Significant Supreme Court Ruling Issued Today (Re: Lgbtq)

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that LGBTQ people are protected from discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on Monday (June 15) in a landmark opinion that makes employment discrimination against LGBTQ persons illegal in all 50 states and has important implications for religious organizations.

“An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII,” wrote Justice Gorsuch in the majority opinion in the case of Bostock v. Clayton County. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg.

"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender," wrote Gorsuch. "The answer is clear. 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. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

"For traits or actions" seems to be a significant point.  Will religious groups now be unable to condition employment on standards governing sexual behavior?  

Quote

Justice Alito filed a dissent joined by Justice Thomas. Justice Kavanaugh filed a separate dissenting opinion.

The ruling in Bostock covered two other LGBTQ discrimination cases, Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC,  each of which involved an employer firing an employee for being gay or transgender.

Clayton County, Georgia, south of Atlanta, fired Gerald Bostock for "unbecoming" conduct after he joined a gay softball league. Altitude Express, a skydiving school on Long Island, New York, fired instructor Donald Zarda after he shared he was gay, and R. G. & G. R. Harris Funeral Homes in Michigan fired Aimee Stephens after Stephens informed her employer she identified as a woman.

These employees sued their employers, claiming sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

This seems to be legislating from the bench.  As I understand it, the CRA says nothing about protecting sexual orientation or sexual behavior.

That is not to say that such protections are inappropriate, just that they should be legislated, not inserted into the statutory text by unelected, life-tenured justices.

Quote

Currently, Title VII, a section of the Civil Rights Act, allows religious exemptions for faith-based organizations to hire with an eye to religious qualifications. Some have used this to argue that religious organizations can refuse to hire and/or fire employees who are LGBTQ if it conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

However, because LGBTQ persons are now included under the “sex” category of Title VII, it is unclear whether these exemptions are still understood to permit religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of LGBTQ status. At the very least, the application of these exemptions has likely been narrowed.

So sexual orientation is not a "'sex' category of Title VII."  Male, female and . . . gay?

Quote

Gorsuch's opinion recognizes the Title VII exception for religious organizations, saying, "We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society.”

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, so this is heartening.  However, I'll be interested to see how this plays out when the lawsuits start.

Quote

It also said employers can continue to appeal to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which offers broad protections for religious exercise.

In addition, a "ministerial exception" established by the Supreme Court in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Sch. v. EEOC still stands. That ruling allows religious organizations to select "ministers" — often defined broadly to include non-ordained employees — without regard to protected classes in employment non-discrimination laws.

However, the court is ultimately unclear about how this decision will impact faith communities with traditional views, saying, “But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty inter­act with Title VII are questions for future cases too ... while other employers in other cases may raise free exercise arguments that merit careful considera­tion, none of the employers before us today represent in this Court that compliance with Title VII will infringe their own religious liberties in any way.”

In other words, we're about to see a ton of lawsuits about this.  I think some will include the Church as a party defendant.

Quote

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed an amicus brief in the Harris case that was signed by several faith-based organizations including the National Association of Evangelicals, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty and the American Islamic Congress.

The Becket amicus brief said, "Construing 'sex' in Title VII to encompass sexual orientation and gender identity, will trigger open conflict with the faith-based employment practices of numerous churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious institutions, such as religious schools, colleges, and charities."

Yep.

The Becket Fund does good work.

Thoughts?

-Smac

Edited June 15, 2020 by smac97

[Boanerges]

One can be gay and still be a qualified temple recommend holding member of the church. Firing that individual simply because he or she identifies as gay would seem to be an injustice. Were they to be doing something which might bring embarrassment to the church they likely would not also qualify for the recommend and I suppose that's a somewhat different story. In the cases brought before the court all three were fired not because of anything they did but simply because they were gay (or transsexual in one case). I would think the church would need to abide by that as long as the individual meets the other qualifications for employment. As I recall, and my memory may be a bit foggy because it has been many years, in the 1980s the courts ruled in favor of the church in requiring that some employees hold valid temple recommends. Again, if that is the requirement then not hiring or firing simply because the person is gay would seem unjust. 

