it’s now illegal to fire someone for being gay or trans

As of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this morning, it’s now illegal in the U.S. to fire someone for being gay or trans.

Until today,  some states protected gay and trans people from being fired simply for being gay or trans, but the majority of states did not. That protection now extends to the entire country.

The court says that the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as well.

More info:

Washington Post

New York Times

{ 306 comments… read them below }

      1. Working Hypothesis*

        It was the perfect case to challenge with. The employer openly admitted why he fired the plaintiff, and they had dress codes which were explicitly different with no overlap for male and female employees. Frankly, that would’ve been a sex discrimination case even if the plaintiff *hadn’t* been trans. Gorsuch and Roberts are genuine strict constructionists; they’ll recognize the plain meaning of the words in front of them when they’re glaringly obvious. I’m relieved but not hugely surprised.

        1. JustaTech*

          It will be interesting to see how this ruling is applied in the future for *everyone’s* rights about sex and gender in the workplace.

        2. sam*

          one of the concerns, of course, was that in addition to not protecting trans and gay employees, they were actually going to scale back many of the other protections that the law had been interpreted over the years to include, such as protections for cis people who just had non-traditional gender presentations (I.e., women who preferred to wear pants and no makeup, a think that had previously been determined to be covered).

          So it was an incredibly nice surprise to see a 6-3 decision that also spent time reinforcing the fact that the law absolutely covered these sorts of things, and that they were part of the basis for yesterday’s decision, which was the first genuinely good thing in this otherwise terrible year.

    1. JessaB*

      Shocked me so much I did about quadruple the fact checking I usually do on Facebook posts (which is where I saw it.) I just couldn’t believe that they ruled the way they did.

  1. Hey Nonnie*

    I’ve been tearing up all morning. I honestly didn’t think I would see this in my lifetime. I certainly never thought I’d see this from a conservative-leaning court.

    1. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

      When I saw that Gorsuch actually wrote the opinion, my flabber was well and truly gasted.

        1. pope suburban*

          Me as well. I really did not see this coming, but I am very, profoundly, completely happy that it did.

          1. Working Hypothesis*

            A lot of Supreme Court justices start thinking like judges instead of politicians when they’ve been on the court a while. Kavanaugh never will, because he can’t afford intellectual honesty or he’d have to admit to himself what he’s done to people in his own past. But Gorsuch is an actual strict constructionist, to some extent. I can’t see him turning into another Blackmun, but very possibly another Lewis Powell, who occasionally surprised people.

      1. Hey Nonnie*


        Although totally not surprised that Kavanaugh wrote the dissenting opinion. His self-entitlement was all on display during his confirmation hearings.

        1. Artemesia*

          He is really a moral monster. His last dissent on COVID was absurdly contorted — pretending attending church services was akin to shopping for groceries rather than going to a concert or the movies. He is fundamentally dishonest in service of his bigotry and those who support him. Still wondering who paid his huge bills that caused his hundreds of thousands of debt to disappear before the hearings to confirm him.

          1. Delta Delta*

            But, today he joined the per curiam majority in Andrus v. Texas, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a death penalty case, and helped reverse that in favor of the defendant (more complicated than this but is a good boiling-down). As a llama and a court watcher, it makes me wonder if he’s going to be a bit of a mixed bag as a justice.

            1. Coffee Cup*

              Based on what I remember from the podcast In the Dark about the Curtis Flowers case, both the recordings of the oral arguments during which he was openly calling out the state on their transparent argument and the opinions of attorneys, he does seem to be a mixed bag as a justice.

            2. LT*

              What do you mean by llama? I am guessing you don’t mean the fuzzy creature resembling an alpaca. Google was unhelpful.

              1. MayLou*

                I think it was a play on the acronym “ianal” which actually means I am not a lawyer, but sometimes is used here as I am not a llama (to go with the cover story job of llama groomer). Presumably Delta Delta actually is a lawyer. That was my interpretation anyway :)

                1. Delta Delta*

                  I am actually a lawyer, although there are days it would be more fun to be a llama.

        2. Drew*

          Not to defend Kavanaugh, who is in fact a terrible person, but his dissent was based (from what my lawyer friends tell me) on a very narrow view of the statute itself (more or less, “it doesn’t say sexual orientation, it says sex”), and he specifically said this is a good ruling for LGBT+ people in a way that seems to think he agrees with the decision but didn’t want to commit.

          Alito, on the other hand, went nuclear with his own 172-page dissent, including calling Gorsuch a traitor to Scalia’s memory.

          1. Justme, the OG*

            “including calling Gorsuch a traitor to Scalia’s memory.”

            I know he meant it as an insult, but it’s really not.

              1. Serafina*

                Dying! As much as I loathed Scalia’s conclusions, he was at least a brilliant analyst and writer – Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh together make less than half of Scalia’s intellect.

                1. BeesKneeReplacement*

                  Yes, that always bothered me. He was brilliant but had a rotten moral center.

                2. Rusty Shackelford*

                  Brilliant and evil does not tend to make one a good person. It tends to make them a fascinating supervillain.

                3. Prof. Space Cadet*

                  I was no fan of Scalia, but even Justice Kagan has acknowledged that he was a brilliant legal mind.

              1. emuroo*

                Truly the dream! (Not even getting into how the fact that a new justice is taking the place of a specific previous justice does not mean that they’re obligated to rule the same way that previous justice would have even a little bit….)

              2. Clisby*

                I don’t even buy that. Scalia advocated textualism in deciding appeals, and it looks to me like that’s exactly what Gorsuch’s opinion is going with.

          2. Ahsley*

            A lawyer friend suggested his narrow definition is why he was tasked with writing the opinion by Roberts. I would have been happy with a broader opinion and a 5-4 vote but I will take all the victories we can get in this age.

            1. Harvey 6-3.5*

              Here, Gorsuch’s narrow opinion is actually beneficial, because it pretty much includes everyone since everyone is either something or not something. There are lots of situations where this sort of strict textualism, that doesn’t look at the intent of some long dead congressman, is likely to give a better result like this (at least in my opinion). I wonder if they refused the qualified immunity cases because they knew that the strict textualist approach didn’t allow for qualified immunity and would have allowed for suits against police.

        1. Gaia*

          I wasn’t at all surprised by Roberts. He has his legacy to watch out for. I may not always agree with him, but he is regularly on the right side of social issues when they are likely to be called upon in the context of his legacy as Chief Justice.

          Gorsuch, however, was a surprise. Especially him writing the majority opinion. I just…I don’t even know how to process that.

          1. Vina*

            Gorsuch’s history on some issues such as Native American sovereignty are well worth consideration.

            I still don’t know how he got through McConnell’s vetting process.

            1. Archie Goodwin*

              I suspect conservatives saw “textualist” and didn’t dig any further.

