Supreme Court positve ruling on Gay and transgendered rights

Post Reply New Topic

Isabella thought long and hard before making her post.

There are certain people in the US who will seek any loophole to deny people their civil rights.

In a de jure sense, civil rights are pretty much guaranteed.....but in a de facto sense, they are not. I believe that was the point Isabella was making.

[MOD]

Chill out, everyone.

I don't want to have to lock this thread.

[/MOD]

starkid,

I apologise for being sarcastic. I don't have limited reading comprehension, though. (Thank you to Fnord and KK for acknowledging this on my behalf). I'm incredulous that any group would need the Supreme Court to rule on when / how to apply and recognise their civil rights or freedoms as American citizens, and that human rights must fit the legal criteria of any contrived subsection to be enforced.

Regardless of the distinctions in any particular case, sexism is sexism, and liberty is liberty.

Sadly, bigotry is bigotry too.

I don't draw lines between people and their experiences or their rights. That's all I wished to say in my first post.

The issue here was whether or not discrimination based on "sex" in employment referred to gay and/or transgendered individuals or not. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbad discrimination in employment based on sex. The two cases involved a gay man who was fired from a long time job when he joined a gay soft ball team. The other case involved a man who worked at a funeral home and transitioned to female and was fired after she told her employer she was now a woman. There was a third case, but apparently that person did not want to participate in the news.

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, but he did leave it open for religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or transgenderedness if that was again the religion.

And yes, Isabel is well educated and a wonderful person to boot.

Thanks blaze. You're not so shabby yourself!

Thanks for the explanation and that's exactly what I understood the issue to be. I still find it amazing that courts must define, label, subdivide, or differentiate personal freedom into segregated boxes, to determine its legitimacy.

Discrimination by sexual orientation and / or gender identity is forbidden under the US Constitution whether or not said examples are classified as "sexism".

The legal challenge to define these cases represents bigotry, thinly-veiled as semantics.

All Americans are afforded "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Case closed.

The Civil Rights Act should not have power to distort or deconstruct this fundamental truth.