A Federal Court Just Ruled For Gay Rights

BAM! Justice Department needs to butt out of private cases.

A federal appeals court on Monday ruled that a 1964 civil rights law bans anti-gay workplace discrimination. The decision rebukes the Trump administration — which had argued against a gay worker in the case — and hands progressives a win in their strategy to protect LGBT employees with a drumbeat of lawsuits.

The dispute hinges on whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bans discrimination on the basis of sex, also bans workplace discrimination due to sexual orientation.

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday, “We now hold that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of discrimination ‘because of . . . sex,’ in violation of Title VII.” In doing so, the court overruled a lower court — and a precedent from a previous court case — and remanded the case to be litigated in light of their reading of Title VII.

Full story


The Legal Issues of the Gay Wedding Cake Suit Going before SCOTUS

Five years ago, now, a gay couple in Colorado approached a bakery to create a wedding cake for their pending nuptials. The owner of the bakery refused on the grounds that it violated his religious rights. I found this article on Buzzfeed laying out the issues really are and quite frankly, it’s no clearer to me than before I read it.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Tuesday in the polarizing case of a Colorado baker who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. The Trump administration will even be weighing in to support the Christian baker, saying he had a First Amendment right to turn away the couple.

The dispute has generated stacks of debate among the public — including some arguments that stray from the legal underpinnings of the case. One reader of the Denver Post asked if people would feel differently if the baker “refused to make a swastika shaped cake for a pair of neo-Nazis.” People may feel very differently about a swastika cake, but that’s not the case — and it’s not the exact question for the Supreme Court.

Full story



Woman Who Sued Planet Fitness Takes It to State Supreme Court

In 2015, I posted about the woman who sued Planet Fitness after her membership was cancelled because she bitched for days after spotting a transgender woman in the women’s locker room. I can’t imagine why the woman was staring at someone else’s body, unless she’s a closet Lesbian, but the case was thrown out in January of 2016. Now the woman is taking the case against Planet Fitness to the Michigan State Supreme Court. Clearly there are no other fitness clubs that she can join in here area. Stupid bitch.

A woman who sued a gym after it banned her for complaining about a trans woman in the women’s changing room is taking her case to the state supreme court.

Yvette Cormier sued Planet Fitness in February 2015 after she saw a trans woman in the locker room.

Full story


SCOTUS to Hear Wedding Cake Case

I see now that after three years, the Supreme Court has finally decided to hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

I will probably come across as the biggest ignoramus of the 21st century, but if someone doesn’t want to do business with you, why bother? Is it because they’re the cheapest bakery in town? Is it because they are the only bakery in town? Is it because you sincerely like their work and are just dying to have one of their cakes on your special day? Is it just because they are anti-lgbt? From my ignorant point of view, that’s just a little less business that they will be getting and someone else will benefit from. You can change hate in court. These so-called Christians only understand hate, never love. I’m open to hearing from anyone on this matter.

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would hear the case of a Christian baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, teeing up the country’s highest stakes legal showdown about whether laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination can violate religious people’s constitutional rights.

The justices granted certiorari to hear the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in its next term, which begins in October.

“We were surprised,” Kristen Waggoner, general counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious legal group representing the baker, said in an interview with BuzzFeed News on Monday morning. The high court had been silent on the case for months, leading many legal experts to believe the court would reject it.

Full story


Same-Sex Couples Can Now Legally Sue Kim Davis For Damages


Same-sex couples are now legally allowed to sue Rowan County clerk Kim Davis, who refused to give out marriage licenses to gay couples even when federally ordered to do so.

A ruling last August denied David Ermold and David Moore’s lawsuit against Davis, but today, an appeals court has ruled that the suit is valid, because it is “not a general challenge to Davis’s policy, but rather seeks damages for a particularized harm allegedly suffered by a specific set of plaintiffs.” Ermold and Moore are the couple who originally filmed Davis denying them their federal right to obtain a marriage license.


Federal Court Rules Employers Can’t Fire People for Being Gay

Well if SCOTUS is too scared to address the issue, I’m glad that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is willing to address it.

In a groundbreaking, 8-3 decision, the full Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation violates federal civil rights law.

The court found that such discrimination is a form of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion.

The decision — which came in Lambda Legal’s case on behalf of Kimberly Hively, an instructor at Ivy Tech Community College who was fired for being a lesbian — makes the Seventh Circuit the highest federal court to reach this conclusion and could change the national landscape of employment law for LGBT people.

Full story


AL drag queen is suspended chief justice’s nightmare

❤ Ambrosia!

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — Wearing big hair, loads of makeup and high heels, small-town drag queen Ambrosia Starling is the new worst nightmare of suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore.

Moore has called out Starling twice by name in recent days while defending himself against allegations of violating judicial canons with his opposition to same-sex marriage. During a news conference and in a written statement, Moore cited the cross-dressing entertainer as a reason he’s at risk of losing his job for the second time since 2003.

That’s fine with Starling, who helped lead an anti-Moore rally on the steps of the Alabama Supreme Court building in January. Opponents that day filled out more than 40 complaints against Moore, who already was the subject of other complaints and now faces removal from office if convicted of violating judicial ethics.

Full story


Davis Won’t Go Away

I think at this point, she’s just clinging to the fame. There are many stories around the web right now about this woman who won’t go away. I’ll share links here:

In Rural Kentucky, Residents Disagree About County Clerk Kim Davis

Kentucky Clerk Files Brief Arguing She Should Not Be Held In Contempt Of Court

Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Anticipated The Same-Sex Marriage Ruling — And Planned Accordingly

Meet Kim Davis, The Woman Denying Same-Sex Couples Marriage Licenses In Kentucky


Judge Throws Out Key Argument In Transgender Student Restroom Case

NORFOLK, VIRGINIA — A federal judge on Monday dismissed one of the key legal arguments brought by lawyers for a transgender student suing to use the boys restroom at his Virginia high school. Stating that being transgender is a “mental disorder” and that he worries for student privacy in restrooms, U.S. District Court Judge Robert Doumar warned Gavin Grimm’s attorneys that they now face “an uphill battle.”

Grimm, who attends Gloucester High School, argued he must be allowed to use school bathrooms that correspond with his gender identity under Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, which bans discrimination based on sex. Grimm’s argument is hardly an exception: The federal government has weighed in repeatedly in recently years — in letters, in court briefs, and to settle complaints — to say Title IX bans transgender discrimination as a form of sex discrimination.

But Doumar announced midway through Monday’s hearing that he was throwing out that argument. “Your case in Title IX is gone, by the way,” he told ACLU staff attorney Joshua Block, who argued on Grimm’s behalf. “I have chosen to dismiss Title IX. I decided that before we started.”

Full story