              I mean, he doesn’t tend to surprise either me or my conservative court-watcher friend (who’s actually a lawyer, and therefore understands the law better than I do, and could probably explain a lot of it better than I could.)

          2. Meredith*

            I actually wasn’t surprised by either. Gorsuch clerked for Kennedy and he was bound to pull a Roberts every now and then. He’s no Alito!

      2. Vine*

        I’m not surprised. If you look at his entire history and not just at who appointed him and who made it possible, he’s actually more liberal than you’d think.

        He is, IMHO, the best SCOTUS Justice on Native American rights. The best.

        He’s going to surprise people.

        He and Roberts are the best hope at keeping the court from losing all credibility.

      3. blackcat*

        I am not a legal scholar, but I know quite a few (being related to a long-serving appellate judge does that). They all respect Gorsuch, even if they really, really disagree with him on many things. He interprets the law in good faith. I’m a raging liberal, and if it weren’t for the circumstances of his appointment, I’d be totally fine with Gorsuch being on the court.
        Kavanaugh seems to be thought of as a partisan hack who will do what he’s told even if it’s not legally sound. Alito is a sexist ass and always has been. So I’m not surprised by the dissent dynamics.

      4. Rachel in NYC*

        I’m still shocked. I never knew he had it in him. Roberts sure but Gorsuch- I just…it honestly gives me faith.

        Until the next time Thomas says something.

        1. Vina*

          Well, given how little Thomas acutally speaks and how infrequently Roberts lets him author any majority opinion, that’s blessedly rare.

      5. Director of Alpaca Exams*


        I don’t even know how to feel about something going right. (Especially because all my trans friends in England are dealing with the opposite situation right now.)

      6. Clisby*

        Same here. I’m not surprised at the decision after reading a lot about the oral arguments, but I really thought it was going to be 5-4 instead of 6-3.

      7. OOW*

        Rumors that Justice Gorsuch was supportive of LGBT rights and likely to rule in favor of the plaintiff in this case appeared on religious-right twitter a few months ago, and were picked up by center-left Reddit, which is where I found them. I found those rumors credible because Justice Gorsuch certainly would have known out LGBT people back in Boulder, since he was a member of the more liberal of the two Episcopal parishes in that town. Also, he’s an ex Roman Catholic, and Roman Catholics don’t become Episcopalians because they’re social conservatives!

        Roberts was the one that shocked me.

          1. OOW*

            Yes, but that was health insurance reform, not LGBT rights. Roberts has never made a pro-gay ruling before iirc, and he wrote the dissent in OBERGEFELL v. HODGES.

      8. Anonymous for identification*

        This is what I have been trying to explain to some conservative friends & family. I disagree with their politics, and I didn’t like either Bush, but those are rational disagreements. These two conservative justices just brought themselves over into the same category.

      9. JessaB*

        Yeh I completely…I could not believe which side he came down on, and to write it…wow.

    2. Cori*

      Conservatives are a lot more open-minded than most media critics and even individuals believe. W ehave been maligned for so long it is sad (saying this an Independent voter).

      1. Vine*

        Some are. Some aren’t. The movement had been completely hijacked by the far right.

        Gorsuch is open-minded. I can’t say that Thomas, Alito, or Kavanaugh are so.

      2. Dorothy Lawyer*

        Thank you for posting. We are the silent majority, the libertarian-leaning conservatives.

        1. BeesKneeReplacement*

          Have all y’all considered voting? None of this has showed up in conservative voting.

          1. Archie Goodwin*

            Can’t speak to others, but I vote in primaries all the time. And if I don’t like the Republican nominee, I don’t VOTE for the Republican nominee.

            Of course, some state committees have gotten around that by eliminating primaries in favor of conventions…

        2. Harvey 6-3.5*

          I’m not sure that I believe that. See the gassing of Lafayette square, which was not opposed strongly by “libertarian-leaning conservatives” in Congress.

      3. Gaia*

        Some are, some aren’t. Just like some liberals aren’t very open minded.

        I am rather liberal, some of my best friends are rather conservative. What matters is that we all respect humans and demand that everyone be treated with equity, justice, and respect for exactly who they are. Unfortunately, the most vocal public conservatives definitely are not open minded and tend to be really terrible humans. That leads the general public to believe that this is the norm, even if it isn’t.

        1. ...*

          A lot of outspoken liberals aren’t open minded either if your definition is willingness to consider other viewpoints. The LOUD people are what we hear but some people aren’t making noise because the backlash is just too annoying. I agree with you

      4. Temperance*

        I mean, no? Your platforms repeatedly seek to limit the rights of the LGBT+ community and women.

        1. Arielle*

          Seriously. If you’re a conservative who cares about human rights and social justice, then you need to come get your bros, because they are not doing you any favors.

        2. Diahann Carroll*

          And black people.

          I don’t know what program these people are watching, but just no.

        3. Thankful for AAM*

          What Temperance said.

          My mom and her sister are conservatives. I’ve never been able to figure them out but for sure, their idea of respect for others is don’t let me know about your weird sexual stff, keep it out of public. And boy, I feel sorry for people who have weird sexual stuff going on have a really hard life and I would not wish that on anyone.

      5. Gal*

        Conservatives have been denying people like me our rights for decades and today most of the conservatives on the supreme court wanted to continue denying us our rights, so I find it a little hard to believe that conservatives are open-minded…

        1. Altair*

          Honestly. I had to go take a little walk after reading the lament of the maligned conservatives above. SOme of my earliest memories are watching conservatives openly malign POC and LGBTQ people, and that hasn’t stopped since on either the personal nor the political levels.

          1. Anon 4 this*

            I can’t vote in the U.S. so officially have no personal political affiliation, but I had a distant friend in college who was Arab, Muslim, disabled, and a Republican – they were vocal about it in the student newspaper. I mean, to each their own, and I never said anything to this friend about their politics, but I kept reading their writing and thinking, “Geez, so many of those people hate you.”

            1. pancakes*

              You’re telling on yourself with this. Being Muslim is not synonymous with being hateful. Neither is being Arab.

              1. Jackalope*

                I believe Anon 4 This is saying that they have a Arab, Muslim, disabled friend who considers themself Republican, and the Republicans the friend was with hate all of those groups so the friend isn’t making the wisest choice.

            2. pancakes*

              I’m sorry, Anon 4 this — I re-read the comment a couple times and see how “those people” could be understood the way several other commenters suggested.

          2. pancakes*

            I was a kid in the 1980s and 90s and US conservatives went much further than maligning their adversaries. Read the US section of the Wikipedia page for anti-abortion violence: 11 murders, 17 attempted murders, 383 death threats, 153 incidents of assault or battery, 13 wounded, 100 butyric acid stink bomb attacks, 373 physical invasions, 41 bombings, 655 anthrax threats, and 3 kidnappings. It makes me very angry to see people trying to have a go at revisionist history in hopes of misleading people too young, insular, or uninformed to know better.

