Connect with us

News

Supreme Court Makes Ruling That Workers Cannot Be Fired For Being Homosexual Or Transgender

Published

on

In news that shouldn’t surprise anyone in the slightest as it seems fairly obvious what direction such a case would go when it reached the bench of the Supreme Court, a decision by SCOTUS has affirmed that a person cannot be fired being gay or transgender.

The court’s vote was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch siding with liberal justices in the case of Barstock v. Clayton County, which is actually a consolidation of cases where gay and transgender individuals argued that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex should be expanded.

Here’s more on the decision from The Washington Examiner:

Trending: Another Local Reporter Stops Mid-Broadcast to Inform Station She Is Taking Them Down

“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. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law,” Gorsuch wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration? (1)

  • Do you think the 2nd Amendment will be destroyed by the Biden Administration?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The case was heard in October and was the court’s first on the issue since the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who delivered the decisive swing vote in 2015’s landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case that established a right to gay marriage. The arguments pitted two definitions of “sex” against each other: those in favor of transgender protections, arguing that it is determined by gender identity and those opposed advocating for the traditional biological definition.

Gorsuch, who usually rules with the court’s conservative wing, indicated then that he saw a strong case for employment protections for transgender people, based on precedent in past interpretations of “sex” as gender identity. Although he warned of “massive social upheaval” should the court rule in favor of transgender protections, Gorsuch said that he was “really close, really close” in thinking that Title VII could reasonably be interpreted to include them.

So what’s the big deal about this decision?

Well, the implications go far beyond the average employer and reach into the realm of religious institutions or businesses. Many such companies and organizations are against gay marriage and have stances on cultural issues like transgenderism that go against the prevailing liberal narrative. This ruling means that religious organizations may not be able to let go of employees based on lifestyles that offend their beliefs, which is in turn, a violation of their right of freedom of religion.

Imagine a church finding out one of the members of the senior pastoral staff is a homosexual and them not being able to let him go, despite his lifestyle choices conflicting with sacredly held beliefs about who has the right to teach and what to teach, to the congregation. That’s why this is problematic.

When it comes to normal, regular businesses that don’t have such religious foundations, it doesn’t make sense for someone who is gay or transgender to be fired over that particular lifestyle choice. It’s a whole new ballgame when it comes down to churches and other organizations with religious foundations who have beliefs that conflict with the ruling.

News

Tone-Deaf Portland Runs Tourism Ad After Riot Police Quit En Masse

If you’re looking for chaos, have we got the vacation spot for you!

Published

on

For months on end, a never-ending series of protests-turned-riots have plagued the city of Portland, Oregon. Night after night the northwestern locale rages, as protesters march in the street, commit arson, clash with cops, and generally relish in their new role as liberal nuisances to the citizens of the city. Things have gotten so bad, in fact, that a large contingent of the city’s riot police coordinated a mass resignation from that portion of the force. That makes the timing of the city’s latest tourism push all the more asinine. Portland ran a pricy full-page Sunday ad in the New York Times promoting tourism after the Portland police riot squad quit Thursday. “Some of what you’ve heard about Portland is true. Some is not. What matters most is that we’re true to ourselves,” Travel Portland wrote in the ad that could have cost up to $250,000. “You’ve heard a lot about us lately. It’s been a while since you heard from us,” it continues. “After a year of encouraging visitors and locals to support small businesses here and from a distance, it’s time to issue an invitation to come back to Portland,” the ad states. “Two sides to the same coin that keeps landing right on its edge. Anything can happen. We like it this way.” The ad also says “new ideas are welcome” in the city, a place where “you can be yourself.” “This is the kind of place where new ideas are welcome — whether they’re creative, cutting-edge or curious at first glance. You can speak up here. You can be yourself here,” it continues. Of course, the taxpayer money used to procure this ad could have been spent on any number of the projects that would have helped secure the city from these anarchistic rabble-rousers.

Continue Reading

News

Canada Bucks International Trend, Won’t Open Border as Pandemic Fades

Airline industry officials are not happy.

Published

on

In America and around the world, there is much optimism.  The year-plus reign of the COVID scourge is coming to an end as vaccination and natural antibody rates climb ever higher, and businesses from coast to coast begin to ramp up their capacities. But there are still those out there who are unwilling to admit this very palpable and tangible truth, and who are throttling economic recovery in their reticence. Our northern neighbors just so happen to fit that description. Canada said on Monday it would start cautiously lifting border restrictions for fully vaccinated citizens on July 5 but made clear it would be months before U.S. and other foreign travelers could enter the country. From 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 5 (0359 GMT on July 6), those who have received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine will no longer have to spend time in quarantine. The move applies to Canadians and permanent residents. “This is the first phase of our precautionary approach … at this time we are not opening up our borders any further,” said Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc. Ottawa first announced the plan on June 9. LeBlanc told reporters that Ottawa was talking to its domestic and international partners “with the goal of allowing fully vaccinated travelers to enter Canada for non-essential reasons in the months to come.” Canada’s unwillingness to capitulate to the reality of the pandemic’s end has adversely affected the airline industry, and has drawn criticism from American lawmakers who believe that more could be done by our allies to the north in the realm of reopening.

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week