[Beso]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...sbian-n1231018

[Niamh.]

Great news, I would have thought that it would have already been classed as discrimination though (but yeah it's America so not overly surprised either)

[Shaun]

It's a beacon of light for trans people in the US especially, who've endured so much hell under that administration.

I've just been reading about the woman who was at the center of this ruling, who sadly passed away last month at the age of 59 RIP Aimee Stephens

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/12/p...ers/index.html

Aimee Stephens, the transgender woman at the center of the Supreme Court's blockbuster case concerning whether LGBTQ workers are covered by federal anti-discrimination law, has died according to her lawyers. She was 59.

Stephens was suffering from complications related to kidney disease and she died at her home in Detroit with her wife, Donna Stephens, at her side.

"Aimee did not set out to be a hero and a trailblazer, but she is one," ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio said in a statement. "And our country owes her a debt of gratitude for her commitment to justice for all people and her dedication to our transgender community."

Stephens' death will not change the status of the case, which was argued before the justices in October with a ruling still pending.

The case marks the first time the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the civil rights of a transgender individual.

Stephens had worked for six years as a funeral director before announcing that she was transitioning in 2013.

"I have known many of you for some time now," Stephens explained in a letter to her coworkers before stating her decision to have gender reassignment surgery.

"The first step I must take is to live and work full-time as a woman," Stephens said. "I will return to work as my true self," she said, adding, "In appropriate business attire."

Not long after, she was fired. Her boss at the time, Thomas Rost, believed that "coming to work dressed as a woman was not going to be acceptable."

Stephens sued, arguing that she had been terminated on the basis of her transgender status.

Rost testified in the lower court that Stephens was fired because she was "no longer going to represent himself as a man." (Rost refused to address Stephens with feminine pronouns)

"In discharging Ms. Stephens for being transgender," her lawyer, David Cole, the national legal director of the ACLU, argued the funeral home "contravened Title VII's core premise: that employees should be judged on their merit, not their sex."

He also argued that the funeral home violated the law by firing Stephens for "failing to conform to sex-based stereotypes."

A lower court ruled in her favor, holding it is "analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee's status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee's sex."

How the Supreme Court rules in her case could have critical implications for the LGBTQ community. While the four liberals may side with Stephens, it is unclear if one of the five conservative justices will join them.

"Thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your kindness, generosity, and keeping my best friend and soulmate in your thoughts and prayers. Aimee is an inspiration," said Donna Stephens in a statement Tuesday.

"She has given so many hope for the future of equality for LGBTQ people in our country, and she has rewritten history," she continued. "The outpouring of love and support is our strength and inspiration now."

[Beso]

Nice to see it was trumps number one pick that brought about the change.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Great news, I would have thought that it would have already been classed as discrimination though (but yeah it's America so not overly surprised either)

Well, reading the article, it seems that it already was, it's just that they hadn't all agreed that it was. They've basically confirmed that the wording of a sex discrimination law from the 60's covers sexual orientation and transgender as well, effectively on a technicality, which is what pro-rights lawyers have been arguing. As far as I understand it... it's basically "You can't fire a woman for liking women, because you wouldn't be able to fire a man for liking women, so if you fired them it would be discrimination based on their sex." (and variations of that thinking applying to all sorts of situations).

Supreme court has ruled that interpretation to be accurate, so that's basically federal law now.

[Beso]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Well, reading the article, it seems that it already was, it's just that they hadn't all agreed that it was. They've basically confirmed that the wording of a sex discrimination law from the 60's covers sexual orientation and transgender as well, effectively on a technicality, which is what pro-rights lawyers have been arguing. As far as I understand it... it's basically "You can't fire a woman for liking women, because you wouldn't be able to fire a man for liking women, so if you fired them it would be discrimination based on their sex." (and variations of that thinking applying to all sorts of situations).

Supreme court has ruled that interpretation to be accurate, so that's basically federal law now.

Just say thank you Donald and be done with it.

[Tom4784]

Yeah, let's not thank Trump who is actively trying to erase trans rights for someone else voting against his agenda. It's so sad how deeply dickmatized his cult is by him.

The best thing Trump can do for civil rights is die.

[Shaun]

Literally the day before this ruling he introduced a law that makes it easier to discriminate against trans citizens when it comes to their healthcare:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/13/h...er-rights.html

Health advocates representing American hospitals, medical groups, insurers and civil rights associations condemned the Trump administration on Saturday for rolling back protections for transgender patients, and for doing so amid a global pandemic.

