Supreme Court Rules Workers Can't Be Fired for Being Gay

The landmark ruling represented the biggest moment for LGBT rights in the US

US supreme court rules employers cannot discriminate against LGBTQ+ workers

The Supreme Court handed a big win to the LGBT community Monday, ruling in a 6-3 decision that an employer who fires a worker for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which already protected people from sex discrimination.

Gorsuch wrote. "Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender". The answer is clear.

"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex", Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court. "Neither "sexual orientation" nor "gender identity" appears on that list", Justice Alito wrote. Sadly, Stephens did not live to see this victory - she died from kidney failure in May - but she will go down in history as the person who secured this critical right for trans people to do their jobs free of discrimination.

In a series of tweets Carrie Severino blasted Justice Gorsuch and the five others who sided with his opinion. Employers who have religious objections to employing LGBT people also might be able to raise those claims in a different case, Gorsuch said. These justices have long said that the statute that was adopted has to speak for itself, and that the court shouldn't be trying to infer legislative intent.

Especially coming days after the Trump administration stripped transgender people of protections under the Affordable Care Act, this truly great news for the LGBT community and a real reason to celebrate during Pride month.

"I cried - a lot - because I really miss him", the mom added of her son and the moment she learned of the Supreme Court decision. I often have criticized conservative justices for abandoning this approach when it serves their ideological agenda, as in the many cases where the court has required compulsory arbitration of consumer and employee disputes, notwithstanding federal law to the contrary.

The ruling - in two gay rights cases from Georgia and NY and a transgender rights case from MI - recognizes new worker protections in federal law.

How to Enable Chat Bubbles in Android 11
You'll get an over-the-air update, and soon you'll be experiencing the heady delights of Android 11. This will allow you to control external devices, such as smart devices.

The cases hinged on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applied.

Of course, conservatives, who are addicted to bad faith arguments, will never admit that was what they were trying to do by fighting against Stephens and the subjects of the other cases under consideration, Gerald Bostock and Donald Zarda, two gay men who were fired due to their sexual orientation. It doesn't matter if other factors besides the plaintiff 's sex contributed to the decision. Donald Zarda, who sued after being fired as a skydiving instructor in NY, died in 2014.

If a male employee and a female employee are both attracted to men, but only the male employee is fired because of that attraction, the employer intentionally singles out the male employee in part because of the employee's sex, Gorusch said.

In a case from Georgia, the federal appeals court in Atlanta ruled against Bostock, a gay employee of Clayton County, in the Atlanta suburbs.

"The Court tries to convince readers that it is merely enforcing the terms of the statute, but that is preposterous", Alito wrote in the dissent.

The court also chose on Monday to toss out a dozen gun rights cases, which sought to overturn a slew of state-level firearms restrictions, including magazine capacity limits and handgun carry bans.

Trump's administration joined the employers in arguing that Congress did not intend for Title VII to protect gay and transgender people when it passed the law.

Latest News