            1. ...*

              Its a stretch to group those people in with “conservatives” those are extremists. Thats like saying environmental terrorists are “liberals”, sure they’re on that side of the spectrum but they’re not like your average liberal.

              1. pancakes*

                There aren’t environmental terrorists outside of fiction, though, and there aren’t mainstream environmentalists using the rhetoric of environmental terrorism.

                1. Seeking Second Childhood*

                  Rare, but not fiction.
                  Remember the horrid trend of spiking trees with metal to endanger & scare off lumberjacks.

              2. Altair*

                Then conservatives should condemn them rather than condemning those who seek reproductive health. Otherwise, it’s just an iteration of the No True Scotsman fallacy to draw an arbitrary line between those who “merely” call people irresponsible murderous sluts and those who actually “do something about it” by physically attacking clinics, patients and providers.

      6. Aquawoman*

        I’m sorry but I think it is rude to walk into a conversation that is celebrating an important victory for gay and trans folk (one that shouldn’t even be in dispute but is) and try to recenter the conversation with #notallconservatives. This is not about you.

        1. Alli525*

          Thank you! If some conservatives are so open-minded, where are they? I’ve never met one and I lived in the Midwest and Bible Belt until I was 24.

          1. Filosofickle*

            I actually do know a few, but every one of them left the Republican party years ago because they couldn’t take it anymore. (They identify with fiscal / states’ rights conservativism, not the social kind. That’s an important distinction.) My midwestern 75 yo Dad is one, he says the party abandoned him when they embraced the Religious Right and he bailed after the first Dubya administration. He still identifies as conservative or independent, and does not want anything to do with the current Republican party. If someone still identifies with this party, yikes.

            YAY YAY YAY for LGBT+ rights!

          2. Lavender Menace*

            One of my favorite teachers in high school really was the “relatively open-minded; conservative because of fiscal policy” type. It’s hard to explain how he was both conservative and awesome, but I actually learned a lot about listening to other viewpoints and about understanding conservatives’ concerns from him. (He taught American government, so it was relevant.)

            But yeah, in my three and a half decades, he’s about the only one I remember! I kind of wonder how he feels about the party now, and about Trump. His skin’s probably crawling.

          1. Vina*

            It’s highjackign someone else’s moment to #notallX people.

            If a sexist man did something not sexist, men should not come on here and #notallmen.

            If a racist white politician did something not racist, white people should not come on here and #notallwhitepeople.

            This is the same sentiment.

            1. pancakes*

              I don’t think those sentiments are quite the same as fabricating a higher percentage of libertarians in the US than there in fact are.

    3. cleo*

      I’m just beaming and bouncing in my chair.

      I didn’t think this court would rule this way. At all. And I didn’t think ENDA would pass Congress anytime in the foreseeable future. So this is AMAZING.

      I just don’t know how I’m going to get any work done today. Unless making pride flag emojis for my work Slack channel counts as work.

    4. Threeve*

      Tearing up as well. I have only seen a handful of shining moments of true progress in my life, and this is one of them. Humanity beats hate sometimes, and it’s such an astonishing, joyful thing to witness.

    5. Kitrona*

      I was openly weeping as I listened to music today. Specifically “When You Believe” from the Prince of Egypt soundtrack. We needed some good news and this more than supplies that.

    6. WoodswomanWrites*

      With you on this! For several years I volunteered on an LGBT hotline and had so many calls from people afraid of losing their jobs, and we had to brainstorm together about how they could be secure and avoid getting fired.. I’m thinking of them, and everyone, now. While there’s still much to be done for civil rights of all stripes, this is an incredible milestone!

  2. Miraculous Ladybug*

    As a queer who used to work in a state without these protections: I was SO WORRIED this was not going to get through and i am so unspeakably relieved that it did. Finally, a bright spot!

    1. they/them*

      I feel like cishet people genuinely don’t understand how big of a terror this was… as someone who first came out in Indiana and is now in Alabama in a VERY conservative company, I feel such a huge relief. I’m not coming out in my company any time soon, but I know some folks suspect that I’m “queer” (without using that word in the way that I do when I self-identify) and I feel such a huge tension between feeling like myself and feeling safe in the company.

      1. Gaia*

        As a cis/het ally, I agree. I was scared it would go the other way, but the fear was never for myself. I’m already protected. It’s a very different fear for people whose rights are being decided.

        I’m so happy the right ruling came through.

        Happy PRIDE!

        1. pancakes*

          The decision is worth celebrating but nearly all of us who work in the US are / remain subject to at-will employment.

            1. pancakes*

              In a sense, yes, but we can all still be fired for no particular reason, correct? It’s just that now there’s a path to redress for people who suspect they were fired on the basis of being gay or trans.

              1. Clisby*

                In at-will states, people can still legally be fired for no particular reason as long as that doesn’t violate state, local, or federal protections. Now gay/trans people are covered by the federal protections.

                Of course they *can* be illegally fired, and now gay/trans people have the same legal recourse as people fired because of religion, race, etc.

                1. Working Hypothesis*

                  Basically, if someone wants to fire is because we’re LGBTQ, they need to cover their tracks well enough that a court wouldn’t buy the claim that that’s their real reason. But that’s still a huge advantage; many of them won’t bother to cover their tracks, and way more won’t bother to fire people if they might get in trouble for it, even if they might otherwise prefer not to have them there.

        2. Pomona Sprout*

          Another cishet ally here, and I am dancing for joy (on the inside)!

          It’s hard to believe something this good could happen in this (up to now) dumpster fire of a year–and yet here we are *insert rows and rows of pride flag emojis*

      2. Gaia*

        And I’m so sorry you’re made to feel like that anywhere, but especially at work. It is absolutely unacceptable.

      3. Tammi*

        Respectfully, I am a cishet Black woman. So while not to engage in a game of comparative suffering, there is both a similar terror and the nuances therein. For example, a woman of color (queer or otherwise) would not be able to seek relief as a woman of color because Title IV and Title IX are SEPARATE policies. (See the 1978 case of DeGraffenreid v. General Motors). Further, the current social unrest due to state-sanctioned violence against African Americans erases the stories of Black women who suffer the SAME fate. This is a huge win and has to bring a bit of relief in the midst of last week’s ruling of the lifting of transgender health care protections. There is still much more work to be done.

        1. Original Sally*

          White cis queer here. I completely agree with Tammi! I’m so happy, relieved, and surprised st the ruling. And there is clearly so much more work to be done.

        2. Gaia*

          I agree. It is definitely an amazing step. I hope it is one of many, many more to come that will make us a truly equitable and just nation.

        3. Vina*

          There are a lot of causes that intersect even if they aren’t the same.

          I also hate how the black women and Native American women victims of police violence, particularly rape, are just absent in this discussion.

