Supreme Court Ruled Out LGBTQ Discrimination in Workplace

In times like this, it's easy to let ourselves be disillusioned simply by all the bad news. But today marks a revolution of another form - discrimination against homosexuals and transgenders is no longer legal. The power of democracy triumphs! It might have taken a long time, but it shows that no matter how dark it gets, America can recover from its most broken systems. Now we'll just have to wait another 20 years for police discrimination against black folks to be outlawed entirely.

In other news, it speaks volumes on the kind of administration our president runs in America when during this momentous occasion, it's not too long ago that the Trump administration removes healthcare protection for transgenders. One step taken, two steps back. Oh well.

The shocking thing to me is that you could actually discriminate against a gay or trans person in the workplace before this ruling. How does this play into Trumps anti trans in the military stance?

USA in 2020 seems more and more like some backwords 2nd rate country.

__________________

Unfortunately this is another example of people reacting to Supreme Court cases, in both directions (but historically more on the left), not out of any clear legal philosophy or concern for precedent or application of the law, but literally as if each case were just an election and they wanted a certain side to win. That's not how the system works, or is supposed to, and we're seeing a lot of the long-term downsides to this kind of short-term thinking right now.

The system is going to remain dysfunctional and whiplash between disparate ideas unless/until people educate themselves enough about it to understand that the court doesn't decide what's fair. It decides what's constitutional.

We need to demand clarity on these things from Congress, not the courts, but that's not going to happen until more people have clarity themselves.

@Yoda: Clarity? From Congress? You're having a laugh, right?

While I agree that stuff like this is best served by legislation I am still over the moon to see basic protections extended to the LGBTQ+ community. Some states had already enacted these protections but many had not, so when Congress fails to do its job I am OK with the courts stepping in to advance civil rights.

But don't let the media fool you: this is not a major win. It's a band-aid.

And now ya'll know why I came out and got my medical transition stuff done ASAP: Trump. The right is very much trying to roll back basic freedoms when it comes to individuals and their individual choices. Hey, wait, I thought they were all about free choice? Methinks they have their shoes on backwards.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

https://fortune.com/2020/06/15/supre...p-law-gorsuch/

Related reading. This ruling can/will, in simple terms, negate the rollback that Trump did with the ACA. So this is why I am largely in agreement with @Yoda that these court rulings are messy symptoms of a larger problem.

Not a subject I know much about, but I'm stunned to hear there has been discrimination against homosexuals and transgenders, at least on a legal level. I thought that was long gone.

I'm not sure what all this means. I would've thought discrimination in the work place was long ago made illegal. For the sake of this conversation just what was being called discrimination? And how has that now changed?

What kind of employee medical coverage are we talking about? Is it requiring health care to pay for transgender surgery? Or are we talking about denying a transgender person the same basic medical care as a non transgender person would receive?

@cricket: Yeah, lots of discrimination if you look hard enough. Couple examples would be firing a gay man because he's married but not firing a woman because she's married (lawsuit in that example tried to use sex as a discrimination factor but they ruled in favor of the business). Another example is a trans worker being fired for not abiding by company dress code after transition but not firing women when they did not abide by the dress code (i.e. the trans worker wore pants instead of a skirt and got fired). I'll see if I can dig up the cases but there are hundreds of ones that have never seen the inside of a court room because a.) who wants to sue to get a job back at a company that hates you and b.) statue of limitations is really messed up with wrongful termination cases and c.) who's got the time and money to put up with all that horse ****?

Keep in mind, tho, a lot of the discrimination that took place was "you're this" but we are firing you for "doing/not doing this", so it's not like people have been getting fired and having GAY listed as the causation. But, even if it had been that way, they can't sue either way.

@Citizen Rules: Both. It would allow clinics to not provide services and it would allow employers to not provide coverage.

Ya'll won't believe the way I get treated by nurses and doctors in my hometown once they find out I'm trans. It's pretty bad. I try not to bring it up, but it's kinda hard not to when they ask what scripts I'm on and what my medical history involves. I had to go through 4 separate doctors before I got treated with basic respect. And this is just for basic checkups!

Re: Congress. Obviously, one could make an argument that Congress is increasingly abdicating its responsibilities (though to the Executive Branch as much as the Judicial, if not more). However, I don't think that's a reason to have the courts replace them, for a few reasons.

The first is that it's just not setup for that, just logistically. It literally can't fill that space properly.

The second is that it's far less democratic than legislation, both in terms of the number of people making a decision for the entire country, and in the sense that it's more difficult to change or reevaluate over time.

The third is that Congressional abdication is actually a reason not to rely on the courts, since the court acting like a quasi-legislative branch just covers for that abdication, rather than sending things back and/or forcing Congress to confront the unintended consequences of its action (or lack therefore), which incentivizes it to change.

Aye, I'm not in favor of it, but when the results are something that should have already been settled decades ago I tend to view it differently.

But you're not wrong @Yoda

Not trying to minimize what you have to go through at all, but my wife goes through a similar thing because she takes pain medication. Many healthcare workers treat her like a drug addict, and they come right out and say crap. I try to go with her and when I do they don't say squat.

Yo, for real. Healthcare workers are some of the worst people in the south.

Like, I don't judge the obese ones and tell them they need to start eating salads, so why the **** should they be judging others?

I'm a firm believer that if you're a healthcare worker and judge people there's a special place in hell waiting for you.

In some cases for my wife, I'm sure they're just concerned, but they could go about it differently.

Regarding transgender, one dilemma that I thought about before was the which bathroom thing. I can understand the argument for both sides. Personally I couldn't care less who was allowed in the bathroom I was using. I just don't want some unattended small child taking a whiz next to me.

And this is why I only frequent establishments with single stall setups or all gender bathrooms. I hate all chain/mall/large venue bathrooms.

I also prefer establishments that have the no door approach with a short hallway that turns into the bathroom. For hygiene purposes.

I’ve seen a lot of bathrooms growing up. I have the bladder of a chipmunk.

I used to critique them as a child. Yes, I am aware that’s weird.