Events
Publications
Latest imagesUSA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2 
USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by Hektorović 15/6/2020, 18:14
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-votes-6-3-to-redefine-sex-write-transgenderism-into-1964-law
BREAKING: US Supreme Court votes 6-3 to redefine ‘sex,’ write transgenderism into 1964 law
By Calvin Freiburger
Mon Jun 15, 2020 - 11:43 am EST
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch (L) talks with Chief Justice John Roberts (R) on the steps of the Supreme Court following his official investiture at the Supreme Court June 15, 2017 in Washington, DC. Win McNamee / Getty Images
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Republican-appointed Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joined the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberals Monday in ruling that longstanding anti-discrimination law should be reinterpreted to cover homosexuality and gender confusion, in a case that will have drastic ramifications on religious liberty and force Americans to adopt a “fluid” understanding of biological sex in scores of policies.
Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first addition to the nation’s highest court, wrote the majority opinion for the 6-3 ruling, which concluded that “sex disicrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to its original biological meaning.
The case consolidated several suits into one, including that of a Christian funeral home that fired a male employee who insisted on dressing as a woman on the job; a skydiving instructor who was fired after informing a customer he was gay; and a county child welfare services coordinator who was fired after his employer learned he was gay.
“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender,” Gorsuch wrote. “The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
The majority’s reasoning flies in the face of both the plain statutory meaning of “sex” in 1964 and the clear legislative intent of the lawmakers who drafted and passed the Civil Rights Act, as explained by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) senior counsel John Bursch. “There is little dispute that, in 1964, the term ‘sex’ was publicly understood, as it is now, to mean biological sex: male and female,” he writes. “After all, the term ‘gender identity’ wasn’t even part of the American lexicon at the time. Its first use was at a European medical conference in 1963. And no semblance of it appeared in federal law until 1990.”
But Gorsuch’s opinion panned the notion of authorial intent, a bedrock principle of judicial originalism, by declaring that judges “are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee.”
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, panning the majority opinion as “legislation” written under the “deceptive” guise of “interpreting a statute,” reminding the majority that the court’s duty “is limited to saying what the law is” rather than adding to it.
Trump’s other appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote his own dissenting opinion, in which he noted that the “responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.”
Kavanaugh also wrote, however, that the majority opinion represented an “important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans,” who “advanced powerful policy arguments,” displayed “extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit,” and “can take pride in today’s result”... “notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers.”
Conservatives warn that today’s ruling will not merely protect homosexual or gender-confused Americans from tangible harm. Rather, it will require churches to recognize same-sex “marriages”; force photographers, florists, and bakers to participate in same-sex “weddings”; compel employers to fund drugs and surgeries to help people imitate members of the opposite sex; and make women and girls to share sleeping quarters, showers, changing areas, and restrooms with gender-confused males (or men simply claiming trans status to get close to vulnerable women).
“The core issue before the Court in this case was whether it is within the legitimate power of judges to suddenly redefine the meaning of words and rewrite a 55-year-old statute. Sadly, the Court answered in the affirmative,” commented Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
“Allowing judges to rewrite the Civil Rights Act to add gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes poses a grave threat to religious liberty. We've already witnessed in recent years how courts have used the redefinition of words as a battering ram to crush faith-based businesses and organizations,” concluded Perkins.
Today’s ruling also largely relieves congressional Democrats of the need to enact the so-called Equality Act, a bill that would legislatively impose those same requirements on the country (though some of the details and specific applications may vary, meaning some LGBT activists will likely still demand that the act be passed to codify today’s ruling).
Gorsuch and Roberts’ support for the decision has appalled numerous conservative legal observers, and vindicated voices who argued that Senate Republicans were too quick to confirm Gorsuch’s nomination without further vetting. It also raises grave concerns over the caliber of jurists being groomed and promoted by “conservative” legal institutions such as the Federalist Society.
BREAKING: US Supreme Court votes 6-3 to redefine ‘sex,’ write transgenderism into 1964 law
Conservatives say this ruling could force churches to recognize same-sex 'marriages'; force photographers, florists, and bakers to participate in same-sex 'weddings'; compel employers to fund drugs and surgeries to help people imitate members of the opposite sex; and make women and girls to share sleeping quarters, showers, changing
areas, and restrooms with gender-confused males.