The new rule, long sought by conservatives and the religious right, narrows the legal definition of sex discrimination in the Affordable Care Act so that it omits protection for transgender people. It also opens the door for health care providers to refuse to treat patients who have had abortions.

The move is part of a broad set of policy changes that weaken safeguards for transgender people across multiple sectors, including education, employment and housing. The changes to the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as Obamacare, were proposed last year.

“This is a sad day,” Ricardo Lara, California’s insurance commissioner, said in a statement on Friday evening. “The Trump administration has once again sacrificed the health and safety of vulnerable Americans.”

Mr. Lara, who had written a letter signed by 18 state insurance commissioners urging the administration to reject the proposal, criticized the president for releasing the rule during June, which is Pride Month, and on the fourth anniversary of the massacre at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, where 49 people were killed and more than 50 wounded on June 12, 2016.

“Eliminating health protections for L.G.B.T.Q. people is a license to deny lifesaving care,” Mr. Lara said.

Spokesmen for the American Medical Association; the American Hospital Association; America’s Health Insurance Plans, known as AHIP; and the American Medical Student Association all opposed the change, as did human rights associations. The Human Rights Campaign, the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal’s Transgender Rights Project each said they planned to sue the government to reverse the policy.

Jason Starr, litigation director for the Human Rights Campaign, said that he had heard scores of cases of health care discrimination against transgender people and that he feared that this reversal would hurt those seeking health care.

“The stories we hear give real life to the objective data,” Mr. Starr said. He emphasized that transgender women of color were especially anxious about seeking medical care.

He said: “They wonder, ‘What is going to happen when I go to the doctor? Am I going to be mis-gendered? Am I going to be mocked or ridiculed? Is my doctor going to actually listen and respect my knowledge about my own body and my health?’”

When the Department of Health and Human Services proposed the rule last year, nearly 160,000 people weighed in with written comments. Many of the writers were affiliated with the Family Research Council, the American Civil Liberties Union, or other organizations. Others were individuals whose affiliations were not noted.

One doctor, Terry McDole, typified the view of physicians who supported the proposal.

“The issue is not providing patient care, but whether or not the government can coerce me into abandoning my ethical commitments and medical judgment and force me to participate in certain controversial procedures and prescriptions,” Dr. McDole wrote. “Many health professionals like me who adhere to moral and ethical principles, which often reflect deeply held faith values, already face significant pressure and discrimination. The pressure to conform to abortion and transgender ideology can be particularly intense.”

The religious community is not a unified voice on this issue, however. The Catholic Health Association of the United States, which represents the largest nonprofit provider of health care services in the country, opposes the rule.

“While we welcome the efforts to reaffirm the unique mission of faith-based health care providers,” Sister Mary Haddad, president and chief executive of the association said in a statement today, “refusing to provide medical assistance or health care services merely because of discomfort with or animus against an individual on the basis of how that person understands or expresses gender or sexuality is unacceptable.”

Nearly all the nation’s medical organizations, as well as insurance groups, objected to the final rule. Matt Eyles, president and chief executive of America’s Health Insurance Plans, said, “Health insurance providers will continue to work with other health care leaders to eliminate barriers that stand between Americans who identify as a member of the L.G.B.T.Q.I.A. community and their better health.”

In a statement, Dr. Susan R. Bailey, president of the American Medical Association, said that the organization’s longstanding policy bars discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or a woman’s decisions about pregnancy, including termination.

While Democrats were quick to condemn the rule, few objections came publicly from Republicans.

“The Trump Administration‘s decision to eliminate protections for transgender patients is simply wrong,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, in a tweet. “I’ll work to overturn this discriminatory policy.”

Some legal experts cautioned that despite the outpouring of support from medical groups, the protections once endowed under the Affordable Care Act would themselves need protecting in order to last.

“A huge contribution of the A.C.A. was to prohibit, for the first time, sex discrimination in health care,” said Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas. “This rule not only narrows what is considered sex discrimination, it also narrows who has to comply with anti-sex-discrimination policy.”

“We all like to think that health care providers will always act in a patient’s best interest and be kind and gentle,” said Ms. Sepper, an expert in religious liberty and health law. “But transgender people often find that not to be true. This rule really invites, I would say, bad medicine and cruelty.”