          All I can say is I agree there is more work to be done and I hope that many of the readers here are rolling up their sleeves.

          I’m currently working pro-bono with a transgender client who is 6 months short of becoming a legal adult in our state. As soon as the date comes, I’m filing PPW to get them the identity legally they feel inside themselves. (note: They have a set gender expression, but prefer they as a pronoun).

          1. Ego Chamber*

            Absent where? It’s all over twitter. Black Lives Matter rapidly shifted to All Black Lives Matter and they’re drawing attention to all the intersectionality because pretty much everyone who’s not a middle class cishet white dude is getting shafted and that needs to stop. First Nations and other indigenous people have also been pulled into the conversation, along with all non-white POC.

            Twitter is a nightmare hellscape sometimes but the sheer volume of the crowd has moved to advocate in favor of justice for all and they’re doing a lot more than other platforms to avoid erasure by lack of focus on affected groups.

        4. Miraculous Ladybug*

          Agreed—It’s a small light in a very long, dark tunnel we have to keep fighting our way out of.

      4. EPLawyer*

        As a CIS, I don’t UNDERSTAND your fear, I’m just the cause of the fear existed in the first place. I also believe you were generally fearful.

        I was ELATED over this ruling. Just bouncing up and down with joy. I haven’t been this happy since the Obergefell ruling.

        1. EPLawyer*

          tht should say “sorry the cause of the fear existed in the fear place.”

          That is a very bad typo that makes it sound like I caused people affected by this ruling to be in fear. Never, ever, ever. Would I fire someone because they didn’t do the job? Heck yeah in a red hot minute. Would a fire someone for their sexual orientation, religion, etc? Nope.

  3. Keymaster of Gozer*

    UK person putting up big hands and saying ‘YES FINALLY’ for our USA cousins!

    1. Lady Meyneth*

      Yes, I have gay and trans friends in America and, as a straight woman, I’m literally tearing up on their behalf.

    2. Director of Alpaca Exams*

      Thank you! And sending you strength and solidarity in your own fight. <3

  4. Chronic Overthinker*

    I was so pleased to see this when I woke up this morning! Now I’m hoping more legislation will pass with regard to medical attention and healthcare for LGBTQ folx.

    1. I'm A Little Teapot*

      It seems like it’d be pretty hard to argue that they can’t be fired, but they CAN be denied medical treatment.

      1. Mx*

        Can they be legally denied medical treatment? It is insane ! Can a doctor simply let someone die because they are known to be gay ??

        1. Short Time Lurker Komo*

          Yes, those protections were revoked last week.

          There’s one story of a trans woman who was in a car accident in Washington DC I believe, who had an 86% chance of surviving her injuries had she received the same care the other person in the car did. Because of the nature of her injuries, a fireman EMS was cutting off her pants and realized she had male genitals. He promptly stopped all care and started mocking her instead. No other EMS picked up doing the care for minutes (I’ve forgotten how many).

          She went to the hospital where she was left on a bed and ignored until she passed. The nature of her injuries meant there was a point where she was basically paralyzed, but awake and realizing she needed help and couldn’t move. After the fact experts said she’d have been laying there, terrified.

          She became the most infamous case of a trans person being denied care, and her death sparked the making it illegal.

          And now it’s been willfully removed.

          1. Hey Nonnie*

            However, the healthcare protections were removed on the basis that “sex discrimination” did not include discrimination on the basis of orientation or transgender status. Since the Supreme Court just explicitly said otherwise, I imagine that now-codified legal definition will apply in other areas (aka here) as well. At least I hope that’s how it will work.

          2. char*

            There was also Robert Eads, who couldn’t find any doctor willing to treat his ovarian cancer until it was too late. Over a dozen doctors refused to treat him.

            I’m extremely unhappy that it’s now legal again for doctors to let me die just because I’m trans. Foolishly, I used to believe that once I’d been granted a basic human right, it wouldn’t be rescinded later. I know better now.

          3. Paulina*

            For emergency care there should be no discrimination, period, no refusal to treat or unjustified delays in treatment. It shouldn’t need to be an officially protected characteristic to agree that yes, still human and entitled to necessary care. Which makes it even more incomprehensible that not only is this not the case, but that officials are explicitly making it not the case.

            1. pancakes*

              What constitutes an emergency? I had an aunt who had no health insurance and by the time she went to an emergency room with what turned out to be ovarian cancer it was much too late to save her life or extend it in any meaningful way. Emergency care is not an adequate substitute for healthcare.

              1. Short Time Lurker Komo*

                You are completely right – emergency care shouldn’t replace regular care. I also lost an aunt to late stage cancer because she refused to get her symptoms looked at.

                However, in this context, I believe Paulina is referencing unexpected, sudden events that trigger injuries, such as car accidents, fires, etc. Situations you’d call 911/999 for.

                1. Paulina*

                  Yes, thank you. I was also trying to fit (possibly badly) into the U.S. context, where somehow non-emergency healthcare isn’t a right; that’s a big problem but a different problem than emergency responders who dehumanize those they should instead be helping, as in the case discussed above. Even the best health coverage won’t be truly universal if its delivery is at the whim of bigots.

                  My sympathies for your losses, both.

              2. Ego Chamber*

                What does this anecdote have to do with discrimination in a medical situation tho? Your aunt wasn’t denied care for some arbitrary reason, she tried to get care at a point when there was no adequate treatment available to her.

                (It’s also really gross how your post comes really close to posthumously shaming someone who had no health insurance for not seeking healthcare. We don’t want to die but some of us truly can’t afford preventative care. It super sucks.)

                1. pancakes*

                  Can you honestly not see how my anecdote about a huge shortcoming of emergency care relates to someone saying that emergency care should always be available? Apparently not.

                  Apparently you can’t see that I’m not trying to shame my own aunt, either. If anyone here is doing that it’s Short Time Lurker Komo, who made a point of saying that my aunt and hers “refused to get care” rather than couldn’t afford to.

          4. Hester Mae*

            Beth Westbrook in Austin, Texas died because of a being refused service by an emergency room doctor. She went to the emergency room, with symptoms of a ruptured appendix, and when the doctor realized she was trans, ended the consultation and sent her home saying nothing was wrong. By the time she went to her own doctor, it was too late.

          5. Working Hypothesis*

            What I’ve been told by numerous lawyers is that anyone trying to defend the recent executive order in court will have a very difficult time in the face of the recent court ruling. They can try, and I’m sure they will, but their odds of losing just went up sharply.

            1. pancakes*

              By the time anyone gets to court harm has already been done, though. Justice for someone’s estate isn’t nearly as good as justice during their lifetime or the ease of not having had to litigate.

            2. Meredith*

              Unfortunately, though, unless laws are passed by congress, they WILL have to go through the courts to get it overturned.

  5. LGC*

    Can I get an “ohhh yeahhh?”

