and nobody is surprised that brett kavanaugh dissented
Spuand nobody is surprised that brett kavanaugh dissented
i LIKE BEER and HATE THE GAYS
i LIKE BEER and HATE THE GAYS
[img]https://i.imgur.com/12kHOO1.png[/img]
we only got a law for (unpaid) maternity leave in 1993. There's still no required paid family leave for childbirth.
US labor laws are just decades behind at least this is a change in the right direction but im not super hopeful
US labor laws are just decades behind at least this is a change in the right direction but im not super hopeful
lol Justice Alito is so mad about this that he wrote a 142 page long dissent and appendix that has overwhelmed the Supreme Court's servers
not to be a debbie downer, since this is obviously great news, but I don't think people should make the mistake of thinking that this makes being fired on the basis of sexual orientation/gender identity impossible, it just offers more concrete legal recourse (which still requires the plaintiff to have enough time and resources to pursue, and also has enough of a burden of proof that only the dumbest employers will actually get caught having discriminated). what we REALLY need to do is start addressing at-will employment in this country.
still obviously good to get an unexpected win when we can get one (and 6-3 too) but I don't want people thinking it's no longer possible to discriminate against employees on the basis of race/sex/sexual orientation/gender identity!
still obviously good to get an unexpected win when we can get one (and 6-3 too) but I don't want people thinking it's no longer possible to discriminate against employees on the basis of race/sex/sexual orientation/gender identity!
CubenityI'm surprised you didn't previously have a law against this, even fucking Poland has something like that lmao
title vii previously banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, but not sexual orientation or gender identity. the majority decision in this case found that sexual orientation and gender identity fell under the umbrella of discrimination on the basis of sex, and therefore title vii protections applied
so we KINDA had a law for this already but not exactly
title vii previously banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex and national origin, but not sexual orientation or gender identity. the majority decision in this case found that sexual orientation and gender identity fell under the umbrella of discrimination on the basis of sex, and therefore title vii protections applied
so we KINDA had a law for this already but not exactly
Great news, but why do I get the feeling this is a "We have a black president so we cant be racist" kind of law...
The fact that 3 supreme court justices think its fine to fire someone for being gay makes me sick. The justification of "well being gay has nothing to do with a persons sex" makes my head spin.
I also feel like kavanaughs dissent, followed by saying “this is an important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans," belies his belief that we exist in a world of "True Americans vs. queer people."
God bless america everyone.
I also feel like kavanaughs dissent, followed by saying “this is an important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans," belies his belief that we exist in a world of "True Americans vs. queer people."
God bless america everyone.
Tino_Great news, but why do I get the feeling this is a "We have a black president so we cant be racist" kind of law...
Trump gay confirmed
Trump gay confirmed
Spu
KevinIsPwn
Menachem
Kavanaugh dissented on the grounds that he didn't feel that the Supreme Court was the body best suited to extend this right. Both his dissent, as well as Alito's that Thomas joined, make this distinction abundantly clear. I'm not a fan of Alito or Thomas, and Kavanaugh has a rocky record, but Kavanaugh is in near ideological lockstep with Roberts (check the stats on SCOTUS blog if you disagree). He is no partisan ideologue.
Regardless, Gorsuch wrote a great opinion. I highly recommend reading it.
[quote=KevinIsPwn][/quote]
[quote=Menachem][/quote]
Kavanaugh dissented on the grounds that he didn't feel that the Supreme Court was the body best suited to extend this right. Both his dissent, as well as Alito's that Thomas joined, make this distinction abundantly clear. I'm not a fan of Alito or Thomas, and Kavanaugh has a rocky record, but Kavanaugh is in near ideological lockstep with Roberts (check the stats on SCOTUS blog if you disagree). He is no partisan ideologue.
Regardless, Gorsuch wrote a great opinion. I highly recommend reading it.
The intention is good, but in reality many employers have stopped hiring gays / lesbians for this reason, generating long-term unemployment for this group of people.
For it will be more worthwhile to hire straight men, being able to dismiss them without fear of being sued based on that jurisdiction, that is, less headache. For sure there will be cases of people who will be dismissed for other reasons but will claim to be for their sexual orientation (I know they will not be all), but for the employer it is not worth taking the risk ....
This is my analysis, let's see how it will be in the long run
For it will be more worthwhile to hire straight men, being able to dismiss them without fear of being sued based on that jurisdiction, that is, less headache. For sure there will be cases of people who will be dismissed for other reasons but will claim to be for their sexual orientation (I know they will not be all), but for the employer it is not worth taking the risk ....
This is my analysis, let's see how it will be in the long run
I'm puzzled that in 2020 we still need judgments to enforce equality..
tsarKavanaugh ... is no partisan ideologue.
if you genuinely think this is true, i urge you to look at basically anything he did before becoming a circuit judge and most of his rulings while he was a circuit judge.
if you genuinely think this is true, i urge you to look at basically anything he did before becoming a circuit judge and most of his rulings while he was a circuit judge.
yeah this is actually a really fun test case for why the scalia textualism thing has always just been a cover for reactionary bullshit, because the correct textual position in this case is to support the notion that title vii already has language to cover this, and yet 3/5 of the supposed strict constructionists were on the other side of the issue, with alito writing a 10 million page dissent about all the unforeseen applications of the law etc (which scalia also did all the time)
tl;dr all 9 judges are political actors and constitutional originalism/textualism are bullshit excuses
tl;dr all 9 judges are political actors and constitutional originalism/textualism are bullshit excuses
crackbabydumpsterwe only got a law for (unpaid) maternity leave in 1993. There's still no required paid family leave for childbirth.
US labor laws are just decades behind at least this is a change in the right direction but im not super hopeful
it's even worse when you consider how the FMLA only applies to employees who work at a business with over 50 employees, so people working at small businesses often get nothing at all.
very cool country, very normal and good.
US labor laws are just decades behind at least this is a change in the right direction but im not super hopeful[/quote]
it's even worse when you consider how the FMLA only applies to employees who work at a business with over 50 employees, so people working at small businesses often get nothing at all.
very cool country, very normal and good.
drag0nThe intention is good, but in reality many employers have stopped hiring gays / lesbians for this reason, generating long-term unemployment for this group of people.
For it will be more worthwhile to hire straight men, being able to dismiss them without fear of being sued based on that jurisdiction, that is, less headache. For sure there will be cases of people who will be dismissed for other reasons but will claim to be for their sexual orientation (I know they will not be all), but for the employer it is not worth taking the risk ....
This is my analysis, let's see how it will be in the long run
You do realize this will apply to hiring and not just firing, correct?
For it will be more worthwhile to hire straight men, being able to dismiss them without fear of being sued based on that jurisdiction, that is, less headache. For sure there will be cases of people who will be dismissed for other reasons but will claim to be for their sexual orientation (I know they will not be all), but for the employer it is not worth taking the risk ....
This is my analysis, let's see how it will be in the long run[/quote]
You do realize this will apply to hiring and not just firing, correct?