G-Man
|
 |
« on: June 17, 2020, 05:46:21 AM » |
|
Which upheld our nations foundational principles of fairness and equal opportunity, ruling that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status - a landmark victory for the LGBQT+ community and supporters.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Robert
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2020, 05:48:35 AM » |
|
Yea I wonder if the idea will sink in, I wonder if they will see the advanatages to a fair, leagal and just system.
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t have time for all that.”
|
|
|
Oss
Member
    
Posts: 12613
The lower Hudson Valley
Ossining NY Chapter Rep VRCCDS0141
|
 |
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2020, 05:57:00 AM » |
|
What is interesting to me is what both of Trump's additions to the court had to say
Read the decisions and dissents online, dont trust what I or anyone else has to say about it before you make up your mind
|
|
|
Logged
|
If you don't know where your going any road will take you there George Harrison
When you come to the fork in the road, take it Yogi Berra (Don't send it to me C.O.D.)
|
|
|
Valkorado
Member
    
Posts: 10499
VRCC DS 0242
Gunnison, Colorado (7,703') Here there be twisties.
|
 |
« Reply #3 on: June 17, 2020, 06:14:26 AM » |
|
 . More laws do not mean more justice! We have existing laws that forbid harassment and discrimination based upon race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, sex, gender, expression, gender identity, or sexual orientation. America doesn't need LGBTQ EEO mandates and hiring quotas in my opinion.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Have you ever noticed when you're feeling really good, there's always a pigeon that'll come sh!t on your hood? - John Prine 97 Tourer "Silver Bullet" 01 Interstate "Ruby" 
|
|
|
Robert
|
 |
« Reply #4 on: June 17, 2020, 06:16:17 AM » |
|
 . More laws do not mean more justice! America doesn't need LGBTQ EEO mandates and hiring quotas in my opinion. That is the real issue, with the laws they have pushed for it gives them a protected class above everyone else.
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t have time for all that.”
|
|
|
Robert
|
 |
« Reply #5 on: June 17, 2020, 06:16:49 AM » |
|
What is interesting to me is what both of Trump's additions to the court had to say
Read the decisions and dissents online, dont trust what I or anyone else has to say about it before you make up your mind
Got link?
|
|
|
Logged
|
“Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don’t have time for all that.”
|
|
|
Moonshot_1
|
 |
« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2020, 08:17:28 AM » |
|
Can't say I've read anything about this in depth but from what I've gathered...
I agree with Thomas and Alito's dissent opinion. I think I agreed with it before I read it in the thought that the affirmative decision in effect legislated from the bench.
This revolved around the word "sex" in this particular law. The word "sex" was intended to define a man vs. a woman in the workplace. An obvious demonstrative concept.
To get to the affirmative decision, the word "sex" had to be redefined. I would consider this outside of the judiciary's scope.
This should be kicked back to the legislature to define and amend the law to seek the accommodation for the lbgtq folks.
Was there any exceptions made in the affirmative decision that would prohibit pedophiles, sexual predators, rapist, and general sexual perverts from enjoying these legal protections?
My initial perspective on that is they left the definition really open ended. That is why this needs to be resolved legislatively.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Mike Luken
Cherokee, Ia. Former Iowa Patriot Guard Ride Captain
|
|
|
Valkorado
Member
    
Posts: 10499
VRCC DS 0242
Gunnison, Colorado (7,703') Here there be twisties.
|
 |
« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2020, 08:53:13 AM » |
|
Was there any exceptions made in the affirmative decision that would prohibit pedophiles, sexual predators, rapist, and general sexual perverts from enjoying these legal protections?
I think most of these criminals are rightfully tracked closely and their employment, residential and social opportunities are limited at best. Pedophiles don't generally just stop being pedophiles - - even after incarceration and "treatment". That said, in this day and age I could envision pedophiles and rapists jumping on the discrimination bandwagon. It seems to be the vogue thing to do nowadays.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Have you ever noticed when you're feeling really good, there's always a pigeon that'll come sh!t on your hood? - John Prine 97 Tourer "Silver Bullet" 01 Interstate "Ruby" 
|
|
|
f6gal
Administrator
Member
    