    (But seriously. I’m 1) shocked this court ruled this way and 2) over the moon about this.)

      1. JSPA*

        I know! It’s not “grist for the election mill.”

        Not naming parties or names, hope this passes muster; point being, it’s functionally nonpartisan (or at least, more nearly so than I’d dared to hope).

        1. Working Hypothesis*

          Roberts is genuinely a judge first and a conservative second. When the law is clearly written, he supports the clear meaning of the law. Gorsuch may want to be the same; he hasn’t been on the Supreme Court long enough to know. People change when they reach the Court. With nobody to answer to except their conscience and their colleagues, they can surprise the people who nominated them. Look at Harry Blackmun, or Earl Warren. I don’t think Gorsuch will go that far, but I do think he may become a reliable ally when the law is clearly and genuinely on our side.

          1. Vina*

            Earl Warren not only was instrumental int he interment of the Japanese, he ensured his friends benefited from their stolen lands and property. He was beyond vile.

            Then he got on the court and was the driving force behind many of our greatest civil rights cases wrt to race. No one would have anticipated that. No one did.

            Who know about Gorsuch?

  6. Destroyer of Worlds, Empress of Awesome*

    While this doesn’t affect me directly (as I am not gay or trans) I think this is a tremendous step forward and I’m so happy some of my fellow AAM readers will get the benefit of this legislation.

    I truly hope this is indicative of how The Supremes will be rolling despite the conservative majority.

    1. Hey Nonnie*

      I’m thinking that civil rights in general are top of mind right now, given recent events, so I’d like to thank Black Lives Matter and all the protesters for achieving that.

      1. Destroyer of Worlds, Empress of Awesome*

        Agreed. #BLM is having the benefit of bringing attention to the plights of other marginalized populations.

        And it’s not a moment too soon.

    2. Vina*

      Roberts’ #1 goal is to protect the integrity of the court and it’s special roll.

      Gorsuch is not nearly as conservative as people think. He’s actually very good on Native American issues.

      He cares about minorities and oppressed people. I don’t know where his limits will be, but he’s not what Moscow Mitch thought he was going to get.

        1. Gaia*

          Gorsuch has actually surprised me with how much he has supported marginalized communities. He is definitely not always on the right side of history, but in several very important instances, he has been.

          I expect Moscow Mitch and the Mango Menace are not so happy with him…

          1. Diahann Carroll*

            I don’t care if he occasionally has an attack of morals and conscience – the man aligns himself with people who don’t have either. So saying he “cares” about the marginalized and oppressed is a reach.

            1. Vina*

              How is he aligning himself with people who don’t have either? Who, specifically?

              If you mean Trump or McConnell, they appointed him but he never has “aligned himself” with them.

              If you mean other justices, he aligns with the left and the right. As do ALL the liberal justices.

              Unless you are also going to damn RBG for doing so, I don’t thinkt hat’s fair here.

        2. Vina*

          So you don’t think he cares about Native Americans and just issued all those opinions just because?

          He may not care as much as you or I want him to, but to say he doesn’t care is patently wrong based on his history of decisions.

          If you disagree, please explain to me his logic in siding with the Crow over the US government. Or the Yakama. I mean, I can go on because he has a very long track record of such decisions.

          1. JSPA*

            One actually can have an intellectual commitment to certain rights, to self-determination, etc without having any specific respect for the human beings affected. That, in fact, used to be something jurists explicitly aspired to.

            The equivalent, in terms of speech, is “”I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

            The relevant question isn’t really whether he “cares” or not. Bromance and romance and even, “feeling people’s pain” are beside the point.

            The question is whether he’s put full intellectual energy into issues affecting First Peoples (as well as meeting what should be the minimum standard of treating them as full human beings under the law).

            Any vote will still be made from within the confines of his philosophy (as for each of us). As this site is supposed to be free of electoral / partisan politics, we can’t really debate whether the confines of his philosophy are intrinsically too confined.

            The fact remains, it’s particularly lovely when anyone is unexpectedly on the “Arc bends towards justice” side of the vote; and he’s that person today.

        3. JSPA*

          Someone can “fail to get it” on a heartfelt level, but still have some intellectually-based level of “caring.”

          If someone purses their lips and averts their gaze (or clutches their purse closer) when I walk by, but has a active intellectual commitment to my rights, they’re clearly not actually my friend, but they might still, circumstantially, be my ally.

          1. Vina*

            I’d rather have a person do something helpful for all the wrong reasons than to be intellectually pure but not helping out.

            Ideally, I want both. But reality rarely provides.

  7. Cassidy*

    This is such great news! Long overdue, too.

    Will sleep well tonight knowing that the civil rights of my fellow humans are affirmed.

    But come on, Thomas. Back in the day it would have been illegal for you to be married to your wife. Where’s your empathy for equality under the law?

  8. NotMyRealName*

    I am so happy about this that I can’t express it. But because it’s 2020, I’m also deeply saddened that the Court won’t review qualified immunity for police officers.

    1. Gaia*

      I’m not surprised. The court doesn’t like to consider issues that are hot button among the citizenry at the moment. They tend to like to wait until the populace has settled into an opinion and then they come in. They did the same thing with marriage equality – they refused to consider the issue a few times over the years before finally taking it on.

      I don’t agree with it, but it is within their precedence.

      1. pancakes*

        You think the Court’s Bush v. Gore decision wasn’t a hot button? Obergefell v. Hodges? Brown v. Board of Ed? Come on, now.

        1. Gaia*

          They had no choice but to weigh in on Bush v Gore and Obergefell v Hodges was the case they took on after refusing to hear multiple cases and only after the majority of Americans supported marriage equality. I’ll give you Brown v Board of Ed but that doesn’t change that their habit is to not take on hot button issues more often than not. They’ve done it repeatedly with gun control issues as well (including, again, today).

          1. pancakes*

            They certainly had a choice in issuing the Bush v. Gore opinion per curiam, for starters. Rejecting other cases isn’t an absence of choice.

          2. Lavender Menace*

            I was curious about this, so I went and looked up a list of the Supreme Court’s landmark cases.

            I don’t actually think this is the case. I was able to pull up dozens of examples in which the Supreme Court ruled on something that popular opinion had not yet coalesced, or – in a few cases – when they actually went against popular opinion (sometimes because they were more progressive than everyone else, and sometimes when they were more regressive).

            There were many in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s alone on all kinds of civil rights issues and clarifying interpretations of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments (Hernandez v. Texas, Bolling v. Sharpe, Garner v. Louisiana, Loving v. Virginia). Many of the rulings related to abortion and contraception (Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Gonzales v. Carhart, and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby) fit into this category as well. More recently, there’s Shelby Country v. Holder, Citizens United, and the Masterpiece Cakeshop cases.

