Mom of late gay Supreme Court plaintiff: 'He would be delighted'

Mom of late gay Supreme Court plaintiff: 'He would be delighted'

Mom of late gay Supreme Court plaintiff: 'He would be delighted'

We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary effect of that legislative choice: "An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law".

The ruling, which was instantaneously celebrated by the LGBTQ community, was a surprising one from a conservative court. The issue before the court was whether the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex also forbids discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.

MI funeral home employee Aimee Stephens says she was sacked for coming out as transgender.

The ruling was part of a trio of cases brought before the court regarding discrimination against LGBT workers, including the case of MI resident Aimee Stephens. "The more I've seen the support, it gives me the strength to get up another day, to go on fighting another day and give that same hope to all the rest". The decision encompasses a number of cases, but the most prominent was that of Aimee Stephens, a trans woman from MI who was sacked by her longtime employer, Harris Funeral Homes, because she had transitioned from living as a man to living as a woman.

The ruling is a major victory for more than 8 million LGBT employees in the USA, as many states don't have laws on the books protecting them from discrimination in the workplace.

LGBT advocates cheered the decision, and one would think that most conservatives would accept a simple ban on unjust dismissals.

"This is a victory for every #LGBTQ+ person in our country and the organizers who fought tirelessly to make it a reality".

Aimee Stephens was sacked for being a transwoman.

Donna Stephens, the wife of transgender plaintiff Aimee Stephens who died last month, hailed her late partner's struggle for justice after being sacked by a Detroit funeral parlor when she came out.

"Today, in a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed what we already know - that nobody deserves to lose their job because of who they are or how they identify", Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a statement.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently finalized an administrative rule that would effectively allow doctors to deny medical care to a transgender person.

[A] n employer who fires a woman, Hannah, because she is insufficiently feminine and also fires a man, Bob, for being insufficiently masculine may treat men and women as groups more or less equally. "There are still alarming gaps in federal civil rights laws that leave people-particularly Black and Brown LGBTQ people-open to discrimination in businesses open to the public and taxpayer-funded programs", said Esseks.

At least, the protections didn't exist before today.

"The Supreme Court's historic decision affirms what shouldn't have even been a debate: LGBTQ Americans should be able to work without fear of losing jobs because of who they are", said Sarah Kate Ellis, president of the gay rights group GLAAD. The court recognized that when a lesbian, gay or bisexual person is treated differently because of discomfort or disapproval that they are attracted to people of the same sex, that's discrimination based on sex.

"Today's ruling will have severe consequences for the privacy, safety, and equality of all Americans".

"I cried - a lot - because I really miss him", the mom added of her son and the moment she learned of the Supreme Court decision.

One reason we can be sure that the right was using these cases as a way to undermine women's rights and civil rights in general is that the most relevant precedent was a 1988 case when the court ruled in favor of a woman who sued her employer for discriminating against her because she didn't fit their notions of femininity.

Related news



[an error occurred while processing the directive]