Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees

Alejandro de la Garza
  • D
    Don
    The Supreme Court doesn't "Legalize" anything. They determine whether a particular action is legal or not under the Constitution and existing law.
  • D
    David
    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
  • r
    roger
    In New York they are protected by state law regardless, this could be the case in many liberal states I would assume?
  • M
    M.
    This article's headline is ambiguous and implies a false narrative. Only the Legislative branch can make laws! The Executive nor the Judicial branches, have the power to legalize anything. The Executive branch executes the laws, the Judicial branch decides whether or not interpretations of those laws are protected by the US Constitution. Since, "gay rights" are not specifically specified, they are not protected by the US Constitution.
  • M
    Mere
    That's not what he asked, it's already legal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation simply because it's not a protected class under Title VII.
  • l
    liz
    I’m not even sure how I feel or understand the lifestyle but why hurt people on purpose I don’t get it
  • J
    Jon
    "Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees"
    Wasn't aware there were any specific laws on the books that "protected" them...
  • R
    Robert
    As a member of the GLBT community I recall very vividly how he told us he would be a much better friend to our community than Hillary Clinton ever would be. That was when he needed our vote. Since then, however, with very few exceptions he and others in his administration have done exactly the opposite from thing like appointing far right judges (who, you can be assured WILL legislate from the bench, which conservatives say they hate, but actually don't mind so long as those judges are conservatives); and now urging the Supreme Court to allow open discrimination. I'll remember that when I go vote in the 2020 election. I don't appreciate being lied to.
  • A
    Anonymous
    Man, I remember reading some articles where some in the gay community were supportive of Trump saying he's just Trump being Trump regarding gay community and so they voted for him because they hated Clinton or they supported "immigration reform" (you know, discrimination against another group, so it's okay). Well history on this topic teaches one clear lesson, and that is when you allow discrimination against one group you allow it for ALL groups. I'm sure most in the gay community was against Trump but they need to make sure that they are ALL against Trump (power in number - another history lesson) or at least enough to prevent him from getting a second term. Good luck 2020.
  • J
    John
    The title of this article is a misnomer. This case is about whether or not sexual orientation is covered under Title VII of The Civil Rights Act as a subset of sex based discrimination. The courts have been split on this issue. The controversy, which has really only arisen within the last 2-3 years, has to be resolved. Furthermore, even if gay people aren't covered from discrimination under Title VII, they are still covered under state and city laws against discrimination.