Supreme Court: Sexual orientation and gender identity covered under federal discrimination law

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,522
55,220
Woods
✟4,586,217.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Washington D.C., Jun 15, 2020 / 09:00 am MT (CNA).- The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that employers cannot fire workers because of their sexual orientation or self-determined gender identity, while dissenting justices opined the Court was legislating from the bench.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion for the Court in a 6-3 decision, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh all dissented from the majority opinion.

Continued below.
Supreme Court: Sexual orientation and gender identity covered under federal discrimination law
 

Gnarwhal

☩ Broman Catholic ☩
Oct 31, 2008
20,373
12,069
36
N/A
✟423,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Boy Gorsuch really sandbagged us here.

Thankfully the Church is generally exempted from all of these kinds of laws, most Church employment contractually requires the employee to adhere to Church teaching (i.e. no homosexual activity, no unmarried cohabitation, no drug use, etc) and the Church is religiously protected in it's ability to end employment on a violation of those terms.

Here in California we're largely an at-will employment state unless your a civil worker or part of a union, meaning an employer can terminate an employee with or without cause. It's a double-edged sword, but a lot of employers here, rather than giving an explanation, typically just say "we're going another direction" or something along those lines - which doesn't point to the person but to the company.
 
Upvote 0

Miss Shelby

Legend
Feb 10, 2002
31,242
3,255
57
✟88,282.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I didn't realize that the question of one's sexual orientation came up in job interviews. I guess this will entitle people to point out that they're gay (or transgendered if not obvious) which some people will now do even though it's no ones business and to that end wouldn't care in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

PloverWing

Episcopalian
May 5, 2012
4,338
5,024
New Jersey
✟332,494.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
I'm not Catholic, so I won't comment at all on the goodness or badness of the court decision in this forum. I just wanted to add a point of information from my experience on hiring committees:

I didn't realize that the question of one's sexual orientation came up in job interviews.

Sometimes, in a lengthy interview process (if it involves taking the candidate out to dinner, for example), a person's sexual orientation can come up in conversation by accident, because a person might start talking about their family. "My wife is from this area, and would enjoy moving back home." "My husband likes hiking; are there any good parks nearby?" And now you know their orientation.
 
Upvote 0

Miss Shelby

Legend
Feb 10, 2002
31,242
3,255
57
✟88,282.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Sometimes, in a lengthy interview process (if it involves taking the candidate out to dinner, for example), a person's sexual orientation can come up in conversation by accident, because a person might start talking about their family. "My wife is from this area, and would enjoy moving back home." "My husband likes hiking; are there any good parks nearby?" And now you know their orientation.
Thanks for pointing that out and you are absolutely right, I hadn't thought of it that way. And actually you shouldn't have qualified 'by accident' as it's very common for an interviewer to say 'tell me about yourself' I guess I was thinking of job qualifications. Thanks for saying what you did.. I don't know that it justifies a special law, as I truly believe most employers (the exception being Churches whose teachings are against gay lifestyle) really wouldn't take it into consideration in the first place. I TRULY hope this law isn't to make Churches who teach against it forced to hire people they wouldn't have hired.
 
Upvote 0

pdudgeon

Traditional Catholic
Supporter
In Memory Of
Aug 4, 2005
37,777
12,353
South East Virginia, US
✟493,233.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Republican
That concern or naivety of the USCCB surprises me, considering that in other instances the USCCB has often taken the opposing view against what the Church traditionally teaches.

Of course this will affect churches. That's one of the main reasons that this latest law was written, which was to undercut the teaching of the Church on the one hand, and to counter act lower court verdicts which held In favor of traditional moral church teachings.

I know that our Diocese has declined to support the USCCB's annual fund raising efforts for that reason.
 
Upvote 0