            Furthermore, marriage equality was still very much a hot-button issue in 2014! In 2014, the percentage of Americans who approved of/supported same-sex marriage had just crept to over half, and it wasn’t much over – most polls around that time said about 35-40% of Americans were still opposed to same-sex marriage in late 2014/early 2015.

  9. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

    The court says that the language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity as well.

    Specifically, from the opinion:
    “The employers also stress that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex, and that if Congress wanted to address these matters in Title VII, it would have referenced them specifically. But when Congress chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, this Court applies the broad rule.”

    I am not a law-talkin’ llama beyond a 4.0 in community college Intro to Legal Studies, but that suggests to me that this creates Court precedent that if a law only references the concept of “sex” without further specification, it should be assumed to include gender identity and sexual orientation as well, and if they really only meant biological sex, then they damn well should’ve said so.

    And, if I’m reading that accurately, that puts a big old hole in last week’s HHS argument that they can discriminate against transgender folks because when Congress passed the ACA and prohibited providers receiving federal discrimination on the basis of sex, they meant “the plain meaning of the term” only.

    1. Kimmybear*

      This is exactly where I was hoping someone could connect the dots for me. Policy and practice are not the same so there is still work to be done but this is a huge step.

      1. Ahsley*

        I am guessing this will still take a court case to get changed, but it should give the courts something to go with on the ruling.

    2. Red Reader the Adulting Fairy*

      *and prohibited providers receiving federal ^funding from^ discrimination on the basis of sex, etc.

    3. Hey Nonnie*

      Yep, I think so (I am not a lawyer). The Supremes have officially decided what the legal definition of “sex discrimination” is, so it will be hard to argue that it means different things in different places.

    4. AMT*

      A decision in another important trans case from a while back, Schroer v. Library of Congress, summed it up pretty well:

      “Imagine that an employee is fired because she converts from Christianity to Judaism. Imagine too that her employer testified that he harbors no bias toward either Christians or Jews but only ‘converts.’ That would be a clear case of discrimination ‘because of religion.’ No court would take seriously the notion that ‘converts’ are not covered by the statute.”

      In this analogy, I’m thinking gay people are Jews who happen to eat pork, or Christians who wear kippot. :-)

    5. Brioche*

      Yes! That’s basically it. I am not a lawyer yet (currently studying for the bar), or an expert on Title VII, but I did take an employment discrimination law class this spring so I’ve had these cases in the back of my mind for months now. I honestly did not expect the Court to rule this way.

      Interestingly, Gorsuch used a textualist argument (using the plain meaning of the term) to achieve this result. A bunch of transgender and LGBT supporting briefs supported this approach as well. Basically, they argued if you are going to fire someone for being gay, that’s inherently based on sex because you wouldn’t fire a man for dating a woman, so if you fire a man for dating a man, that’s sex-based discrimination. Textualism tends to be used by conservative justices for…unsavory means, so I was DELIGHTED to see it used for good, finally. This argument can be used expansively, like Gorsuch did here, and it’s also used to severely restrict the meaning of a word.

    6. blackcat*

      “And, if I’m reading that accurately, that puts a big old hole in last week’s HHS argument that they can discriminate against transgender folks because when Congress passed the ACA and prohibited providers receiving federal discrimination on the basis of sex, they meant “the plain meaning of the term” only.”

      I strongly suspect this was intentional on Gorsuch’s part–to lay the foundations for legal challenges to other policies that discriminate.

    7. Miraculous Ladybug*

      I hope hope hope against hope that they’re laying the groundwork for that!!

    8. Director of Alpaca Exams*

      Not just gender identity, but presentation as well—the majority opinion specifically stated that firing someone for being “too masculine” or “too feminine” is prohibited.

  10. feather*

    The best possible news this month.

    Of course, that doesn’t mean all of us queer folks can be out at work with any kind of repercussions. Homophobic, transphobic, etc. coworkers and bosses can still make life hell.

    But this is a start.

  11. Littorally*

    I don’t even know how to process this. It’s so huge. I started working while deeply closeted in a very bigoted environment and heard so much terrible commentary from my coworkers. To have this in place now, right after such bad news about healthcare… it means the world.

    1. Siege*

      Same here. I wasn’t out in my hometown for a long time (well, two years, but it felt like a long time) because I worked and volunteered with kids. I was so scared that the parents would come for me and demand I be fired.
      I had the best kind of break down this morning when I heard the news. I feel safe, and hopeful, for the first time in a long time.

    2. Evan*

      Me too. This might de-anon me, so I’m posting with a different name than usual and fudging a little bit, but I worked at a newspaper in North Carolina during the whole HB2 debacle. I heard a lot of commentary from coworkers and managers. As an editorial assistant, I was a lightning rod for transphobic commentary from readers. I felt unable to react to it with the possibility of potentially outing myself and being fired hanging over my head.

  12. AMT*

    Guess whose trans ass isn’t getting fired for pooping in the urinal!

    (I kid. I kid. But this has been a crap week for trans rights and I’m excited for any good news. Even though I’m in a state and city with protections, I’m ecstatic for the many, many queers in states without them.)

    1. Phony Genius*

      Good think you said you were joking. For a second, I thought you were the boss from last month who makes a mess on the bathroom walls.

    2. Grayson*

      It took me far too long to remember what urinals are used for. And hey – this is for your fellow transgender human: *transmasc fistbump*

  13. Tessa Ryan*

    As I was reading this, all I could think about was John Krasinski saying, “And now, time for some good news!”

  14. Ali G*

    Well this is an unexpected and rather pleasant turn of events. My week just instantly got better.

  15. Lady Heather*

    I so love reading legal opinions. The language is fascinating – it seems to switch from complicated legalese to informal colloquailisms paragraph to paragraph or even sentence to sentence.

    1. Turanga Leela*

      This is very funny to me—I find Gorsuch’s style jarring for exactly this reason.

    2. JSPA*

      I figured their aides are directed to write the legalese, and the justice polishes and humanizes it.

  16. Anonymous Pygmy Possum*

    Yay! It’s about time. I have always lived in states where discrimination against gender identity and sexual orientation is specifically illegal but am so happy it’s finally illegal everywhere else. This has been a terrible week for trans rights so it feels good to at least have this win!

  17. Justin*

    One of the moments I think Alison is glad to see some of her past advice (regarding things that could come someone fired, even if deeply unfairly) invalidated! Yay!

  18. iced_coffee*

    Oh my god. Thank god. I thought for sure we would lose. Thank god. This is a HUGE win for LGBT+ people, especially trans people right now when Trump has just tried to rollback healthcare protections

  19. greycat*

    I’m wondering how this will affect the military ban on trans individuals. I’m really hoping it completely squashes it, but I haven’t seen an article that directly discusses that.

    A happy and unexpected start to my week. Happy Pride!

