clarity in law. I don't think this is legislating from the bench. This seems overdo a lot really.

Most of the dudes criticizing were involved with citizens united ruling lol.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 15 2020 08:39am

good ruling

https://www.advocate.com/election/2015/9/28/donald-trump-15-years-ago-backed-amending-civil-rights-law
https://www.advocate.com/election/2015/9/28/read-donald-trumps-advocate-interview-where-he-defends-gays-mexicans



Trump way ahead of the curve on this, unlike past bigot anti-gay Presidential candidates. mainly neo-con thug (R)s and hypocritical (D)s

Abortion and gay marriage still the law of the land... and now religious institutions can't fire people who live lives contrary to the core beliefs of the institution?

I guess at this point evangelicals can just be honest and say they support Trump because he makes the people they hate angry, and for no other reason.




Uh... do you think Trump doesn't decide what positions his administration takes in front of the Supreme Court? Lol... what a strange reply. Trump has pandered to the anti-gay rights crowd his whole presidency, not because he actually cares, just for votes.

This post was edited by IceMage on Jun 15 2020 09:10am

look we know you hate homosexuality and this decision makes you mad. just like you hate minorities and got mad at the criminal justice reform that was passed. pipe down troglodyte.

I don't like the outcome, but I haven't reviewed the arguments closely enough to know whether the decision was wrong. It's just embarrassing that you have to pull an interview from 15 years ago in order to try to minimize Trump losing at the Supreme Court. Like, facepalm level embarrassing.

we’ll skip any judgment on embarrassing from a user who spent 3 years spamming in rage because he cannot do math

we know you’re mad today (lmao). keep on hating everyone you sorry lehcerous, avaricious little fella. you hate homosexuals, you hate minorities, and you hate women even your own mother for giving birth to you.

Gorsuch made a texualist opinion - that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected LGBT works because it protects sex. It's interesting that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were not on the same page on this decision. I suppose Gorsuch really is the A team pick to Kavanaugh's B team. Sad!

Still, I don't think it is enough. We put a lot of faith in these 9 people to interpret the law one way or another. We probably need additional legislation to protect LGBT people - in housing, schools, and other areas of public life. But you know as well as I do that legislation wouldn't get through the Republican Senate.

The Trump administration doesn't have authority of which cases get kicked up to the higher courts by lower courts, wtf are you talking about do you even know basic civics?

>"Haha pro-gay ruling under Trump, see he doesn't care about religious rights! So might as well vote for leftists candidates that think abortions should be legal in 3rd trimester!"

Sound logic there lad.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jun 15 2020 10:06am

Uh... Trump chose which position his administration took in the case. Are you confused about that or what?

It's just amusing because one of the major justifications for supporting Trump(judges, religious liberty) doesn't seem to be producing good outcomes. I guess tax cuts and triggering the libs is all that's left.