https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme...gbt-rights
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit—battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result."
-Brett [BLEEP] Kavanaugh
I say good.... They're people just like the rest of us. Doesn't the Declaration of Independence say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I couldn't care less about who you're sleeping with. Each of us pursue happiness in our own way. Someones choice of lifestyle, as long as it doesn't affect me, is fine by my book.
Interesting how this might effect religious employment can a religious institution that still practices homosexuality as an act of sin forbid or Discriminate hiring homosexuals?
Can a church say you can’t be a gay preacher or teacher in their institutions?
(06-15-2020, 06:53 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting how this might effect religious employment can a religious institution that still practices homosexuality as an act of sin forbid or Discriminate hiring homosexuals?
Can a church say you can’t be a gay preacher or teacher in their institutions?
I haven't read the ruling and almost certainly never will, but on its face, no, they can't. I'd interpret this as meaning that if a transgendered individual gets hired into a position at a religious school without anyone figuring it out beforehand, there is zero ability to separate them from the business later on for that reason.
(06-15-2020, 06:53 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting how this might effect religious employment can a religious institution that still practices homosexuality as an act of sin forbid or Discriminate hiring homosexuals?
Can a church say you can’t be a gay preacher or teacher in their institutions?
No, Gorsuch specifically referred to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as a "super statute" that must be upheld above any other statute.
Also, the law only applies to organizations above a certain number of employees, I think 15. Most churches are below that number.
(06-15-2020, 06:56 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2020, 06:53 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting how this might effect religious employment can a religious institution that still practices homosexuality as an act of sin forbid or Discriminate hiring homosexuals?
Can a church say you can’t be a gay preacher or teacher in their institutions?
I haven't read the ruling and almost certainly never will, but on its face, no, they can't. I'd interpret this as meaning that if a transgendered individual gets hired into a position at a religious school without anyone figuring it out beforehand, there is zero ability to separate them from the business later on for that reason.
Religious schools in particular were given lots of leeway in some recent SCOTUS decisions.
Also, federal employment law really only becomes enforceable if there is a clear paper trail showing that the forbidden reason was an essential reason the employment decision was made. If you needed to downsize, no liability. If you can document that they failed in their job duties, worse than other employees that you kept, no liability.
I heard that today about the 15 employees I had never heard that before. I can’t figure out what the logic is behind that? It’s ok to discriminate if you have 14 employees but not 16? Sometimes the law is just confusing
Welp, that's the end of Title IX anyway. Farewell women's athletics.
(06-15-2020, 08:51 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Welp, that's the end of Title IX anyway. Farewell women's athletics.
The decision only applies to employment law.
(06-15-2020, 09:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2020, 08:51 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Welp, that's the end of Title IX anyway. Farewell women's athletics.
The decision only applies to employment law.
We'll see how it turns out.
(06-15-2020, 09:39 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (06-15-2020, 09:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The decision only applies to employment law.
We'll see how it turns out.
I agree with this thought. Title nine will now only be for sexual assault/harassment exclusively. It seems very hard to believe the Supreme court could make this argument above and then say that 'transitioned' individuals didn't have the right to compete in their chosen gender despite the extreme competitive advantage being born a biological male has for someone competing as a female athlete.
But I agree with the final conclusion, we will just have to see.