Trump Justice Dept loses case to exclude LGBT community from TitleXII Civil Rights protections

[kumnmyhole]

On Sept 15th, 2020 the Supreme Court ,  rejected the Trump administrations attempt to allow workplace discrimination against gay workers:

In case you are not familiar with this case, the Trump administration on Friday Aug 23, 2019 urged the Supreme Court to rule that a longstanding federal civil-rights law prohibiting sex discrimination doesn’t protect gay people in the workplace.This latest brief, submitted by Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco and other Department of Justice attorneys, argues that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, “does not bar discrimination because of sexual orientation.”

“The ordinary meaning of ‘sex’ is biologically male or female; it does not include sexual orientation,” the brief states. “An employer thus discriminates ‘because of * * * sex’ under Title VII if it treats members of one sex worse than similarly situated members of the other sex. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, standing alone, does not satisfy that standard.”

Only a self loathing gay man would vote to re-elect a President who has the LGBT community in his crosshairs.  With Justice Ginsburg's seat filled by a Trump appointee and with several elderly liberal Supreme Court justices unlikely to live through a second Trump term and replaced by Trump, you can expect the Trump administration to prevail in his next attempt to deny the LGBT community Title XII federal Civil Rightsanti-discrimination  protections.  I have no doubt that Trump will then attempt to exclude the  LGTB community from ALL federal anti-discrimination protections including:  Housing, Healthcare, Marriage...

 

[rawTOP]

What's really encouraging is that the logic used for the decision means that in many (if not all) cases "sex discrimination" now covers LGBT discrimination. They said if two people – one male, one female – are both in love with the same person and you treat one differently than the other because of their love of the other person, then that's discrimination based on sex because the only difference between them is that one is male and the other female. Sex discrimination is written into a lot of laws, so that's huge.

I'm not sure Judge Barrett will uphold the precedent, but at least it's on the books.

[BootmanLA]

14 hours ago, rawTOP said:

What's really encouraging is that the logic used for the decision means that in many (if not all) cases "sex discrimination" now covers LGBT discrimination. They said if two people – one male, one female – are both in love with the same person and you treat one differently than the other because of their love of the other person, then that's discrimination based on sex because the only difference between them is that one is male and the other female. Sex discrimination is written into a lot of laws, so that's huge.

I'm not sure Judge Barrett will uphold the precedent, but at least it's on the books.

Even better, Rawtop: the precedent you're referring to is from this past June - and it was a 6-3 decision written by Justice Gorsuch, who was joined by Chief Justice Roberts. So for now, at least, THAT precedent is safe from Barrett, even though I'm pretty sure she'd vote to overturn it in a heartbeat.

[BootmanLA]

On 10/13/2020 at 2:37 PM, kumnmyhole said:

On Sept 15th, 2020 the Supreme Court ,  rejected the Trump administrations attempt to allow workplace discrimination against gay workers:

In case you are not familiar with this case, the Trump administration on Friday Aug 23, 2019 urged the Supreme Court to rule that a longstanding federal civil-rights law prohibiting sex discrimination doesn’t protect gay people in the workplace.This latest brief, submitted by Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco and other Department of Justice attorneys, argues that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin, “does not bar discrimination because of sexual orientation.”

“The ordinary meaning of ‘sex’ is biologically male or female; it does not include sexual orientation,” the brief states. “An employer thus discriminates ‘because of * * * sex’ under Title VII if it treats members of one sex worse than similarly situated members of the other sex. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, standing alone, does not satisfy that standard.”

Only a self loathing gay man would vote to re-elect a President who has the LGBT community in his crosshairs.  With Justice Ginsburg's seat filled by a Trump appointee and with several elderly liberal Supreme Court justices unlikely to live through a second Trump term and replaced by Trump, you can expect the Trump administration to prevail in his next attempt to deny the LGBT community Title XII federal Civil Rightsanti-discrimination  protections.  I have no doubt that Trump will then attempt to exclude the  LGTB community from ALL federal anti-discrimination protections including:  Housing, Healthcare, Marriage...

 

It's important to note several things which make this posting completely out of date.

First, the Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 DOES protect people from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, ruling that both are covered in the plain English meaning of the word "sex". The referenced brief from August 23, 2019 had already been rejected by the court's opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County.

Second, there are only three liberal appointees currently, and only one can plausibly be described as "elderly" - Justice Breyer (age 82). The other two liberals are Sotomayor (age 66) and Kagan (age 60). By contrast, on the conservative side, Thomas is 72, Alito is 70, and Roberts is 65 - so all three are as likely or more so to face health issues during the next term or two. In fact, if Biden wins and the Senate flips to the Democrats, I hope fervently that Breyer retires at the end of this Court term so that he can be replaced.

I'd never hope that Thomas (who is obese, but not in ill health as far as is known) dies suddenly or anything, but it would not break my heart to see him incapacitated in some way that forced his resignation. 

[rawTOP]

17 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

Second, there are only three liberal appointees currently, and only one can plausibly be described as "elderly" - Justice Breyer (age 82). The other two liberals are Sotomayor (age 66) and Kagan (age 60). By contrast, on the conservative side, Thomas is 72, Alito is 70, and Roberts is 65 - so all three are as likely or more so to face health issues during the next term or two. In fact, if Biden wins and the Senate flips to the Democrats, I hope fervently that Breyer retires at the end of this Court term so that he can be replaced.

As much as I liked RBG, her one major fault was not retiring when there was a president who would have preserved her legacy. That alone was an enormous mistake. So yes, let's hope Breyer doesn't make the same mistake.

And fingers crossed that Thomas and Alito's seats become vacant.