We have some major, very consequential news
from the Supreme Court.
Major decisions at the Supreme Court don't
happen every day.
We got a very, very important decision yesterday
where the Supreme Court has decided that the
language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects
LGBT workers under the sex discrimination
provision.
Now, this is something I've been talking to
you about for years and in fact, since the
June of 2015 Supreme Court decision, which
said states can't ban same sex marriage.
We knew we predicted we've been watching as
the sort of new focus of anti-gay bigotry
has been employment discrimination, so-called
religious freedom when it comes to LGBT workers.
And even though LGBT workers, even though
LGBT folks have been able to marry in all
50 states since June of 2015, in many states,
you can still legally fire someone for their
perceived or actual sexual orientation.
And perceived as an important part of that,
you don't actually have to be LGBT to be fired
if someone thought you were as crazy as that
is.
And in many states, either way, it is legal.
So this decision from the Supreme Court was
a six to three decision, which with Donald
Trump's appointee Neil Gorsuch writing the
majority opinion, which we will address a
Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts,
a Bush appointee, as well as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.
So all of this goes back to Title seven of
the Civil Rights Act of 64.
And that seventh Title seven very clearly
says workers can't be discriminated against
by their employers on the basis of race, religion,
national origin and sex.
And the what was really at issue in this case
is whether sex, as designated in 1964, includes
sexual orientation and gender identity.
So understand that the people fighting for
LGBT discrimination here were Trump administration
lawyers.
The Trump administration was the side arguing
that back in 1964, when people talked about
sex discrimination, they met bias against
men or women, quite simply that they argued
Trump's lawyers did, that.
This provision in 1964 does not include sexual
orientation.
It doesn't include gender identity.
And that if you want to protect those characteristics,
you would need a new law that the 64 law would
not protect them.
Now, the counter argument, which is a strong
one that ultimately was accepted by the court
and the court sided with this argument.
The other argument was any decision made about
sexual orientation or transgender status is
by definition about sex as designated in 1964.
So I'll give you an example.
If you're discriminating against someone because
they are a man attracted to other men.
Right.
Which would be sexual orientation discrimination,
you are singling them out as men attracted
to men rather than women attracted to men,
meaning their male sex is part of the discrimination
period.
Another example, if you're firing someone
because they are transgender, it is because
you've evaluated that their biological birth,
sex differs from their current gender identity
and thus sex is part of that discrimination.
So this is a very important decision.
Two of the three big pillars of anti-gay discrimination
have been toppled, have been locked, knocked
down in the last five years.
So back in 2015, Supreme Court decided you
can't stop people from being married even
if they are both men or both women.
Same sex marriage bans are banned now in 2020,
almost exactly five years later.
The Supreme Court decided that employees cannot
be discriminated against on the basis of their
sexual orientation and gender identity.
Those are two of the three pillars.
The last pillar would be including sexual
orientation in business, nondiscrimination
law in the sense of you can choose in many
states to refuse service to someone on the
basis of their sexual orientation, real or
perceived.
There are many states that have outlawed this,
but there are many states that have not.
And a Supreme Court decision on that would
be sort of breaking down the third anti-gay
pillar.
Now, there are some caveats here.
This is a good decision and this is the right
decision.
But there are some important things to think
about.
First of all, this.
Decision from the Supreme Court may well prevent
some LGBT folks from being fired.
But others are still going to be fired and
employers will just be more careful about
how they do it.
They certainly won't say it has anything to
do with sexual orientation or gender identity,
but it still could be.
And there are going to be a lot of legal cases,
very expensive legal cases that will be fought
over.
Can you prove that it was actually because
of sexual orientation or gender identity?
This is a big problem in general in employment
discrimination.
Number two, many states don't require an explanation
about why you're firing someone.
These are at will states where an employer
can just say your position has has been eliminated.
We no longer require your services.
And that would make it very difficult to really
know if one of these protected statuses is
at play.
Now, there are also other legal infrastructures,
like, for example, the Fair Housing Act, which
aren't affected by this decision.
So the Fair Housing Act will maybe be fought
in court and you could point to this decision
as president.
But right now, the Fair Housing Act doesn't
ban discrimination against, for example, LGBT
tenants.
So a landlord could say, I don't want LGBT
tenants in a lot of states and that would
not be banned by the Fair Housing Act.
Maybe this decision from yesterday could be
used to justify changing the Fair Housing
Act.
Now, just one other really important thing
for context.
The Trump administration just rolled back
protections for trans people two days ago.
So yesterday's decision is progress.
It's a step forward.
And on Monday, we had a step back.
And this is all still a really big fight.
And this is just one piece of the pie, one
piece of the puzzle.
Lastly and very importantly.
If we don't vote Donald Trump out in November,
he gets to pick.
In all likelihood, more Supreme Court justices
and he will mostly choose people who will
fall on the wrong side of causes like these.
Now, a lot of people are going to say, but,
David, hold on.
Gorsuch, who Trump selected was with the majority
here.
That's right.
He happened to get it right.
But let's be frank.
This was a really obvious case.
The three justices who dissented.
I vehemently disagree with and this was a
relatively easy case.
All things considered.
If we want to be sure that we get more decisions
like this in the future, we have to be absolutely
positive that it's going to be Joe Biden appointing
Supreme Court justices rather than Donald
Trump.
Let's not forget about that as we are just
four and a half months from a presidential
election
