SCOTUS - Title VII Ruling

[chancellor]

SCOTUS ruled today (6-3) that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status constitutes discrimination "because of . . . sex" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. Justices Alito and Thomas wrote a shared dissent; Justice Kavanaugh wrote his own dissent.

[DMT]

Should have been 9-0 but glad to see it passed.

[In the Corn]

Should have been 9-0 but glad to see it passed.

Yup. Trump has to be pissed about Gorsuch on this one.

[chancellor]

Should have been 9-0 but glad to see it passed.

While I agree with you in concept, I also understand the dissent that was best worded by Kavanaugh - it's patently clear the intent of the original legislation was to provide equal rights for women, and not the expanded rights argued before the Court. Kavanaugh pretty clearly states to change legislation is the responsibility of Congress and not SCOTUS.

[DMT]

While I agree with you in concept, I also understand the dissent that was best worded by Kavanaugh - it's patently clear the intent of the original legislation was to provide equal rights for women, and not the expanded rights argued before the Court. Kavanaugh pretty clearly states to change legislation is the responsibility of Congress and not SCOTUS.

And Kavanaugh is making a valid point, but the underlying idea of Title VII is outlawing discrimination in the workplace against any group of people based on who they are, so requiring new statutes that specifically focus on LGBT individuals to wind their way through the courts before coming to the same result is a waste of everyone's time.

[DMT]

Yup. Trump has to be pissed about Gorsuch on this one.

Oh, I hope he throws a hissy fit. I don't expect it will sway Gorsuch in any way, but it will once again show independent voters his true colors.

[chancellor]

And Kavanaugh is making a valid point, but the underlying idea of Title VII is outlawing discrimination in the workplace against any group of people based on who they are, so requiring new statutes that specifically focus on LGBT individuals to wind their way through the courts before coming to the same result is a waste of everyone's time.

Well, if about 30 or so Congresses had done their job and just updated/amended Title VII, it wouldn't have had to wind through the court system to a conclusion that was uncertain at best. But I'm preaching at the choir, my apologies.

[Ken]

Yeah I'm in the camp of agree with the result but not the process. This should have been legislated.

[chancellor]

Two key religious liberty rulings settled today - both 7-2 rulings, with Breyer and Kagan ruling with the majority. A lot of the media noise is on the Little Sisters of the Poor case, but it's a narrow ruling on an issue that was likely going to be a loss anyway. The second ruling - Our Lady of Guadalupe School v Morrissey-Berru - is huge and much more wide reaching; it's a major expansion of the ministerial exception relative to discrimination lawsuits.

[DMT]

Two key religious liberty rulings settled today - both 7-2 rulings, with Breyer and Kagan ruling with the majority. A lot of the media noise is on the Little Sisters of the Poor case, but it's a narrow ruling on an issue that was likely going to be a loss anyway. The second ruling - Our Lady of Guadalupe School v Morrissey-Berru - is huge and much more wide reaching; it's a major expansion of the ministerial exception relative to discrimination lawsuits.

I understand the rulings, but it's sad the religion is so often just being used a shield to discriminate.