God loves one sinner just as much as the next. I try to follow God's lead. 

Edited June 15, 2020 by Boanerges

[poptart]

YAY!!!!!!!!

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

One can be gay and still be a qualified temple recommend holding member of the church.

Yes.  My quesion is whether the Church can maintain its requirements re: sexual behaviors (rather than orientation) for its employees.

40 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Firing that individual simply because he or she identifies as gay would seem to be an injustice.

And the Church does not do this, and I am glad of that.

40 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Were they to be doing something which might bring embarrassment to the church they likely would not also qualify for the recommend and I suppose that's a somewhat different story. In the cases brought before the court all three were fired not because of anything they did but simply because they were gay (or transsexual in one case). I would think the church would need to abide by that as long as the individual meets the other qualifications for employment.

I wonder how transsexuals will be handled.  

40 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

As I recall, and my memory may be a bit foggy because it has been many years, in the 1980s the courts ruled in favor of the church in requiring that some employees hold valid temple recommends. Again, if that is the requirement then not hiring or firing simply because the person is gay would seem unjust. 

God loves one sinner just as much as the next. I try to follow God's lead. 

I quite agree.  The question I have is whether SCOTUS has situated itself so as to prohibit the Church from requiring behavioral/sexual standards of its employees.  I hope not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

...............................

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, so this is heartening.  However, I'll be interested to see how this plays out when the lawsuits start.

In other words, we're about to see a ton of lawsuits about this.  I think some will include the Church as a party defendant.

.......................

In view of Justice Gorsuch's opinion, I don't think that a spate of frivolous lawsuits will go anywhere.  Am I wrong?

[poptart]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  My quesion is whether the Church can maintain its requirements re: sexual behaviors (rather than orientation) for its employees.

And the Church does not do this, and I am glad of that.

I wonder how transsexuals will be handled.  

I quite agree.  The question I have is whether SCOTUS has situated itself so as to prohibit the Church from requiring behavioral/sexual standards of its employees.  I hope not.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm going to be civil here, I promise.  How do you think religious orgs (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints included) will act on this?  I've thought for a while that something like this would happen.  Lots of orgs here would discriminate based on sexual orientation and back in the day on race.  I've always liked how the Catholic Church in Germany (and to my knowledge a lot of Western Europe) treat it, they still prohibit marriages in the Church but that aside they say out of civil matters.  Buddies of mine from Australia have told me the Catholic Church over there acts in a similar way that it does here stateside.  Anyway, my take on common sense dictates that if in addition claiming you're an organization that promotes societal good while oppressing those you deem as garbage, sooner or later you're going to get some rather nasty push back.  Considering the current events, here we are. 

I'd hope the leadership of your Church would take this opportunity to make up for the wrongs that have been inflicted on the LGBT community for quite some time now.  You guys have the resources to outshine a good chunk of the wrongs done and over time help ease the pain and suffering that was wrongfully inflicted.  Here's me hoping you guys do the right thing while finding some way to preserve your religious institution.  I'm beyond just tearing things down, that's petty and dumb.  Makes sense for all of us to just get along, I think anyway. 

[Daniel2]

Was grateful to see this news this morning. It will come as no surprise that I agree with and welcome the ruling. And while those who disagree with the majority’s rule often point to and quote from those judges who dissent, in this case I am grateful for the actual legally-binding outcome.

Further, while I’m sure the old “this is legislating from the bench” argument will be emphatically made, the ruling itself explains how this is anything but, and that, in fact, to rule otherwise WOULD be legislating from the bench.  

i just finished reading the majority’s ruling. The salient portion to religion, which is briefly quoted in Smac’s opening post from the article, is at the close of the majority’s ruling, which I’ll share here:

“...the employers fear that complying with Title VII’s requirement in cases like ours may require some em­ployers to violate their religious convictions. We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society. But worries about how Title VII may intersect with religious lib­erties are nothing new; they even predate the statute’s pas­sage. As a result of its deliberations in adopting the law, Congress included an express statutory exception for reli­gious organizations. §2000e–1(a). This Court has also rec­ognized that the First Amendment can bar the application of employment discrimination laws “to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institu­tion and its ministers.”Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lu­theran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171, 188 (2012). And Congress has gone a step further yet in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. That stat­ute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demon­strates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmen­tal interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. §2000bb–1. Because RFRA oper­ates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal oper­ation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases. See §2000bb–3.

