Breaking - SCOTUS approves LGBTQ protections...

[BamaFlum]

I’m curious how this will apply to religious organizations. Mind you, not religious owners but churches, church ran schools, church camps, etc.

 

[92tide]

The Supreme Court has given trans people reason to hope again. The Court’s favoable ruling on LGBTQ rights came when the trans community rwas at rock bottom.

The past week has maybe been the grimmest yet. We started with beloved author J.K. Rowling writing a 3,700-word screed about how trans women and our rights should be considered a threat to women and children. We also lost two of our black sisters, Riah Milton in Ohio and Dominique “Rem’Mie” Fells in Pennsylvania, who were brutally murdered. They were the 13th and 14th trans women in the US to be killed this year, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

Then came an attack on trans homeless people, culminating in the Department of Housing and Urban Development announcing a proposed rule Friday allowing shelters to strictly house homeless trans people according to their biological sex.

It seemed to end Friday with the Trump administration finalizing a Department of Health and Human Services rule that had been in the making for years, one that said sex is defined by biology, essentially giving doctors, insurers, and other medical providers the right to turn away LGBTQ people. This rule would inevitably fall hardest on the trans community since so many of us depend on access to transition care just to exist peacefully in our own bodies.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I’m curious how this will apply to religious organizations. Mind you, not religious owners but churches, church ran schools, church camps, etc.

It's my understanding that school or daycares or whatever run by churches are treated no differently than their secular counterparts.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

It's my understanding that school or daycares or whatever run by churches are treated no differently than their secular counterparts.

True. There are many suits, and cases, involving religious entities and the other portions of the '64 Act...

 

[Crimson1967]

I wonder why Roberts chose Gorsuch to write the opinion.

 

[uafanataum]

I may be in the minority here but while I am happy with the result I am not happy with the means to achieve it. I think that congress should pass a bill protecting LGBTQ people. The supreme court should not legislate.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I wonder why Roberts chose Gorsuch to write the opinion.

I'm not sure the chief justice always assigns. I've read today that Ginsberg assigned the writing to Gorsuch...

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I may be in the minority here but while I am happy with the result I am not happy with the means to achieve it. I think that congress should pass a bill protecting LGBTQ people. The supreme court should not legislate.

Gorsuch's whole opinion is to the effect that they are not legislating...

 

[uafanataum]

Gorsuch's whole opinion is to the effect that they are not legislating...

The link I clicked (second post in the thread) was a cnn article which had excerpts but not the full opinion. I will read the full opinion tomorrow morning if I have time.

 

[NationalTitles18]

The court interpreted the law. They did not legislate any more than they did in Loving v Virginia.

I think it's important to restate that our rights are not granted in the Constitution or law, though they may be recognized there. Conservatives (not implying anything about you) tend to forget this at times while emphasizing it at other times - IOW they are inconsistent in cases like this.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

The link I clicked (second post in the thread) was a cnn article which had excerpts but not the full opinion. I will read the full opinion tomorrow morning if I have time.

To shortcut it, Gorsuch said that "sex" means "sex," not narrowed down to gender like some would prefer...

 

[92tide]

To shortcut it, Gorsuch said that "sex" means "sex," not narrowed down to gender like some would prefer...

on the way home today i heard an npr interview with someone from lambda legal and he said they have been pushing this more broad interpretation for 10 years or so.

 

[CharminTide]

on the way home today i heard an npr interview with someone from lambda legal and he said they have been pushing this more broad interpretation for 10 years or so.

Yup, it's not a new argument, and I've even seen it presented on this board many years ago. If you retain a female worker who dates men but fire a male worker for that same reason, that's a discriminatory action based (at least in part) on their sex, and is thus a violation of federal law. It's a simple argument, and he could have written it in a page or two. Instead, he spent 30+ pages dummy-proofing it.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

It's my understanding that school or daycares or whatever run by churches are treated no differently than their secular counterparts.

After reading the opinion, he sort of dodges that and talks about the way Congress has exempted religious bodies. Then he says those questions are not before the court. To save you time, it's on page 32 of a 33 page opinion...