Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

SCOTUS ruling on LBGT rights

85 replies

ProfessorSlocombe · 15/06/2020 21:03

www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html

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.

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the majority in the 6-to-3 ruling.

OP posts:
TehBewilderness · 15/06/2020 22:06

As pleased as I am that the SCOTUS interpreted sexual orientation as protected on the basis of sex I am quite sure the gender identity aspect of the argument will be used against women in the workplace.
We have been discriminated against for many years in the name of employment equality.

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 15/06/2020 22:05

This is excellent news. It's not some sort of TRA bollocks, it's about basic workplace protections that should have been in place a long time ago, and already were in many states.

CaraDune · 15/06/2020 22:03

Great news. I've always said that I fully support trans people's rights not to be discriminated against in housing and employment (barring the tiny handful of situations - like jobs providing personal care - where sex actually matters).

Very encouraging that SCOTUS could still come to the right decision despite the fact that Trump's now got a conservative majority on the court.

goodthinking99 · 15/06/2020 22:00

Agreed, this is good news, and does illustrate as PP have said the gulf in understanding between US and UK stances. I've found GC people in the UK to be on the left politically.

howonearthdidwegethere · 15/06/2020 21:57

It's good news, I think.

From the judgement: "An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex."

It protects people who are gender non-conforming or trans but the discrimination is on the basis of sex. So I think it hangs on having to recognise the trans person as their biological sex. So you cannot compel a man to wear 'female' clothing for work. The judgement refers to sex being biological sex.

Griefmonster · 15/06/2020 21:55

Yes! I was thinking just this - if we're starting from such different bases, no wonder things can get so misconstrued / twisted? Like if you are used to an administration that will happily deny you basic rights, then any critique (not even criticism) can be portrayed (or interpreted) as an attack. We forget just how few federal rights people in the US have. Much love and joy to any US posters with this bright ray of hope in a dark time ❤️

OneEpisode · 15/06/2020 21:49

I think from the UK we forget that in the US people didn’t have that protection. I think that is why the debate between US TRAs and UK GCs is so heated as our viewpoints are so different.
I haven’t read the full judgement, but I think I could be a UK GC and still celebrate this?

PacificState · 15/06/2020 21:48

It's very good news. Just means employers can't senselessly persecute LGBT employees. Slightly stunned that they could before tbh, but this is a country where women aren't guaranteed maternity leave and black people get shot on sight so....

I think the surprise is because Gorsuch and Trump's other SCOTUS nominees were expected to go the other way on this.

Griefmonster · 15/06/2020 21:40

I don't know enough about equality law in the US but is this like the equivealent of confirmation of the Equality Act 2010 protections in UK law?