    1. pancakes*

      Keep an eye on Doe v. Esper in Massachusetts federal court. My understanding is that the Navy and other branches are granting waivers while the legality of the ban is being sorted out.

  20. Cg1254t*

    I hope this continues in other areas of law. Like addressing intersectionality of race and sexuality for BIPOC (black, indigenous, other POC). There’s still so much work. But as a lesbian it gives me a small piece of comfort. Something straight people I’ve talked to so far don’t really realize the impact of — this ruling.

  21. Jules the*

    I’ve been mostly avoiding the news & social media lately, so THANK YOU for bringing this to my attention!!! What a win!!!

  22. Llellayena*

    There is a resounding round of the Hallelujah Chorus going in my head right now! This is wonderful and I so didn’t expect it to happen during this administration! Yay! Congratulations to all those who can now breathe a little easier!

  23. blepkitty*

    I’m so relieved. Things have been so crazy I forgot SCOTUS decisions were coming, and I’m glad I did, because I would’ve been stressed about it otherwise.

    1. Curmudgeon in California*

      They are on my list of people who I will not mourn if they die. While I am a mostly peaceful person, some departures I permit myself to celebrate.

  24. Granger Chase*

    Finally!! I am so happy for everyone who is a part of the LGBTQ+ community. I know there is still a ton of progress to be made, but this is definitely a step in the right direction!

  25. hermit crab*

    The decision also includes the delicious phrase “canon of donut holes.” Canon of donut holes!

  26. old curmudgeon*

    I am in tears. I CANNOT believe this. And that both Roberts and GORSUCH signed on to it???

    Just truly stunned, and in a way that I had never, ever expected to be this particular summer.

    1. Gaia*

      Gorsuch didn’t just sign on to it – he WROTE the opinion!

      2020 is truly a wild year.

  27. DarthVelma*

    From what I’ve read so far, it’s broader than just not being able to discriminate against LGBT. The reasoning in the case is that you cannot discriminate against someone of one sex for behavior/activities/etc that you would not find to be a problem for someone of the other sex.

    That is HUGE. That means you can’t discriminate against female employees for not wearing makeup or heels. You can’t discriminate against male employees for having long hair. You cannot discriminate against employees for not conforming to sex-role stereotypes. The Supreme Court just kinda ruled that sex stereotypes are bullshit. :-)

    1. Starbuck*

      I love it, and it’s something that’s long seemed obvious; I’m glad they finally made this (long overdue) ruling to back that up. It’s a huge win for trans and gay people, but I think it really benefits everyone. The idea that you can somehow separate ‘sex discrimination’ from discrimination based on sexual orientation/being trans has always been absurd to me.

      1. DarthVelma*

        Seriously, right. I mean how could someone look at “Bob, I’m firing you for liking boys even though I’m perfectly fine with Beth over there liking boys” and not think that’s discrimination based on sex.

        And now, when I tell people “If John’s naked face is acceptable at work then so if mine”, I can say that the USSC agrees with me. Except for Alito. And Thoms. And they’re buttheads anyway.

        1. Gaia*

          Uniforms and dress codes, too. If John can wear pants why can’t Janet? If Janet can wear a skirt why can’t John (regardless of how John identifies their gender)?

          1. they/them*

            I believe they did say that gender-based dress codes were still acceptable, but that you couldn’t discriminate against people for following the dress code based on their gender (whether assigned at birth or not).

            So you can say that all men have to wear pants and all women have to wear dresses, but you can’t say that trans women have to wear pants, because if the trans woman had been born a cis woman, there would be no question about which side of the dress code she fell under.

            That was my understanding, but I could be wrong.

            1. Starbuck*

              Hmm, but what of non-binary people then? I hadn’t yet read through to find out that level of detail; you’d think they’d finally have done away with that exception! If not, darn. But at least the most essential protection is now there.

            2. JustaTech*

              Nuts. I was hoping this would get some space, or at least some sense, on dress codes and uniforms.
              (Tangential: Pre-COVID I flew a major international carrier and I was irked/displeased/confused that the uniforms for the women flight attendants were long, narrow dresses. In case of an emergency flight attendants are supposed to, you know, get everyone off the plane and run around and things like that. How can you do that in a narrow dress? You can’t go down the escape slide in heels! So why do airlines hobble their flight attendants just for aesthetics?)

    2. Gaia*

      Exactly. This is a broad ruling, and they made it clear that it was exactly intended that way. If you wouldn’t hold the standard to one sex, you can’t hold the standard to another. I am really glad they sided with the briefs that said that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination is, first and foremost, sex discrimination. That may well lead to a lot of people being treated better in the workplace (and many other places that also protect against discrimination on the basis of sex as well).

    3. JSPA*

      Yes, it presumably covers gender nonconforming (and gender-stereotype-rejecting) as well.

  28. Emma*

    I saw this first thing in the AM and almost wept into my coffee!!

    Also Alito is clearly LIVID, which is just a bonus. Stay mad!!!

    1. DarthVelma*

      Seriously, who takes over 100 pages to basically say “I think gay sex is icky”. Alito is just the worst.

      1. blackcat*

        He also once wrote like 50 pages trying to explain that martial rape cannot be considered a crime. So the dissent screed is entirely unsurprising.

      2. Dagny*

        You obviously did not read his dissent, because he said nothing of the sort and quite a lot about textual interpretation.

        1. virago*

          I’m with UCLA constitutional law professor Adam Winkler: “Alito says that ‘sex’ must be defined exactly the way that lawmakers understood that term in 1964. I’m skeptical that he’ll apply that same rule to defining what counts as ‘arms’ when reading the Second Amendment.”

    2. Leah K.*

      If you fire a man for being in a romantic relationship with another man, but you don’t fire a woman for being in a romantic relationship with a man, you are setting up different standards for people based on their sex. And that’s setting aside the fact that consensual romantic relationship of the employees are none of their employers’ business. Alito can suck it.

  29. HailRobonia*

    Of course this also means that you can’t fire someone for being straight. I have been telling this to straight people for years when they complain about “special rights.” Protecting people for their sexual or gender identity protects us ALL.

    1. The Gollux, Not a Mere Device*

      San Francisco was one of the first places to outlaw employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. One of the first complaints was from a straight man who had been fired for not being gay, and the ruling was, of course, that they had to give him his job back.

  30. Employment Lawyer*

    It’s a good case.

    I am more than a bit worried about the long term effect of the process. It would have been a lot cleaner for it to go through congress than through the USSC.

    Also, do not assume that the net result will match what you like. There is also the question of how the RULES (a/k/a/ precedent) will affect future cases. Bright-line rules like “we will no longer consider legislative intent, we will not go outside the text, and laws mean precisely what they say on the page” may not have the results which many people are expecting. (I’m not a gun-rights expert, for example, but it seems like anyone who has been waving off the “the rights… shall not be infringed” language in the 2nd Amendment had better sit up and take notice. As would anyone who argues for “stretch” interpretations of agency regulations, etc.)

