Town Square

Post a New Topic

Newsom, Bay Area officials applaud Supreme Court ruling on LGBTQ job rights

Original post made on Jun 16, 2020

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Bay Area officials celebrated a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision Monday that extended protections against job discrimination to gay, lesbian and transgender workers.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, June 15, 2020, 4:33 PM

Comments (3)

Posted by Creature Features
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 16, 2020 at 1:07 am

Well, it's about dang time!!!!! What have they been waiting for?

What I want to know is why didn't the SCOTUS (in the past decades while it had a "liberal majority") never fully enforce the 14th Amendment nor the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect the equal rights of gays before now?

Why did it take until the SCOTUS was Conservative majority in order to correct decades of oppression of gays in this 6-3 ruling?

Why did it take until the 2013-2015 SCOTUS cases to squash DOMA?

My main gripe with the "Civil Rights Movement" of the 1960's was that while people pushing for "Equal Rights" embraced SOME people for "equality", the Civil Rights Movement leadership refused to also include gays in protection of equal rights.

Constitution of United States of America 1789
Amendment 14, Section 1, excerpt
[...]No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
[...]nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[...]

What part of the 14th did people NOT understand when they were working on this:

Civil Rights Act (1964), Title 7, section 703, excerpt
SEC. 703. (a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

I wish Bill Clinton had refused to sign DOMA, but I also wish JFK, LBJ and MLK had embraced equal rights for gays as well. (by "gays" I of course mean LGBTQNB and etc.)

Thank you SCOTUS, but geeeeze, it took you a WHILE!

Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 16, 2020 at 3:45 am

This case is so much of a surprise to me. The Courts for decades have said the opposite.

I will establish that the U.S. Courts have completely denied protection for the Gender Identity Disordered U.S. Citizens from discrimination through the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The cases that follow establish history of discrimination:

Charles Franklin VOYLES, Jr., a.k.a. Carol Lynn Voyles V. RALPH K. DAVIES MEDICAL CENTER 403 F. Supp. 456, 457 (California, 1975), Sharon M. POWELL a/k/a Michael D. Powell V. READ'S, INC. 436 F. Supp. 369, 370-71 (Maryland, 1977), Ramona HOLLOWAY V. ARTHUR ANDERSEN AND COMPANY 566 F.2d. 659, 662-65 (California, 1977), Bennie E. SMITH, on behalf of himself & other persons similarly situated V. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 569 F.2d 325, 330 (Georgia, 1978), Raegan Kelly KIRKPATRICK V. SELIGMAN & LATZ, INC. and Associated Dry Goods Corporation, d/b/a Robinson's 475 F. Supp. 145 & 636 F.2d 1047, 1050-51 (Florida, 1979 &1981), Barbara Lynn TERRY V. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION et al 1980 WL 334 ,4-7 of 7 (Wisconsin, 1980), Vincent DE TORE a/k/a Vicky De Tore V. LOCAL # 245 OF the JERSEY CITY PUBLIC EMPLOYEES UNION, Secretary of United States Department of Labor, the Department of Public Works of the City of Jersey City, Division of Automotive Services of the Department of Public Works of the City of Jersey City, and the City of Jersey City 615 F.2d. 980, 985 & 511 F. Supp. 171, 178 (New Jersey, 1980 & 1981), Audra SOMMERS, a/k/a Timothy Kevin Cornish V. BUDGET MARKETING, INC. 667 F.2d. 748, 749-50 (Iowa, 1982), Audra SOMMERS V. IOWA CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION 337 N. W. Rpt. 2d. 470, 477 (Iowa, 1983), Karen Frances ULANE V. EASTERN AIRLINES, INC. 581 F. Supp. 821, 837-40 & 742 F.2d. 1081, 1087 (Illinois, 1983 & 1984), Wilma WOOD V. C.G. STUDIOS, INC. 660 F. Supp. 176, 177-78 (Pennsylvania, 1987), Marilou EMMANUELLE V. UNITED STATES TOBACCO COMPANY, INC. 1987 WL 19165, 1-3 (Illinois, 1987). Doe V. Boeing (846 P. 2d. 531 (Washington, 1993)) and Dobre V. “Amtrak” (1993 WL 496676).

I will establish that Gender Identity Disordered U.S. Citizens (Transvestites and Transsexuals) were a "Protected Minority" concerning U.S. constitutional rights to employment by the U.S. Federal courts' through Title V: The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 within Federal Agencies. This was determined by the following cases:

William A. BLACKWELL V. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 639 F.Supp. 289, 290-1 & 656 F. Supp. 713, 714-16 (D.D.C. 1986) and in the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit in the case William A. BLACKWELL V. U.S. Department of the Treasury, 830 F.2d 1183, 1183-4 (D.D.C. 1987), Jane DOE V. U.S. Postal Service et al, 1985 Westlaw 9446, 2-6 (D.D.C. 1985).