By Calvin Freiburger
Mon Jun 15, 2020 - 11:43 am EST
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch (L) talks with Chief Justice John Roberts (R) on the steps of the Supreme Court following his official investiture at the Supreme Court June 15, 2017 in Washington, DC. Win McNamee / Getty ImagesWASHINGTON, D.C., June 15, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Republican-appointed Justices John Roberts and Neil Gorsuch joined the U.S. Supreme Court’s liberals Monday in ruling that longstanding anti-discrimination law should be reinterpreted to cover homosexuality and gender confusion, in a case that will have drastic ramifications on religious liberty and force Americans to adopt a “fluid” understanding of biological sex in scores of policies.
Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s first addition to the nation’s highest court, wrote the majority opinion for the 6-3 ruling, which concluded that “sex disicrimination” in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act should be interpreted to mean sexual orientation and gender identity, in addition to its original biological meaning.
The case consolidated several suits into one, including that of a Christian funeral home that fired a male employee who insisted on dressing as a woman on the job; a skydiving instructor who was fired after informing a customer he was gay; and a county child welfare services coordinator who was fired after his employer learned he was gay.
“Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender,” Gorsuch wrote. “The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”
The majority’s reasoning flies in the face of both the plain statutory meaning of “sex” in 1964 and the clear legislative intent of the lawmakers who drafted and passed the Civil Rights Act, as explained by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) senior counsel John Bursch. “There is little dispute that, in 1964, the term ‘sex’ was publicly understood, as it is now, to mean biological sex: male and female,” he writes. “After all, the term ‘gender identity’ wasn’t even part of the American lexicon at the time. Its first use was at a European medical conference in 1963. And no semblance of it appeared in federal law until 1990.”
But Gorsuch’s opinion panned the notion of authorial intent, a bedrock principle of judicial originalism, by declaring that judges “are not free to overlook plain statutory commands on the strength of nothing more than suppositions about intentions or guesswork about expectations. In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee.”
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, panning the majority opinion as “legislation” written under the “deceptive” guise of “interpreting a statute,” reminding the majority that the court’s duty “is limited to saying what the law is” rather than adding to it.
Trump’s other appointee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote his own dissenting opinion, in which he noted that the “responsibility to amend Title VII belongs to Congress and the President in the legislative process, not to this Court.”
Kavanaugh also wrote, however, that the majority opinion represented an “important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans,” who “advanced powerful policy arguments,” displayed “extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit,” and “can take pride in today’s result”... “notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers.”
Conservatives warn that today’s ruling will not merely protect homosexual or gender-confused Americans from tangible harm. Rather, it will require churches to recognize same-sex “marriages”; force photographers, florists, and bakers to participate in same-sex “weddings”; compel employers to fund drugs and surgeries to help people imitate members of the opposite sex; and make women and girls to share sleeping quarters, showers, changing areas, and restrooms with gender-confused males (or men simply claiming trans status to get close to vulnerable women).
“The core issue before the Court in this case was whether it is within the legitimate power of judges to suddenly redefine the meaning of words and rewrite a 55-year-old statute. Sadly, the Court answered in the affirmative,” commented Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
“Allowing judges to rewrite the Civil Rights Act to add gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes poses a grave threat to religious liberty. We've already witnessed in recent years how courts have used the redefinition of words as a battering ram to crush faith-based businesses and organizations,” concluded Perkins.
Today’s ruling also largely relieves congressional Democrats of the need to enact the so-called Equality Act, a bill that would legislatively impose those same requirements on the country (though some of the details and specific applications may vary, meaning some LGBT activists will likely still demand that the act be passed to codify today’s ruling).
Gorsuch and Roberts’ support for the decision has appalled numerous conservative legal observers, and vindicated voices who argued that Senate Republicans were too quick to confirm Gorsuch’s nomination without further vetting. It also raises grave concerns over the caliber of jurists being groomed and promoted by “conservative” legal institutions such as the Federalist Society.
Hektorović- Posts : 26373
2018-04-10
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by Ringo10 15/6/2020, 18:18
E do kurca ...
Ringo10- Posts : 21667
2015-09-24
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by AssadNaPodmornici 15/6/2020, 18:20
Revolucija se na stavlja
_________________
May Allah destroy Australia
AssadNaPodmornici- Posts : 22267
2018-06-14
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by Ringo10 15/6/2020, 18:32
MA boli nekoga kitomir šta oni rade u svojoj zemlji ili u svojim zemljamaAssadNaPodmornici wrote:Revolucija se na stavlja
ALi problem je što maltretiraju druge zemlje i dijelove svijeta koji ne prihvaćaju te stavove
I što im silom to nameću
Ringo10- Posts : 21667
2015-09-24
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by Hektorović 15/6/2020, 18:55
AssadNaPodmornici wrote:Revolucija se na stavlja
Vidim kulturni konzervativci su u šoku, nisu ovo nikako očekivali.