    Also, lots of people seem to be confused and think the USSC said it was a “right.” That isn’t true. Congressional law can be passed which will reverse this, and there is nothing that this opinion would do to stop it. Just FYI.

    Still, all in all things are better than they were pre-decision.

    1. Gaia*

      That is all very true, but even with our trash Congress I can’t see them managing to pass legislation that specifically excludes sexual orientation and gender identity from Title VII. I’m sure they could prove me wrong, but Dems and moderate Republicans would both have to take a pretty big loss in both the House and the Senate to get enough votes to pass something that egregious.

      I would like to see Congress pass legislation to specifically add sexual orientation and gender identity to Title VII, however. It would be safer. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon, either.

      1. Observer*

        Employment Lawyer is right. But, it’s also true – I cannot imagine Congress managing to pass a law that turns this around.

    2. Anononon*

      Eh, the plain meaning of the statute has always been the first go to. Legislative intent only comes into play if the plain meaning is unclear.

      1. Employment Lawyer*

        Yeah, that’s not an obvious win.

        (To be clear, what follows is analytical and not aspirational.)

        I mean, this wording has been around for a long time, right? Nobody credibly argues that the decades-ago Congress intended to include this outcome: maybe they should have, but they didn’t. Nor did the historical use of the term “sex” when talking about discrimination usually mean gender identity or preference–again, maybe this should have been the case back then, but it really wasn’t.

        So the Court, while giving a pleasant and good-feeling result, has taken an interesting approach. Was the “plain meaning” of the statute different in 1970 than it is today? What other words will change over time? What other laws will mean “just what they say,” and nothing more? I don’t think it is obvious.

        1. Vina*

          Yeah, I think people don’t realize what Roberts did with the Obamacare decision. It was not a win for liberals.

          He made it very clear that people had to say “this is a tax.” Congress isn’t going to do that.

  31. TV Researcher*

    Nothing to add, but yay!

    The country really needed a win and I think we got one today.

  32. Nicole*

    You can’t be fired, but if you’re trans you can still be discriminated against regarding healthcare. Step forward, step back. I’m happy for everyone this benefits but we’re still not done.

    1. blackcat*

      It will take some time, but the way this ruling is written could force a change the HHS policy.

  33. Pipe Organ Guy*

    When I got up this morning, my husband said, “There’s actually a bit of good news this morning” and told me about the decision. It’s so very many years overdue; when I was coming to grips with being gay back in the ’70s, I was doing a LOT of reading, and I was painfully aware of the price too many of us paid for being gay or lesbian. Now that has lifted for many, although I expect anti-LGBT churches will still find loopholes.

    Fortunately, fear of losing my job because I’m gay hasn’t been an issue for me for many years, not since I left a position in a Catholic church. The Episcopal Church has long since learned, and continues to learn to embrace its LGBTQ members.

    Bit by painful bit, progress is made. Now to keep jackhammering at the edifices of racism in all its forms.

    1. AnonAnon*

      This was my question…if you work for a catholic school/church does this protection extend to you?

      1. Math Teacher Time*

        As far as I’ve been able to tell, religious organizations are exempt from title VII, so this doesn’t apply to them (but it’s apparently more complicated than that and there’s ongoing cases that may change that). So there’s still more work to me done.

  34. Mx*

    I am happy but I can’t help thinking : Non-discrimination against gay and trans should be obvious in the 21st Century. Why has it taken so long, especially in a Western country !

  35. OlympiaEpiriot*

    So, so happy about this. SO HAPPY!

    (OT: not happy they don’t want to hear cases on qualified immunity. But, I’ll take a victory wherever possible.)

  36. MassMatt*

    I would have preferred this happen via legislation but it is clear that would take years longer, these days I’ll take a win however I can get it. Very unexpected good news.

    And yes, that it infuriates Alito is a bonus. I hope he is so furious he quits. Next year!

  37. Matt*

    I’m still picking my jaw up off the floor. It’s been quite a while since there’s been some good news like this.

    1. PB*

      I know! I’ve been having a very rough two weeks. This was just the good news I needed today.

  38. Curmudgeon in California*

    I am jumping with joy here, which is odd since one leg doesn’t work well…. ;)

    I am also astonished by the fact that Roberts (not as conservative as one might think) and *Gorsuch* sided with Ginsberg and Kagan et al.

    The fact that Thomas, Alito and Scumbag Kavanaugh dissented is no surprise.

  39. Lils*

    I’m super happy about this. Can anyone clarify whether this new ruling now protects LGBTQ people from being discriminated against by businesses *as customers* not employees? As in, a vacation rental property won’t rent to me because I have a same-sex partner?

  40. tears of the mushroom*

    Thank all that is good in the world! My younger son is a gay transman (as he says, half the acronym in one awesome package!) and I have worried so much about his job. The pendulum swings slowly but it moves.

  41. Robin Ellacott*

    I’m Canadian but I teared up seeing this news… so much bad, sad, horrible news these days, and then this amongst it all like a jewel. Congratulations to my southern neighbours!

    A few years ago I had a long-time contractor call and tell me he was transitioning. I was happy for him and we had a friendly chat about various life stuff… it wasn’t until the end of the call that he nervously asked whether he could still work for us. I was shocked. As a cishet woman in a liberal part of Canada it never even occurred to me he’d be concerned transitioning would affect his employment.

    I remember that call often and still feel so, so badly that I didn’t think to make my/our support clear immediately. And it reminds me that some of my fellow humans have so much to fear that I’m not even aware of.

    If there is just a smidge less to fear today than yesterday I am celebrating.

  42. Heffalump*

    I’m not surprised that Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh came down on the other side.

    Scalia once said, “The judiciary’s role is not to decide what is right, but what is constitutional.” He also that if he had his way, people who burn the flag would be jailed, “but I am not king.”

    I would have liked to ask him why he thought flag burners should be jailed.

    Supposedly being at the Scalias’ dinner table was very stimulating. I have to grudgingly admire his intellect.

  43. WantonSeedStitch*

    It was nice to have a reason to celebrate due to the news, for a change! I’m a little sad that the majority opinion engaged in a lot of bisexual erasure, but I understand the ruling applies to the whole LGBTQ+ umbrella, so that’s good.

    1. JSPA*

      It’s a “what you do” vs “what you are” ruling.

      The “crushing on or dating someone of another sex” part of one’s bi existence is the same issue as for someone who’s he; the “….someone of same sex” is the same action (from an outside perspective, anyway) whether you identify as as L, G or B.

      Whether it’s different sociologically / experientially / philosophically / representationally really isn’t a topic for jurisprudence.

  44. Granger*

    So, it hasn’t been definitively decided whether or not it will hold up with religious organizations, right?

Comments are closed.