“But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty inter­act with Title VII are questions for future cases too. Harris Funeral Homes did unsuccessfully pursue a RFRA-based defense in the proceedings below. In its certiorari petition, however, the company declined to seek review of that ad­verse decision, and no other religious liberty claim is now before us. So while other employers in other cases may raise free exercise arguments that merit careful considera­tion, none of the employers before us today represent in this Court that compliance with Title VII will infringe their own religious liberties in any way…

“Ours is a so­ciety of written laws. Judges are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more thansuppositions about intentions or guesswork about expecta­tions. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language mak­ing it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for be­ing gay or transgender defies the law.”   Pages 32-33.

[Kenngo1969]

As magnanimous as the majority's holding in Obergefell v. Hodges is toward religion in holding that religions may continue to "believe" and to "teach" as they wish with respect to gay marriage and homosexual intimate relations, it's narrower than the Free Exercise clause, which is supposed to grant unfettered freedom for one to exercise his religion.  Did something similar happen with this holding?  It's almost as though those who don't think free religious exercise is all that significant say, "No, no!  Don't worry about us!  We're not going to commit an all-out frontal assault on religious exercise!  We're content simply to keep nibbling around its edges until there's nothing left!"

Edited June 15, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, poptart said:

I'm going to be civil here, I promise. 

Okay.

2 minutes ago, poptart said:

How do you think religious orgs (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints included) will act on this? 

I think they'll take a wait-and-see-what-happens approach.  

2 minutes ago, poptart said:

I've thought for a while that something like this would happen.  Lots of orgs here would discriminate based on sexual orientation and back in the day on race.  I've always liked how the Catholic Church in Germany (and to my knowledge a lot of Western Europe) treat it, they still prohibit marriages in the Church but that aside they say out of civil matters. 

The Church has bowed to the civil law as to the legality of same-sex marriage, while maintaining its doctrines and teachings on that subject.

Here, however, the issue centers on employment.  Can the Church as an employer condition employment on behavioral/sexual restrictions?  

2 minutes ago, poptart said:

Buddies of mine from Australia have told me the Catholic Church over there acts in a similar way that it does here stateside.  Anyway, my take on common sense dictates that if in addition claiming you're an organization that promotes societal good while oppressing those you deem as garbage, sooner or later you're going to get some rather nasty push back.  Considering the current events, here we are. 

This is you being "civil," is it?

2 minutes ago, poptart said:

I'd hope the leadership of your Church would take this opportunity to make up for the wrongs that have been inflicted on the LGBT community for quite some time now.

What do you propose?  And how would the Church reconcile your proposal(s) with its teachings about marriage and the Law of Chastity?

In other words, are you looking for capitulation on these things?  It sounds like it.

2 minutes ago, poptart said:

You guys have the resources to outshine a good chunk of the wrongs done and over time help ease the pain and suffering that was wrongfully inflicted.  Here's me hoping you guys do the right thing while finding some way to preserve your religious institution.  I'm beyond just tearing things down, that's petty and dumb.  Makes sense for all of us to just get along, I think anyway. 

A suggestion: Implicitly and publicly accusing us of "oppressing" homosexuals and "deem{ing} {them} as garbage" is both uncivil and sounds quite a bit like "tearing things down."

-Smac

[poptart]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

I think they'll take a wait-and-see-what-happens approach.  

The Church has bowed to the civil law as to the legality of same-sex marriage, while maintaining its doctrines and teachings on that subject.

Here, however, the issue centers on employment.  Can the Church as an employer condition employment on behavioral/sexual restrictions?  

This is you being "civil," is it?

What do you propose?  And how would the Church reconcile your proposal(s) with its teachings about marriage and the Law of Chastity?

In other words, are you looking for capitulation on these things?  It sounds like it.