Hektorović- Posts : 26373
2018-04-10
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by n_razbojnik 15/6/2020, 18:56
Jel to republikanci podrzali haha
Samo przi tu Gomoru, forza BLM
Samo przi tu Gomoru, forza BLM
_________________
Danas Matko sutra svatko
n_razbojnik-
Posts : 11441
2014-04-15
Lokacija: : ObiLand
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by n_razbojnik 15/6/2020, 18:58
stuning and braveHektorović wrote:AssadNaPodmornici wrote:Revolucija se na stavlja
Vidim kulturni konzervativci su u šoku, nisu ovo nikako očekivali.
_________________
Danas Matko sutra svatko
n_razbojnik-
Posts : 11441
2014-04-15
Lokacija: : ObiLand
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by dzango 15/6/2020, 19:15
Ne znam da li je onda biti Čamugar društveni ili biološki fenomen.
_________________
dzango- Posts : 28141
2014-04-19
Lokacija: : Velika Srbija
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by Hektorović 15/6/2020, 19:38
2 za 3 protivn_razbojnik wrote:Jel to republikanci podrzali haha
Samo przi tu Gomoru, forza BLM
iberali naravno svi za, pa je prošlo
Hektorović- Posts : 26373
2018-04-10
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by melkior 15/6/2020, 19:40
1. Vrhovni sud je dokazao još jednom kako je pravo ovisno o politici i ideologiji.
2. Bog je rekao laku noć Americi jer priznavanje prava na rodni identitet izvan veze sa spolnim identitetom u suštini znači slabljenje duha i karaktera osobe.
3. Najebat će crkve u Americi, ali to nije toliko ni bitno, jer treba pojačati ubijanje crnaca. Jedan fini, lijepi, masni građanski rat završit će i tu priču s pederima i transgenderima za sva vremena. Ako krepavaš od gladi jer si nezaposlen, a postoji visoka vjerojatnost da će te ubit policija ili paramilitarne organizacije, onda će ti tvoje osjećanje roda i diskriminacije biti najmanji problem.
2. Bog je rekao laku noć Americi jer priznavanje prava na rodni identitet izvan veze sa spolnim identitetom u suštini znači slabljenje duha i karaktera osobe.
3. Najebat će crkve u Americi, ali to nije toliko ni bitno, jer treba pojačati ubijanje crnaca. Jedan fini, lijepi, masni građanski rat završit će i tu priču s pederima i transgenderima za sva vremena. Ako krepavaš od gladi jer si nezaposlen, a postoji visoka vjerojatnost da će te ubit policija ili paramilitarne organizacije, onda će ti tvoje osjećanje roda i diskriminacije biti najmanji problem.
melkior- Posts : 17503
2015-08-09
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by melkior 15/6/2020, 19:42
Treba ubit Trumpa i podijelit SAD na Federaciju i Konfederaciju.
melkior- Posts : 17503
2015-08-09
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by n_razbojnik 15/6/2020, 19:49
A odnos 5 na 4 za crvene...znaci naredba od vrhaHektorović wrote:2 za 3 protivn_razbojnik wrote:Jel to republikanci podrzali haha
Samo przi tu Gomoru, forza BLM
iberali naravno svi za, pa je prošlo
samo neka gori
_________________
Danas Matko sutra svatko
n_razbojnik-
Posts : 11441
2014-04-15
Lokacija: : ObiLand
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by epikur37 15/6/2020, 20:13
n_razbojnik wrote:Jel to republikanci podrzali haha
Samo przi tu Gomoru, forza BLM
Trpat im još...što gore to bolje...
