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 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. 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.

THE SUPREME COURT RULGS THAT HAVE SHAPED GAY RIGHTS AMERI

“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.

“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.

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

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. A baker refed to make a weddg ke for their receptn on relig grounds.Cred...Nick Cote for The New York TimHad there been an actual gay person who was refed a weddg-related service at the center of 303 Creative L.L.C.

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

Irish-Amerin Gay, Lbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., a se om 1995 which the urt sid wh the anizers of a veterans para that blocked a group of gay, lbian and bisexual people om marchg the event.

Jtice Sotomayor seemed pecially ncerned about the way the urt’s opn would send a disapprovg msage to the public about people who are gay, lbian, bisexual or transgenr, or who were same-sex relatnships. Addnally, several stat terpret existg laws agast sex discrimatn to apply to bias relatg to sexual orientatn and genr inty, even though they do not have laws explicly forbiddg such discrimatn.In stat that do not offer protectns to gay and transgenr people on those grounds, municipal laws ver many rints.The Human Rights Campaign, an L.G.B.T.Q. ETFriday’s lg was another reassurg cisn for relig nservativ.ImageA celebratory moment outsi the Supreme Court on Friday, after the urt livered the latt a strg of judgments favor of relig nservativ.Cred...Mariam Zuhaib/Associated PrsConservativ who have moral and theologil objectns to gay marriage saw the Supreme Court’s cisn on Friday as reassurance that they would be able to assert their beliefs a public square that they see as creasgly hostile to them.In a 6-to-3 vote, spl along iologil l, the jtic agreed wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to provi servic for same-sex marriag, spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people.“If the ernment n pel an dividual to speak a certa way or create certa thgs, that’s not eedom — ’s subjugatn,” said Brent Leatherwood, the head of the Southern Baptist Conventn’s policy arm, a statement after the lg.