1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

LGBT News Appeals court says US Civil rights act extends to LGBT also

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by sldanlm, Apr 5, 2017.

  1. sldanlm

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Eastern U.S.A. commuter
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...s-act-protects-lgbt-workplace-bias/100046514/

    It's about time! It's particularly nice that the Vice President is from one of the states mentioned. :slight_smile:

     
    #1 sldanlm, Apr 5, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2017
  2. mnguy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    .
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Excellent ruling. Will be interesting to see how this plays out in other circuits and who is on the supreme court if it gets there. If one of the sensible justices leaves and gets replaced by Trump I doubt any cases for equality will go in our favor for a very long time.
     
  3. SkyDiver

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Alberta
    RBG seriously needs to hang on for dear life. I don't see anyone else leaving before her unless something tragic and unexpected happens. Even with Gorsuch confirmed I think equality cases will be decently safe for the time being - we'll still have a 5-4 edge.
     
  4. Aussie792

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    62
    Location:
    Australia
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    I honestly think it's a bit too much of a stretch - the intent of Congress was almost certainly not to protect sexual minorities in 1964.

    I think this is the most reasonable interpretation. The US courts are extraordinarily willing to act as a second legislature compared to other courts in common law countries, even beyond constitutional questions. Importantly, assuming courts to be the best vessel of political change undermines the democratic legitimacy of centre-left movements as well as sapping progressives' willingness to engage in electoral politics. It also means that right-wing voters and their representatives will see courts as something they have to politicise in order to maintain

    The vibe of this I'm getting is that any Supreme Court interpretation relating to other acts analogising sexual minorities' rights with enshrined gender-equality rights changes the definition of what Congress is purported to have intended in this act. I'm not sure that's a particularly healthy reasoning process - it undermines a democratic branch of government and means its intent can be blatantly ignored.

    I understand the US gives unusual powers to its judiciary compared to many other developed common law nations and acknowledge that I have no formal knowledge of US law. I do think that even if this is correct law, it is still not a very healthy process.

    None of that means I oppose the outcome. What I'm questioning the quality of the decision and the implications it has on democratic culture and process.
     
  5. Quantumreality

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2016
    Messages:
    4,283
    Likes Received:
    320
    Location:
    USA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Woah! This is pretty deep and very significant as far as I'm concerned.

    Aussie is correct. It wasn't until later that sexual minorities were protected in the US. However, then 'intent' at that time and after could reasonably be construed to extend to sexual minorities. Having said that, I am generally a Conservative in the US on most issues, but, of course, not on most social issues.

    I am totally against the liberal point of view that the courts can "make" law through interpretations or loopholes that the Legislators don't close. And, of course, I am totally FOR pro-LGBTQ legislation. I don't see a dichotomy between wanting the system/law to work for all of us while still maintaining conservative limits on what influence the Federal Government should have in our personal lives.
     
    #5 Quantumreality, Apr 6, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
  6. sldanlm

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Eastern U.S.A. commuter
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    The good news about RBG is that she is supposedly in very good health, exercises daily. I'm not sure what you mean about still having a 5-4 edge though. Right now the US Supreme court is split 3 conservatives, 4 progressives, one swing vote that usually leans conservative. Gorsuch is replacing the late Antoni Scalia, who was a conservative. Still, if I recall correctly, Scalia was on the court when same sex marriage was decided however, :slight_smile: so it's unknown how they would rule right now.

    According to what I've seen in the news, the next position to fill might be Clarence Thomas, who said once he'd like to retire. He is a conservative, and Trump is sure to replace him (or anyone else) with a conservative, so it doesn't change the balance of power.

    Bottom line is, despite a future Supreme court, this ruling is a great step in the right direction for now. :slight_smile:
     
  7. Kira

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,623
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Georgia
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Lesbian
    Out Status:
    Some people
    This is a real gem in the sludge we've been presented lately. I hope it retains it's shine.
     
  8. Austin

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2008
    Messages:
    3,172
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    It makes sense... maybe? If they wouldn't fire you if you were a woman who likes a man, but would fire you if you were a man who likes a man, sounds like discrimination based on sex. But, certainly the legislature in 1964 didn't care about sexual orientation.
     
    #8 Austin, Apr 7, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017