Oni su i iznjedrili peder prava i pod njihovom pokroviteljstvom se svijetu nameće ideologija...
epikur37- Posts : 45339
2015-08-06
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by AssadNaPodmornici 15/6/2020, 20:17
jbt gledam na fejsbooku reklame.. sve u pederskim bojama
duolingo odlična platforma za učenje stranog jezika.. najbolja na svijetu.,. u pederskim bojama
udacity odlična platforma za učenje programiranja ili neke druge vještine u pederskim bojama
wish, nisam nikada kupovao preko njih, ekipa kaže da su top za kupiti alat i neke stvari u pederskim bojama
facebook je prošle godine imao pederski lajk
inače primjetio sam ali intezivno kako google.com izbacuje sve lošije retzultate pretraga.. sve više je cenzure, sve više posjećaju na kinesku tražilicu koja cenzurira pola interneta
duckduckgo.com preporučavam
duolingo odlična platforma za učenje stranog jezika.. najbolja na svijetu.,. u pederskim bojama
udacity odlična platforma za učenje programiranja ili neke druge vještine u pederskim bojama
wish, nisam nikada kupovao preko njih, ekipa kaže da su top za kupiti alat i neke stvari u pederskim bojama
facebook je prošle godine imao pederski lajk
inače primjetio sam ali intezivno kako google.com izbacuje sve lošije retzultate pretraga.. sve više je cenzure, sve više posjećaju na kinesku tražilicu koja cenzurira pola interneta
duckduckgo.com preporučavam
_________________
May Allah destroy Australia
AssadNaPodmornici- Posts : 22267
2018-06-14
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by melkior 15/6/2020, 20:19
Treba jebat muške i ubijat žene, a po mogućnosti i crnce (ubijat, ne jebat) 
melkior- Posts : 17503
2015-08-09
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by melkior 15/6/2020, 20:21
Trebalo bi osnovati neku peder agendu protiv žena i crnaca u Americi, ono, naoružani pederi ubijaju crnce i žene po ulici, a bijele policajce guze analnomelkior wrote:Treba jebat muške i ubijat žene, a po mogućnosti i crnce (ubijat, ne jebat)
melkior- Posts : 17503
2015-08-09
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by n_razbojnik 15/6/2020, 20:54
Ide ka tome...nemogu crnci i pederi bit jednako ugrozeni i uzimat si svjetla reflektoramelkior wrote:Trebalo bi osnovati neku peder agendu protiv žena i crnaca u Americi, ono, naoružani pederi ubijaju crnce i žene po ulici, a bijele policajce guze analnomelkior wrote:Treba jebat muške i ubijat žene, a po mogućnosti i crnce (ubijat, ne jebat)
_________________
Danas Matko sutra svatko
n_razbojnik-
Posts : 11441
2014-04-15
Lokacija: : ObiLand
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by n_razbojnik 15/6/2020, 20:55
Pa nije li ovo trebao biti pride month, ali "otkazan" jerbo korona i crnje nesto njurgajuAssadNaPodmornici wrote:jbt gledam na fejsbooku reklame.. sve u pederskim bojama
duolingo odlična platforma za učenje stranog jezika.. najbolja na svijetu.,. u pederskim bojama
udacity odlična platforma za učenje programiranja ili neke druge vještine u pederskim bojama
wish, nisam nikada kupovao preko njih, ekipa kaže da su top za kupiti alat i neke stvari u pederskim bojama
facebook je prošle godine imao pederski lajk
inače primjetio sam ali intezivno kako google.com izbacuje sve lošije retzultate pretraga.. sve više je cenzure, sve više posjećaju na kinesku tražilicu koja cenzurira pola interneta
duckduckgo.com preporučavam
_________________
Danas Matko sutra svatko
n_razbojnik-
Posts : 11441
2014-04-15
Lokacija: : ObiLand
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by Šandor Winnetou 15/6/2020, 21:26
sora i komunjare napokon našli zajednički jezik s mrskim amerima
_________________
Šandor Winnetou-
Posts : 19783
2017-12-31
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by red wolf 15/6/2020, 22:11
Da li shvaćate da je ovo "rat" kojeg pomalo gubite, a da toga niste svjesni?
red wolf-
Posts : 15947
2016-02-10
Lokacija: : Svemir
Re: USA: Vrhovni sud redefinirao spol kao društveni a ne biološki fenomen, pružio punu zakonsku zaštitu LGBTQ pravima
by Sponsored content
Sponsored content
Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Similar topics» Biološki sat otkucava...
» Ministar branitelja - neradnik i društveni parazit
» Kaos i sukobi u Venezueli, Trump priznao oporbu kao legitimnu, Erdogan pružio puno podršku Madurou
» Njemačka namjerava da obaveže majke da kažu ko je biološki otac djeteta
» UFO fenomen
» Ministar branitelja - neradnik i društveni parazit
» Kaos i sukobi u Venezueli, Trump priznao oporbu kao legitimnu, Erdogan pružio puno podršku Madurou
» Njemačka namjerava da obaveže majke da kažu ko je biološki otac djeteta
» UFO fenomen
Page 1 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum