US: Central figures in Supreme Court LGBTQ discrimination cases speak out - - PressFrom - US
  •   
  •   
  •   

US Central figures in Supreme Court LGBTQ discrimination cases speak out

02:50  10 october  2019
02:50  10 october  2019 Source:   nbcnews.com

Supreme Court term to begin with blockbuster question: Is it legal to fire someone for being gay or transgender?

  Supreme Court term to begin with blockbuster question: Is it legal to fire someone for being gay or transgender? It’s among the most consequential issues facing the justices. Arguments are set for Tuesday.

Politics Supreme Court appears divided over LGBTQ job discrimination . “What’s bizarre about this is that in the state of Georgia, I can legally get married to my partner on Saturday or Sunday and get fired for it on Monday because I don’t have those federal protections,” Bostock said.

One of the first Supreme Court cases to consider LGBTQ rights concerned freedom of speech. In its decision, the Supreme Court tossed out a lower court ’s ruling, and established that material aimed The couple was reportedly so determined that Baker enrolled in law school to figure out a way how

Vin Testa of Washington, DC, waves a gay rights flag in front of the Supreme Court. Joshua Roberts/Reuters© Joshua Roberts/Reuters Vin Testa of Washington, DC, waves a gay rights flag in front of the Supreme Court. Joshua Roberts/Reuters

A day after the highest court in the United States heard the case he had been battling for six years, Gerald Bostock was unreservedly optimistic.

“I have faith in the judicial system,” Bostock told NBC News. “I am going to get to come back to the 11th Circuit and have my day in court here, so that I can not only clear my name but restore my reputation and paint my own portrait, not have it painted by someone else.”

For Bostock and the other plaintiffs, Tuesday’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court were the culmination of yearslong journeys. Bostock, who in 2013 was fired from his job as an award-winning child social services coordinator in Clayton County, Georgia, because his boss discovered he had joined a gay softball league, said that it was “exciting and surreal” to approach the white marble building for his day in court.

Gay, transgender rights in spotlight as U.S. Supreme Court returns

  Gay, transgender rights in spotlight as U.S. Supreme Court returns Gay, transgender rights in spotlight as U.S. Supreme Court returnsThe nine-month term opens on Monday with three cases to be argued before the nine justices. On Tuesday, the court turns to one of the term's biggest legal battles, with two hours of arguments scheduled in three related cases on a major LGBT rights dispute.

The Supreme Court has accepted three cases that ask whether federal anti- discrimination laws should apply to sexual orientation and gender identity in the workplace, putting the court on track to consider high-profile LGBTQ issues after its next term begins this fall. Two of the cases — Bostock v

Only One Conservative Supreme Court Justice Is Taking LGBTQ Discrimination Seriously. During Tuesday’s oral arguments in a trio of cases involving transgender and gay rights, Gorsuch was the only conservative justice who seemed genuinely open to the possibility that federal law shields LGBTQ

Others were excited too — members of the public wrapped around the block, waiting for their chance to witness Tuesday’s historic oral arguments on the question of whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s ban on employment discrimination “on the basis of … sex” also bans discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer employees.

“What’s bizarre about this is that in the state of Georgia, I can legally get married to my partner on Saturday or Sunday and get fired for it on Monday because I don’t have those federal protections,” Bostock said. “We as a LGBTQ community don’t have those federal protections.”

Congress has a history of inaction on the issue of LGBTQ rights.

Between 2009 and 2011, Democrats briefly controlled Congress and the White House and even though a bill to ban workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity was introduced, it was never passed. Sen. Jeff Merkley said in 2009 that it was possible the bill could pass by the end of the year but said the "schedule is very crowded."

LGBT: Supreme Court cases on workplace discrimination to test rights

  LGBT: Supreme Court cases on workplace discrimination to test rights It's 2019, but job discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is still legal in some states. The Supreme Court could change that.But that ruling did not address all the ways LGBTQ people experience discrimination in their everyday lives. Same-sex partners can now legally marry, but in a majority of states you can still be fired for being gay.

The Supreme Court ’s New LGBTQ Cases Could Demolish Sex Discrimination Law as We Know It. On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination against LGBTQ people.

8, the Supreme Court is set to hear three landmark LGBTQ workplace- discrimination cases . As Tim Teeman reports, they are as The cases are being heard against the backdrop of the stymied passage of the Equality Act, which would enshrine anti- LGBTQ discrimination protections in federal

During that time, Congress focused on and passed the Affordable Care Act or ACA.

After Republicans retook control of the House of Representatives in 2010’s tea party wave, there was no route to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and it became clear that LGBTQ employees couldn’t look to the federal government for a national nondiscrimination standard anytime soon. Subsequent efforts to pass ENDA’s replacement, the Equality Act — which would add “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the Civil Rights Act’s list of protected classes — have never cleared both houses of Congress.

Trans women battle sexual discrimination case: 'I couldn't stay silent' OCT. 7, 201904:39 In the meantime, LGBTQ people across the country have continued to lose their jobs because of who they are — or, for the purposes of Tuesday’s legal argument — who they are and whom they love.

Street in front of Supreme Court evacuated for suspicious package

  Street in front of Supreme Court evacuated for suspicious package The street in front of the Supreme Court building has been evacuated for a suspicious package Tuesday morning, the Capitol Park Police confirm. The following streets are closed: First St from Constitution Ave, NE to Independence Ave, SE 2nd St from Constitution Ave, NE to Independence Ave, SE East Cap St, NE from First St, NE to 3rd St NE Police were walking around asking people if the package belonged to them, but everyone responded no, so police said it was an emergency and began closing the roads. Officials have not told us where or when the package was found.One woman said she was walking around the Supreme Court for the rally being held outside of the building.

The Supreme Court appeared to be closely divided after hearing two hours of courtroom argument on whether existing federal law forbids job discrimination With the court so divided, the controlling vote could turn out to be Justice Neil Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, who seemed receptive to the argument

Cases are the court ’s first on LGBTQ rights since Anthony Kennedy’s retirement and replacement by Brett Kavanaugh. In the first case , the justices heard arguments on whether a federal law banning job discrimination on the basis of sex should also protect sexual orientation.

“We can't deny that homosexuals are being fired merely for being who they are and not because of religious reasons, not because they are performing their jobs poorly, not because they can't do whatever is required of a position, but merely because they're a suspect class to some people,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said, summarizing the stakes. “They may have power in some regions, but they’re still being beaten, they are still being ostracized from certain things.”

Pamela Karlan, an attorney and Stanford University professor who argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in the combined sexual orientation case, summed up her argument with a hypothetical situation in which two employees, one male and one female, announce that they had married their partner “Bill” over the weekend.

“When you fire the male employee who married Bill, and you give the female employee who married Bill a couple of days off so she can celebrate the joyous event, that’s discrimination because of sex,” Karlan said.

Melissa Zarda, the sister of the deceased gay man Donald Zarda whose 2010 firing led to one of Tuesday’s two sexual orientation cases, told NBC News on Wednesday that she felt “confident” that she and the other plaintiffs got their point across.

2 suspicious packages found outside Supreme Court building

  2 suspicious packages found outside Supreme Court building  The Supreme Court says police are investigating two suspicious packages that were found near the court just before the justices were to hear arguments over LGBT rights. \Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg says the packages were found Tuesday near an intersection between the court, the Capitol and the Library of Congress.

The Supreme Court will hear big cases on LGBTQ rights — after an LGBTQ ally left the Court . The Court agreed to hear three cases that have to do with whether existing federal bans on sex discrimination in the workplace also prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender

A seemingly divided Supreme Court struggled Tuesday over whether a landmark civil rights law protects LGBTQ people from discrimination in The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two of the term’s most closely watched cases over whether federal civil rights law protects LGBT people

“The way that we argued it — it’s so simple — if a man mentions his wife, that’s acceptable, but if a woman mentions her wife at work, that’s sex discrimination — it’s cut and dry, and that point was repeated up there so many times, I don’t see how anyone can see it any other way,” she said.

But some justices signaled that they do indeed see it another way. Justice Samuel Alito, part of the conservative wing of the court, pondered about “what some people will say about this Court if we rule in your favor” and extend workplace nondiscrimination rights to LGBTQ people nationwide, even as the Equality Act has repeatedly failed to pass out of Congress.

“We might as well just take the Equality Act and issue that as our opinion,” Alito said, sarcastically.

Later in arguments, Justice Neil Gorsuch — who is seen as a potential wild card vote because he signaled a willingness to entertain the idea that discrimination against sexual or gender minorities cannot be separated from discrimination “on the basis of sex” — asked whether judges should consider the potential impact of a ruling in favor of the LGBTQ plaintiffs.

“Should he or she take into consideration the massive social upheaval that would be entailed in such a decision?” Gorsuch asked.

