Supreme Court positve ruling on Gay and transgendered rights

Page 1 of 2 [ 24 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Joined: 19 Nov 2017
Age: 72
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,234

15 Jun 2020, 3:13 pm

I just heard on the radio that the Supreme Court voted 6 to 3 that the Civil Rights Act applies to gay and transgendered people!! !! !

And Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion!

There is hope yet in the US.

_________________
The river is the melody
And sky is the refrain - Gordon Lightfoot

Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,875
Location: Outter Quadrant

15 Jun 2020, 4:01 pm

Hoooray......... equality for everybody ......... :jester:

_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,

Quote:

where ever you go ,there you are

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

15 Jun 2020, 4:09 pm

Many times, so-called conservative judges exhibit common sense.

Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative, often goes against the more conservative Justices.

Last edited by kraftiekortie on 15 Jun 2020, 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 72,433
Location: Chez Quis

15 Jun 2020, 4:12 pm

I'm shocked that this was even under debate.
Why should any group of human beings need to fight for civil rights in their own country?

Regardless that's wonderful news. Yahoo!

("Gee, let's have a look-see and figure out if this Constitution gives everyone freedom, or only some people ....")

_________________
I never give you my number, I only give you my situation.
Beatles

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,956
Location:

15 Jun 2020, 6:01 pm

Poor Mr. Trump ... another SCOTUS decision goes against him and his white male fundie constituents.

_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

15 Jun 2020, 6:14 pm

There has to be more to this story. The Civil Rights Act already applied to all citizens, so it doesn't make sense that the Supreme Court was involved.

Probably there was some disagreement about how these rights applied in some specific situation.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,956
Location:

15 Jun 2020, 6:18 pm

starkid wrote:

There has to be more to this story. The Civil Rights Act already applied to all citizens, so it doesn't make sense that the Supreme Court was involved. Probably there was some disagreement about how these rights applied in some specific situation.

Disagreement? Between SCOTUS and POTUS? I am shocked! Shocked, I say!!

:roll:

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

15 Jun 2020, 6:22 pm

I assume this is what you are talking about?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/g ... court.html

As I expected, the situation is more nuanced. The ruling and dissent seems to have been about whether protections against sex-based discrimination apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Civil Rights Act already applied to these people who were fired, but it was not clear that the act included specific kinds of protections that are not explicitly mentioned in the Act.

Last edited by starkid on 15 Jun 2020, 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,956
Location:

15 Jun 2020, 6:25 pm

Well of course it is nuanced!

It's a Supreme Court case, after all!

IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 72,433
Location: Chez Quis

15 Jun 2020, 6:29 pm

starkid wrote:

So in other words, not every American is guaranteed civil rights, and they needed to decide which ones? :roll:

_________________
I never give you my number, I only give you my situation.
Beatles

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,956
Location:

15 Jun 2020, 6:35 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:

starkid wrote:

I assume this is what you are talking about? As I expected, the situation is more nuanced. The ruling and dissent seems to have been about whether protections against sex-based discrimination apply to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. The Civil Rights Act already applied to these people who were fired, but it was not clear that the act included specific kinds of protections that are not explicitly mentioned in the Act.

So in other words, not every American is guaranteed civil rights, and they needed to decide which ones?

That does seem to be the Republican Way.

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

15 Jun 2020, 6:38 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:

[
So in other words, not every American is guaranteed civil rights, and they needed to decide which ones? :roll:

Learn how to read.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

15 Jun 2020, 6:44 pm

Isabella happens to be well-schooled in the English language.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,956
Location:

15 Jun 2020, 6:47 pm

starkid wrote:

IsabellaLinton wrote:

So in other words, not every American is guaranteed civil rights, and they needed to decide which ones?

Learn how to read.

Feel free to not respond to posts with which you disagree.

starkid
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,812
Location: California Bay Area

15 Jun 2020, 6:52 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:

Isabella happens to be well-schooled in the English language.

Well that doesn't necessarily imply being well-schooled in reading comprehension.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,956
Location:

15 Jun 2020, 6:55 pm

starkid wrote:

kraftiekortie wrote:

Isabella happens to be well-schooled in the English language.

Well that doesn't necessarily imply being well-schooled in reading comprehension.

Actually, it does. What it does not imply is her permission to be the target of personal attacks.

Page 1 of 2 [ 24 posts ] Go to page 1, 2 Next

Jump to:

Supreme Court positve ruling on Gay and transgendered rights Post Reply New Topic

Supreme Court positve ruling on Gay and transgendered rights