A suggestion: Implicitly and publicly accusing us of "oppressing" homosexuals and "deem{ing} {them} as garbage" is both uncivil and sounds quite a bit like "tearing things down."

-Smac

Ops, my bad let me expand that a bit.  I wasn't just implying the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I was referring to Christiandom in the USA as a whole.  To be fair, you guys have tried to help the LGBT community more than many others here stateside have.  Here in Denver we still have this to deal with.

https://rewire.news/article/2019/01/28/colorados-ban-on-conversion-therapy-wont-stop-the-catholic-church/

To my knowlege, LDS leadership has backed off on this kind of thing, haven't they? 

 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, poptart said:

Ops, my bad let me expand that a bit.  I wasn't just implying the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I was referring to Christiandom in the USA as a whole.  To be fair, you guys have tried to help the LGBT community more than many others here stateside have.  Here in Denver we still have this to deal with.

https://rewire.news/article/2019/01/28/colorados-ban-on-conversion-therapy-wont-stop-the-catholic-church/

To my knowlege, LDS leadership has backed off on this kind of thing, haven't they? 

 

Yes.  See here: Church Continues to Oppose Conversion Therapy

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

The church was ahead of the curve here in promoting LGBTQ rights and work protections.  Their efforts had a large role in getting local legislation passed here in Utah in that regard. 

[Boanerges]

19 minutes ago, poptart said:

Ops, my bad let me expand that a bit.  I wasn't just implying the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I was referring to Christiandom in the USA as a whole.  To be fair, you guys have tried to help the LGBT community more than many others here stateside have.  Here in Denver we still have this to deal with.

https://rewire.news/article/2019/01/28/colorados-ban-on-conversion-therapy-wont-stop-the-catholic-church/

To my knowlege, LDS leadership has backed off on this kind of thing, haven't they? 

 

Indeed they have, but such news doesn't always seem to get widespread attention or notice. I'm sure I could find several members of my own ward who still espouse old "ideals" of the church in regard to gays without any idea there is new thinking on the subject. Likewise with racism. Despite the essay and articles like the recent one with Pres. Nelson and the NAACP, it was less than a year ago I heard someone teach in my ward about Blacks being less valiant in their prior estate. These walls of ignorance are hard to break down. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Becket Fund does good work.

Thoughts?

There are several well-respected members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on their board of directors, including a retired seventy. I agree; from all I know they do really good work!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

"For traits or actions" seems to be a significant point.  Will religious groups now be unable to condition employment on standards governing sexual behavior?  

This seems to be legislating from the bench.  As I understand it, the CRA says nothing about protecting sexual orientation or sexual behavior.

That is not to say that such protections are inappropriate, just that they should be legislated, not inserted into the statutory text by unelected, life-tenured justices.

So sexual orientation is not a "'sex' category of Title VII."  Male, female and . . . gay?

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, so this is heartening.  However, I'll be interested to see how this plays out when the lawsuits start.

In other words, we're about to see a ton of lawsuits about this.  I think some will include the Church as a party defendant.

Yep.

The Becket Fund does good work.

Thoughts?

-Smac

I thought today’s ruling applied to federal employees only. So how would it impact faith-based groups? I guess I’m not understanding it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

One can be gay and still be a qualified temple recommend holding member of the church. Firing that individual simply because he or she identifies as gay would seem to be an injustice. Were they to be doing something which might bring embarrassment to the church they likely would not also qualify for the recommend and I suppose that's a somewhat different story. In the cases brought before the court all three were fired not because of anything they did but simply because they were gay (or transsexual in one case). I would think the church would need to abide by that as long as the individual meets the other qualifications for employment. As I recall, and my memory may be a bit foggy because it has been many years, in the 1980s the courts ruled in favor of the church in requiring that some employees hold valid temple recommends. Again, if that is the requirement then not hiring or firing simply because the person is gay would seem unjust. 

God loves one sinner just as much as the next. I try to follow God's lead. 

Doesn’t undergoing a sex-change operation render one ineligible for a temple recommend?