Posts: 6882
Surprise, AZ
|
 |
« Reply #8 on: June 17, 2020, 10:00:30 AM » |
|
Which upheld our nations foundational principles of fairness and equal opportunity, ruling that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status - a landmark victory for the LGBQT+ community and supporters.
If the LGBTQ community recognizes the big victory, it's not what they're talking about. Instead, they are complaining about the dissenters (the 3 that voted no). This is just more blurring of the separation of powers identified in the constitution. The supreme court is not supposed to legislate from the bench. Their role is to interpret and rule on current law and the intent of the law when written. In this case, the intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in question. The "sex" provision in that legislation refers to sex as in gender. If LGBTQ needs to be included it the legislation, it's up to Congress to amend the Act as such. Judge Alito, regarding intent of the law: “If every single living American had been surveyed in 1964, it would have been hard to find any who thought that discrimination because of sex meant discrimination because of sexual orientation—not to mention gender identity, a concept that was essentially unknown at the time." Judge Kavanaugh, regarding legislating from the bench, “... when this court usurps the role of Congress, as it does today, the public understandably becomes confused about who the policymakers really are in our system of separated powers, and inevitably becomes cynical about the oft-repeated aspiration that judges base their decisions on law rather than on personal preference.”
|
|
« Last Edit: June 17, 2020, 10:02:49 AM by f6gal »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Serk
|
 |
« Reply #9 on: June 17, 2020, 10:11:32 AM » |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Never ask a geek 'Why?',just nod your head and slowly back away...  IBA# 22107 VRCC# 7976 VRCCDS# 226 1998 Valkyrie Standard 2008 Gold Wing Taxation is theft. μολὼν λαβέ
|
|
|
Rams
Member
    
Posts: 16271
So many colors to choose from yet so few stand out
Covington, TN
|
 |
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2020, 04:52:41 AM » |
|
The supreme court is not supposed to legislate from the bench. Their role is to interpret and rule on current law and the intent of the law when written. ……………………... Judge Kavanaugh, regarding legislating from the bench, “... when this court usurps the role of Congress, as it does today, the public understandably becomes confused about who the policymakers really are in our system of separated powers, and inevitably becomes cynical about the oft-repeated aspiration that judges base their decisions on law rather than on personal preference.”
Precisely.
|
|
|
Logged
|
VRCC# 29981 Learning the majority of life's lessons the hard way.
Every trip is an adventure, enjoy it while it lasts.
|
|
|
Jess from VA
|
 |
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2020, 05:59:24 AM » |
|
I'm in agreement with Moonshot and F6Gal. The court expanded the definition of sex (to orientation) to reach the merits under existing law. The dissenters had it right. However, it is entirely likely that Congress would do this anyway, given the chance (or the motivation), but it was their job, not the Court's. So if you're going to fire someone, don't say it's because they're gay, say it's because they suck (wait, what?) 
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
scooperhsd
|
 |
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2020, 09:04:18 AM » |
|
I'm in agreement with Moonshot and F6Gal. The court expanded the definition of sex (to orientation) to reach the merits under existing law. The dissenters had it right. However, it is entirely likely that Congress would do this anyway, given the chance (or the motivation), but it was their job, not the Court's. So if you're going to fire someone, don't say it's because they're gay, say it's because they suck (wait, what?)  No - they got fired for not performing the duties of the job adequately (backed up with documentation). Of course, in a Work at will State (NC for one example) - you don't need any reason.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
G-Man
|
 |
« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2020, 12:37:24 PM » |
|
That awful evil orange bad man stacked the court and he still lost two biggies in a row.
(It couldn't be because he put a couple of really good ones in there who may not be afraid to do what's constitutional in this day and age, right?)
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|