Supreme Court Rules Civil Rights Law Protects Gay and Transgender Workers

Has Neil Gorsuch been working out? 😎

The New York Times reports:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a landmark civil rights law protects gay and transgender workers from workplace discrimination, handing the movement for L.G.B.T. equality a stunning victory.  

The vote was 6 to 3, with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch writing the majority opinion. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. 

The case concerned Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars employment discrimination based on race, religion, national origin and sex. The question for the justices was whether that last prohibition -- discrimination “because of sex”-- applies to many millions of gay and transgender workers. 

The decision, covering two cases, was the court’s first on L.G.B.T. rights since the retirement in 2018 of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinions in all four of the court’s major gay rights decisions.

EXHALE!

Truth be told, one of the main reasons Damian and I had planned to marry in May is because we didn't want an anti-LGBTQ Supreme Court ruling tainting our ceremony. The coronavirus still persists, but this threat has now thankfully been lifted.

It’s probably hard for some people to believe -- and a little embarrassing for me to admit. But three of the happiest days in my life were on the days the Supreme Court recognized me as an equal citizen under the law. (Lawrence v. Texas; Obergefell v. Hodges; and today.) It’s easy to put on a brave face and act like you don’t care about discriminatory policies, especially when you live in a progressive part of the country where you are unlikely to be directly affected. But I cannot stress enough how demoralizing it is to have your own government say you are less than -- and how good it feels to know future generations won’t grow up with the shame I did.

Keep reading HERE.

Supreme Court Backs Baker Who Refused to Make Cake for Same-Sex Couple

From HERE.

Ever since Mitch McConnell stole the Supreme Court for the Republican Party I have been dreading June’s flurry of rulings. And today’s big “gay cake” decision shows I was right, when the court ruled 7-2 in favor of anti-gay baker Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. 

The ACLU and others have tried to put a positive spin on it by saying the court "reaffirmed the core principle that businesses open to the public must be open to all," noting that it did not accept arguments that would have turned back the clock on equality by making our basic civil rights protections unenforceable." The court reversed this case "based on concerns specific to the facts here," which is a reference to Justice Anthony Kennedy writing in the court’s opinion that “consideration” of Phillips’s case was compromised by the Civil Rights Commission “which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection.”

Still, others familiar with the law -- and its application in a right-leaning court moving forward -- were not so upbeat. 

Activist Andy Humm writes:

It could be argued that it is a "narrow" decision -- turning for Justice Kennedy on what he called an "intolerant" remark by someone on the Colorado Human Rights Commission re religion. But these judges have opened the door for anyone citing their First Amendment rights to discriminate against anyone they want. Virtually EVERY service provider can cite "creativity" in their work. However carefully this was worded, the fabric of America has been further torn.

The idea that this is really about the commission's so-called unnecessary hostility toward the baker's religious views falls flat with Humm:

The case was decided on free expression -- of religious bigotry in the public sphere. While THIS court may had added some caveats to that, the floodgates can now open -- especially after Kennedy leaves. This couple WAS subjected to an indignity. The couple was NOT asking the baker to "change his view" on same-sex marriage. They were asking him to sell them a cake -- with no message on it. And we will now have situations where gay people NEED services in isolated areas and won't be able to get them. [The right's] ultimate goal is re-establishing the United States as a white Christian supremacist nation -- the way we were founded. It is going to take ALL of our energies to prevent that. [This ruling] DOES invalidate the [application of sexual-orientation] laws. Human-rights laws have narrow religious exemptions for specifically religious organizations. Now individuals providing secular services are asserting THEIR rights to a religious exemption -- and they just won. It is a disaster. Talk about a slippery slope.

A sad day for America -- and further proof that people like my mom were wrong when they tried to console me about Trump by saying "one person can't do that much damage." Yes one can when one gets to name people to lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court.

(BTW: You're on my list, Kagan.)

Further reading from Lambda Legal:

Religious freedom under our Constitution has always meant the right to believe whatever you wish but not to act on your beliefs in ways that harm others. The Court today alarmingly fails to heed that distinction.

Read HERE.

SCOTUS Leaves Transgender Students Hanging

I'm too preoccupied dealing with what my brother is going through right now to fully examine what this means. But I'm pretty confident that letting a lower court reexamine this without the executive branch's blessing isn't a good thing. Remind me again how Trump would be better for LGBT Americans?