David Cole, chief counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in the Stephens case, used the moment to turn the justices’ attention to the courtroom, which was packed to the gills with LGBTQ Americans of every stripe — plaintiffs, activists, lawyers, and reporters, young and old. Eager eyes peered out from between red velvet curtains and jostled to get a clearer view as their presence was noted in the record.

Justice Gorsuch emerges as an unlikely swing vote in the LGBTQ discrimination cases

  Justice Gorsuch emerges as an unlikely swing vote in the LGBTQ discrimination cases Trump’s first justice may set his politics aside to rule in favor of workers who claim they were fired for being gay or trans.At least, that was the impression that emerged after arguments in three cases the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday, where Gorsuch appeared to be the swing vote. Two of those cases, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, ask whether a worker can be fired for their sexual orientation. The third, R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, asks whether a worker can be fired because of their gender identity.

To find out more or to opt- out , please read our Cookie Policy. In addition, please read our Privacy Policy Justice Gorsuch emerges as an unlikely swing vote in the LGBTQ discrimination cases . The central tension in these three cases arises from the fact that the text of a federal civil rights law

The Supreme Court heard three major cases Tuesday that will determine the future of LGBTQ rights in America. The three cases have the potential to enshrine LGBTQ discrimination into law, or finally institute federal protections for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

“There are transgender male lawyers in this courtroom following the male dress code and going to the men's room and the court's dress code and sex-segregated restrooms have not fallen,” Cole said. “So the notion that somehow this is going to be a huge upheaval, we haven't seen that upheaval for 20 years, there's no reason you would see that upheaval. Transgender people follow the rule that's associated with their gender identity. It's not disruptive.”

Chase Strangio, a transgender lawyer with the ACLU, said that Cole’s comments were not unexpected. “He checked in with both me and Gabriel Arkles, the two trans lawyers on Aimee's team, about the idea in advance,” Strangio wrote to NBC News in an email.

“The most incredible part of that exchange was that David first started to make the point and said, ‘there are transgender lawyers in the courtroom today’ and then Justice Gorsuch interrupted him to say ‘of course there are,’” Chase said, calling it “incredible” and “historic” that the justices acknowledged the reality around them in arguments that included the word “transgender” for perhaps the first time in the court’s history.

“Our presence is itself a testament to how hard people have fought for transgender justice and survival and I am so honored to be a part of that fight and a reflection of the power of the many fights that came before,” Strangio wrote. “No longer can our existence be debated without us in the room.”

In a sign of how much further the people have moved than the law, the vast majority of Americans support extending these rights to LGBTQ people, and in fact already believe — incorrectly — that LGBTQ people already enjoy federal workplace nondiscrimination protections, according to the Public Religion Research Institute or PRRI, a nonprofit organization that conducts research "at the intersection of religion, culture and public policy". In some sense they are right — cities, states and municipalities have passed such laws even as the federal law has lagged behind. Logan Casey, a researcher at the Movement Advancement Project, estimates that 54 percent of Americans live in areas protected by these laws, even as the majority of states lack these laws.

But if the justices were to rule against the plaintiffs on either issue, sexual orientation or gender identity, the preexisting regional differences in workplace nondiscrimination protections would remain in place. For instance, a Georgia resident like Bostock could still lose his job for being LGBTQ in that state, but he would be protected against losing his job in a state like Massachusetts.

The last time that a class of Americans was subjected to a regionalized, systematic discrimination regime was Jim Crow, when African Americans and others were disenfranchised based on the color of their skin. Millions decided to leave their homes and moved north and west in order to escape these circumstances in what is today known as the Great Migration.

But Bostock is adamant that the 1964 Civil Rights Act already protects him, as well as other LGBTQ Americans. “I shouldn’t have to depend on the geographical luck of the draw, and no one should have to do that,” Bostock said. “Georgia is my home, and I should not have to move away.”


2020 Democratic candidates pledge support to LGBTQ community .
Democratic presidential candidates took a detour Thursday from a 2020 campaign roiled by the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump to make a play for support within a key party constituency: LGBTQ voters. At a time of anxiety for many members of the LGBTQ community, who see gains in equality under former President Barack Obama being rolled back or threatened by the Trump administration, rivals for the Democratic nomination promised an aggressive agenda to end workplace discrimination, improve health care and ensure protections for those who face threats or worse as members of the LGBTQ community.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks

Topical videos:

usr: 4
This is interesting!