But then the U.S. Congress used these cases to carve out EXCEPTIONS to protection of Discrimination under the Americans with Disabilites Act. They got away with it due to the following conclusions:

I will establish the U. S. Government is aware that citizens with Gender Identity Disorder are a minority and are politically powerless. I accomplished this task by researching the congressional record and found some startling conclusions that the Legislative and Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal government arbitrarily proclaimed that all individuals with Gender Identity Disorder are criminals. This conclusion is recorded in the congressional record citation: (136 C. R. H2315 01, *H2322-3) I quote:

*H2322 this country very quickly saw the flaws in this bill and said, “You’ve got to repeal that turkey,” and we did.

If this bill passes in its present form, many of the special interest groups will make sure we never repeal those very onerous provisions, and the American public will be hurt dramatically without any chance of appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to add for the RECORD at the ends of our discussion and op-ed piece called “Disabling the disabled,” by Dolan Shortley.

The article referred to as follows:


(By Maiselle Dolan Shortley)

Congress, in its infinite wisdom, is about to open yet another Pandora’s box of judicial interpretation and intervention. The Americans with Disabilities Act (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) was written to prohibit discrimination against disabled Americans- a laudable goal. Its real effects, however, will be to stifle entrepreneurs, place stringent and unrealistic requirements on business and industry and create a backlash of public sentiment against the truly disabled.

The powerful disabilities lobby should be up in arms and outraged about ADA's language. As intended illegal drug users will be protected unless they pose a "direct threat" to the property or safety of others in the workplace (forget the profitability of the enterprise). So much for a drug-free workplace. Sexual behavioral disorders are not exempted from protection. A situation could be created in which someone guilty of a sex-related crime would be afforded special protection against "discrimination". As this legislation, the amputee could be placed on the same level as the pedophile, the blind on the same level as the transvestite. The consequences of this bill only trivializes the struggle of the truly disabled to attain equal opportunity and access, and places them in the same category with common criminals.

There is literally no telling to what lengths people will be forced to go to accommodate an ever-expanding definition of "disabled". Child molestation is a crime. If pedophilia is considered a disability under ADA would a child molester be able to reclaim his old job after being released from prison? Could he use his criminal record to obtain a job-at a day care center, perhaps-under the guise of disability?

136 Cong. Rec. H2315-01

I want to make myself crystal clear here. I do NOT advocate PEDOPHILES, EXHIBITIONISTS, VOYEURISTS, COMPULSIVE GAMBLERS, KLEPTOMANIACS, PYROMANIACS OR USERS OF ILLEGAL DRUGS, period! Many activities of these individuals are criminal offenses and can damage personal property, promote illegal behavior, or injure innocent victims.

This is the first irrebuttable presumption that these activities as criminal or a public danger by the U.S. Government. And here is a second reference from the congressional record citation: (137 C.R. H3922-05, *3954) I quote:

Ms. SLAUGHTER of New York.

Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this bill have demonstrated that they are more concerned with creating civil unrest than civil rights. They have attempted to pit different groups of working Americans against one another at a volatile time when millions of our citizens are either out of work or worried about losing their jobs.

By using their politics of fear, opponents have sought to threaten the American public by falsely claiming that passage of a civil rights bill will determine who gets the opportunity to work in America….

Citizens, prompted by organized letter campaigns, wrote to Members of Congress with misplaced fear about the results of the bill…

One letter said:

This bill is the greatest threat ever to religious freedom and traditional family values.

Another letter said:

Homosexuals, drug addicts, alcoholics, and transvestites are "handicapped persons" by their own choice * * * But should schools be forced to hire them just because their chosen lifestyle has made them undesirable? * * * Should they have the same privileges as upright, law-abiding citizens?

Still another included:

The next things they'll be saying is theft, rapists, murderers, etc., are an accepted life style and we wish to protect them, too.

Most of this rhetoric was ginned up by groups less interested in affecting public policy than in adding to their coffers by scaring citizens in order to make them contribute to their group. The statement “Should they have the same privileges as upright law-abiding citizens?” is another use of an irrebuttable presumption that individuals with Gender Identity Disorder are criminals.

The Federal Rehabilitation Act was amended in 1992 to include the same provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act

So this case is a MAJOR change. Historically the Transgendered had simply NO RIGHTS AT ALL in the eyes of the courts.

Please consider this information?

Posted by Merrick Garland
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Jun 16, 2020 at 5:40 am

All that cheating and money spent on far-right, fringe judges?

And all they get is a rainbow tee shirt?

Gosh, I'll attempt to stifle my schadenfreude from morphing into outright, uproarious laughter.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Mountain View Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

Worried about the cost of climate change? Here is some hope.
By Sherry Listgarten | 25 comments | 4,068 views

The Time and Cost Savings of Avoiding a Long Commute
By Steve Levy | 5 comments | 1,064 views

Analysis/paralysis: The infamous ‘Palo Alto Process’ must go
By Diana Diamond | 0 comments | 799 views