Joseph A. Wapner, Judge on ‘The People’s Court, ’ Dies at 97

There goes Trump's second Supreme Court pick.

Gorsuch Calls Trump Critique of Federal Court ‘Demoralizing’ and 'Disheartening'

Some aren't buying SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch's blistering attack on our "president." But I find it hard to believe that Trump's fragile ego would even allow for something so Machiavellian -- see above -- plus he's too dumb for it. Am I wrong? 

Even though everyone involved in the conversation agrees that Gorsuch said what he said, Trump is still insisting it's not true. That's normal, right?

Gorsuch a Disgrace

It almost sounds like it has to be a Photoshopped fake. But two conservative news outlets confirn that Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, really was known for railing against the "liberal faculty" at his elite all-boys prep school in Washington, D.C., which led to this "joke" in the yearbook.

His quote is equally telling. 

And I thought Alex P. Keaton was something only wacky TV writers could make up.

Justice Warrior

This little cutie dressed up as Ruth Bader Ginsburg for superheroes day at school and got a surprise note in the mail!

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Transgender Rights

It's news like this that reminds you how important elections used to be -- like when presidents were allowed to appoint Supreme Court justices.

The New York Times reports:

The Supreme Court on Friday entered the intense national debate over transgender rights, announcing that it would decide whether a transgender boy may use the boys’ bathroom in a Virginia high school.

The legal question in the case is whether the Obama administration was entitled to interpret a regulation under Title IX, a 1972 law that bans discrimination “on the basis of sex” in schools that receive federal money, as banning discrimination based on gender identity.

Last year, the federal Department of Education said schools “generally must treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity.” In May, the department issued a more general directive that said schools may lose federal money if they discriminate against transgender students.

The case before the Supreme Court concerns Gavin Grimm, who was designated female at birth but identifies as a male. He attends Gloucester High School in southeastern Virginia.

For a time, school administrators allowed Mr. Grimm to use the boys’ bathroom, but the local school board later adopted a policy that required students to use the bathrooms and locker rooms for their “corresponding biological genders.” The board added that “students with gender identity issues” would be allowed to use private bathrooms.

Man Nearly Dies Because Flight Crew Didn’t Believe Black Woman Was Doctor

What were those Supreme Court justices saying about racism being over in America?

The Grio reports:

Was on Delta flight DL945 and someone 2 rows in front of me was screaming for help. Her husband was unresponsive. I naturally jumped into Doctor mode as no one else was getting up. Unbuckle my seatbelt and throw my tray table up and as I’m about to stand up, flight attendant says “everyone stay calm, it’s just a night terror, he is alright.” I continue to watch the scene closely. 

A couple mins later he is unresponsive again and the flight attendant yells “call overhead for a physician on board”. I raised my hand to grab her attention. She said to me “oh no sweetie put ur hand down, we are looking for actual physicians or nurses or some type of medical personnel, we don’t have time to talk to you” I tried to inform her that I was a physician but I was continually cut off by condescending remarks. 

Then overhead they paged “any physician on board please press your button”. I stare at her as I go to press my button. She said “oh wow you’re an actual physician?” I reply yes. She said “let me see your credentials. What type of Doctor are you? Where do you work? Why were you in Detroit?” (Please remember this man is still in need of help and she is blocking my row from even standing up while Bombarding me with questions)."

So vile and disturbing. I wonder if they would have believed her if she'd lied and said she was a nurse?

Supreme Court Rejects Abortion Limits in Texas

Finally, some good news after what seems like weeks of insanity.

 The New York Times reports: 

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down parts of a restrictive Texas law that could have reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state to about 10 from what was once a high of roughly 40. The 5-to-3 decision was the court’s most sweeping statement on abortion rights since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. It applied a skeptical and exacting version of that decision’s “undue burden” standard to find that the restrictions in Texas went too far. The decision on Monday means that similar restrictions in other states are most likely also unconstitutional, and it imperils many other kinds of restrictions on abortion.

Page 1 Consider (06/27)

OF COURSE, everyone made marriage equality the lead story -- except the New York Post!

Indecent Proposal

Or just follow me HERE.

Seen HERE.

Supreme Court Backs Health Law Subsidies

OK, so President Obama's Whitewater is finally over. But while we know the plaintiffs in today's ruling actually had no standing, can ANYONE ELSE explain to me why the Republican Party has made it its full-time job to stop helping poor and middle-class people buy insurance?