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought today’s ruling applied to federal employees only. So how would it impact faith-based groups? I guess I’m not understanding it. 

From the third paragraph of the quoted article:

Quote

"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender," wrote Gorsuch. "The answer is clear. 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. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

24 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Indeed they have, but such news doesn't always seem to get widespread attention or notice.

While it may not “always” be the case, I recall the LDS Church received a lot of media coverage and praise for it’s outreach efforts to collaborate with local Utah-based LGBT civil rights groups in supporting and passing Utah-based  non-discrimination and employment protections for the LGBT Utahns. 
 

Given its very public support, I would presume the Faith is supportive of the Supreme Court’s ruling today, especially in light of Gorsuch’s ruling pointing out the numerous statutes still protecting religious liberties and qualifying Title VII’s application to religious entities.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Doesn’t undergoing a sex-change operation render one ineligible for a temple recommend?

Depends on when it happens and why, doesn’t it?

[provoman]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

"For traits or actions" seems to be a significant point.  Will religious groups now be unable to condition employment on standards governing sexual behavior?  

This seems to be legislating from the bench.  As I understand it, the CRA says nothing about protecting sexual orientation or sexual behavior.

That is not to say that such protections are inappropriate, just that they should be legislated, not inserted into the statutory text by unelected, life-tenured justices.

So sexual orientation is not a "'sex' category of Title VII."  Male, female and . . . gay?

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, so this is heartening.  However, I'll be interested to see how this plays out when the lawsuits start.

In other words, we're about to see a ton of lawsuits about this.  I think some will include the Church as a party defendant.

Yep.

The Becket Fund does good work.

Thoughts?

-Smac

The majority, page 32, addressed Religious Institutions, I see that Daniel qouted it.

I agree Legislation should have happened, but bow, the hand of the Legislature is kind of "force" - similiar to how the Legislature responded to SCOTUS and created RFRA.

I read the majority as saying gay, trans, straight, and any other orientation related to "sex" ( male or female) is now a protected class. I base this on my understanding of the Court saying that orientation based considerations necessarily relie on notions of male or female.

Edited June 15, 2020 by provoman

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the third paragraph of the quoted article:

Thanks,

-Smac

I got that, but I had thought it was in the context of the federal government being the employer. I guess I misunderstood. 

[Daniel2]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought today’s ruling applied to federal employees only. So how would it impact faith-based groups? I guess I’m not understanding it. 

While it doesn’t only apply to Federal employees and absolutely does apply to the private sector, the ruling tempers its application by acknowledging those statues already passed clarifying how Title VII applies (or doesn’t apply) to religious entities. I quoted that portion of the ruling in my first post in this thread, but here it is again:

As a result of its deliberations in adopting the law, Congress included an express statutory exception for reli­gious organizations. §2000e–1(a). This Court has also rec­ognized that the First Amendment can bar the application of employment discrimination laws “to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institu­tion and its ministers.”Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lu­theran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171, 188 (2012). And Congress has gone a step further yet in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. That stat­ute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demon­strates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmen­tal interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. §2000bb–1. Because RFRA oper­ates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal oper­ation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases. See §2000bb–3.[/qoute]

Edited June 15, 2020 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

While it may not “always” be the case, I recall the LDS Church received a lot of media coverage and praise for it’s outreach efforts to collaborate with local Utah-based LGBT civil rights groups in supporting and passing Utah-based  non-discrimination and employment protections for the LGBT Utahns. 
 

Given its very public support, I would presume the Faith is supportive of the Supreme Court’s ruling today, especially in light of Gorsuch’s ruling pointing out the numerous statutes still protecting religious liberties and qualifying Title VII’s application to religious entities.

Supportive insofar as it does not infringe upon religious liberties. There are some paid positions in the Church that require temple worthiness on the part of the employee. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Depends on when it happens and why, doesn’t it?

I don’t know. That’s why I asked. 

[Daniel2]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Supportive insofar as it does not infringe upon religious liberties. There are some paid positions in the Church that require temple worthiness on the part of the employee. 

The protection of which the ruling does mention, as well, even though there were no religiously-based questions before the court.