Civil Rights Act of 1964

THIS IS BIG, REALLY, REALLY, BIG NEWS.

Supreme Court Says LGBTQ Employees Are Protected By Civil Rights Employment Statutes

The Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ employees from being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The court on Monday issued opinions on two major decisions with far-reaching implications for the civil rights of transgender and LGBTQ individuals.

It was a 6-3 ruling, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the four liberal justices in the majority.

Writing for the majority, Gorsuch argued that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is fundamentally no different than discrimination based on sex.

“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions,” Gorsuch wrote. “That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex,” he added later. “But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scotus-lgbtq-transgender-decision_n_5ebefe48c5b6299362046713

I still believe our SCOTUS is not on our side generally, but at least they put away their catholic views on this matter and voted on what the law saws, not scripture.

This is huge, as the Trumpists were counting on this ruling to go the other way. I am not a lawyer, but I assume this could lead to the reversal of a lot of hateful moves. The R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC ruling is especially pertinent for us trans folk.

Part of the R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC was that the owner Thomas Rost was a 'deeply religious' man and his religion did not believe that a person can change one's gender. While the court did mention the religious claim in Harris, it ignored that particular aspect of the Harris case as it was not argued during the SCOTUS hearing. The SCOTUS left open future claims where the defense of the hiring/firing decision was based upon a reading of the 'Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993'.

I still believe the SCOTUS can find a knife sharp enough to carve out an exception based upon a religious belief. Remember, there are four conservative catholic Justices (Gorsuch was raised catholic and Sotomayer, although a liberal on the court is also a catholic). Even though Gorsuch and Roberts joined with the more liberal Justices in a 6-3 decision this morning, I would not read that Gorsuch and Roberts have embraced a rainbow colored robe while sitting on their lofty bench.

Hi Miki and Tara,

I am no expert upon the constitution of the USA and maybe I should not write anything....

….but firstly, the SC made the only decision it could. It should have been unanimous. The dice were loaded. A small victory though, if religious bigotry can be used to scupper it.

It has a dark edge. For should any ruling body of a nation state, (be it if that nation is, or has become, essentially secular), make religion a basis or exception of and to it's constitution, then that precedent is set at that time and can last for decades.

Entwining dashes of religion into a secular state, whether the nation evolved into secularism or not, can eventually cause very sticky repercussions for such a states constitutional statutes, for citizen rights and an erosion of that secular state's constitution.

I am sure such smaller amendments have occurred before in the USA, but is this not an exclusion of civil rights that is unprecedented? Have not previous amendments worked towards the betterment of civil rights in recent memory?

I'm not surprised though, it affirms bigotry. The USA's position as the leading nation of 'the free world' is in jeopardy, if it cannot guarantee basic rights to a large section of it's citizens, rather pander to bigotry.

Celia xx

Hey Celia

No worries, I poke my nose into UK politics sometimes, too. Sometimes outsiders see things more clearly than those in the middle of the mess.

I have not read the ruling, and IANAL, so I don't know, but I was not aware of a religious exception mentioned in the opinion.

I am assuming that Michaela is referring to the possibility of future cases, or of state and federal legislation, that carves out a religious exception. The danger is certainly real, especially with Trump's stacking of the court. I could easily see one of several such cases wending it's way through the various levels of courts to arrive at the Supreme Court for adjudication.

Federal legislation seems less likely, as the party of hate does not have a lock on all of Congress, and only a tenuous one on the Senate. Some states, though, especially in the South and the Midwest, could go (and have gone) that way.

Hi Tara,

I knew about this, because in the early hours whilst on my break at work the BBC has world news on at that time.

Miki maybe can enlighten us more, unless the BBC knows something of the current administration's intent. But, I maybe wrong I was very shattered whilst watching it, but it was portrayed as though exceptions based on region are likely to occur..

Celia xx

'Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)' was a law enacted to stave off the perceived march towards secularism that the courts and the SCOTUS were seemingly embracing. Surprisingly, this was a law enacted by Democrats (Schumer, Kennedy and Clinton). Also, surprisingly, it was ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS as it applied to the States. But at least 21 states have enacted their own RFRAs.

My sharp knife analogy might come into play if a woman sued the catholic church to become a priest. I doubt even the most liberal of the SCOTUS Justices would be very hesitant in ruling against the catholic church in this regard.

Hobby Lobby sued under the RFRA to exclude the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage. The SCOTUS ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor, but this was actually a narrow ruling although many still believe it is a precursor to an expanded use of religious grounds for specific exclusion from anything.

In the current ruling, Thomas Rost argued that his religious views outweighed the meaning of Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The SCOTUS rightfully ignored this position without specifically referencing this aspect in their ruling. If they had found any truth in Rost's position, then it would logically follow that a man, who believes in some parts of the Torah, Bible, Quran or other religious text that segregates women from men could have had a defense in not employing women.

While this ruling may seem to go against the move to restore religion (specifically, christianity) in the U.S., do not under estimate the ability of the conservative Justices to find that very sharp knife to carve out religious exemption to other laws.

If you want to know about why Trump is tolerated by the Evangelical Right - it is because of his ability to appoint judges to both the federal circuit, appeals and SCOTUS.

There is a very interesting article that addresses how badly the conservative right wing in the U.S. wants to influence the federal courts. Please read:https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/carrie-severino-meltdown-neil-gorsuch-lgbtq-rights.html

A brief excepts spells out the gist of the article:

This did not sit well with the conservative legal activists who put time, energy, and vast amounts of money into securing Gorsuch’s confirmation to replace Justice Antonin Scalia at the start of President Donald Trump’s term.

Gorsuch’s Monday opinion apparently enraged Carrie Severino, the president of the Judicial Crisis Network, an organization that reportedly spent $10 million to secure Gorsuch’s confirmation in 2017 and promised another $10 million to secure Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s in 2018. Severino accused Gorsuch of ruling “for the sake of appealing to college campuses and editorial boards” in “a brute force attack on our constitutional system.”

Hi miki,

You just caught me t a time when I was about to go to beddybyes. I read all that ya wrote and I want to study it a bt more. It is worrying. The Anglican church in the UK has become so free and open, it can without doubt be called a true face of Christianity.

Yet even they have their blind bent. It's particularly venomous towards us, secondly to gay people and then a little watered down towards divorce and abortion.

I'll be quick.... I have at hand, true, second hand, knowledge of so-called Christians in a so-called house of God 'tut-tut' and 'shush' a paramedic friend of mine because they were so 'engrossed' in their religious 'trip' whilst my friend and her colleague attended a worshipper with a suspected heart attack, laying on the floor between the pews..... I kid you not!

I shall read the full article about the federal courts tomorrow, even though I thought that was a given anyway....

Celia xx