Gay rights: Supreme Court divid LGBT job discrimatn se

Contents:

• WHAT MAK MONDAY’S GAY RIGHTS RULG SO HISTORIC
• SUPREME COURT IS DIVID OVER GAY, TRANSGENR JOB BIAS CIVIL RIGHTS SE TO BE CID DURG 2020 ELECTN
• THE SUPREME COURT RULGS THAT HAVE SHAPED GAY RIGHTS AMERI
• WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT A SEEMGLY FAKE DOCUMENT A GAY RIGHTS CASE
• THE VIEW STAR REVEALS WHY SHE AGRE WH SUPREME COURT LG FOR SIGNER WHO OPPOS GAY MARRIAGE

WHAT MAK MONDAY’S GAY RIGHTS RULG SO HISTORIC

Job discrimatn agast homosexuals was first enshred by an executive orr signed by Print Dwight Eisenhower 1953, which prohibed their employment by the feral ernment and feral ntractors.

Frank Kameny, a Harvard-traed astronomer, was hired by the Army Map Service 1957 — then fired, a few months later, when the Army disvered he had been arrted on a morals charge San beme the first gay feral employee to openly challenge the ernment’s policy.

In a brief he submted to the Supreme Court 1961, he scribed the l banng homosexuals om feral employment as “a stench the nostrils of cent people, an offense agast moraly, an abandonment of reason, an afont to human digny, an improper rtrat upon proper eedom and liberty, a disgrace to any civilized society, and a vlatn of all that this natn stands for.

SUPREME COURT IS DIVID OVER GAY, TRANSGENR JOB BIAS CIVIL RIGHTS SE TO BE CID DURG 2020 ELECTN

Eventually he led the fight to persua the Amerin Psychiatric Associatn to remove homosexualy om s list of disorrs 1973 — a victory that helped make all of the movement’s subsequent progrs would take another 23 years before the Supreme Court would issue s first important pro-gay cisn, Romer v.

THE SUPREME COURT RULGS THAT HAVE SHAPED GAY RIGHTS AMERI

“The worry is that this provis a green light to any bs owner that they n refe service to any person on the basis of their inty, whether they’re gay or lbian, or Jewish or Black, or anythg, bee they have an objectn to those sorts of people beg their bs, ” said Kathere Franke, a profsor at Columbia Law School. ImageLorie Smh said her Christian fah requir her to turn away ctomers seekg servic to celebrate same-sex unns.Cred...Rachel Woolf for The New York TimThe Supreme Court sid on Friday wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to sign weddg webs for same-sex upl spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people.Jtice Neil M. “Those servic are no ls protected speech today bee they are nveyed wh a ‘voice that ronat farther than uld om any soapbox.’”The se, though amed as a clash between ee speech and gay rights, was the latt a seri of cisns favor of relig people and groups, notably nservative Christians.The cisn also appeared to suggt that the rights of L.G.B.T.Q.

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT A SEEMGLY FAKE DOCUMENT A GAY RIGHTS CASE

The liberal jtic viewed as somethg else entirely — a dispute that threatened societal protectns for gay rights and rolled back some recent progrs.In an impassned dissent, Jtice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the oute signaled a return to a time when people of lor and other mory groups faced open discrimatn. “More broadly, today’s cisn weakens longstandg laws that protect all Amerins agast discrimatn public acmodatns — cludg people of lor, people wh disabili, people of fah, and women.”A Colorado law forbids discrimatn agast gay people by bs open to the public as well as statements announcg such discrimatn.

THE VIEW STAR REVEALS WHY SHE AGRE WH SUPREME COURT LG FOR SIGNER WHO OPPOS GAY MARRIAGE

“Lbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenr (L.G.B.T.) people, no ls than anyone else, serve that digny and eedom.”Jtice Gorsuch rpond directly to the dissent the majory opn, wrg that the two sis looked at the same se and saw totally different issu.“It is difficult to read the dissent and nclu we are lookg at the same se,” he wrote. The dissentg jtic, he wrote, foced on “the stris gay Amerins have ma towards securg equal jtice unr law.”But the nservative jtic did not see the se through that lens, he said, wrg that “none of this answers the qutn we face today: Can a state force someone who provis her own exprsive servic to abandon her nscience and speak s preferred msage stead?”When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the se, 303 Creative L.L.C.

Kavangh and Amy Coney Barrett, shifted the urt to the right.Lower urts have generally sid wh gay and lbian upl who were refed service by bakeri, florists and others, lg that potential ctomers are entled to equal treatment, at least parts of the untry wh laws forbiddg discrimatn based on sexual orientatn.The owners of bs challengg those laws have argued that the ernment should not force them to choose between the requirements of their fahs and their livelihoods.