Supreme Court, U. S. Supreme Court, U. S Supreme Court discussed on KZSC Programming


Mm hmm. Not surprisingly, Yeah, well, I mean, you know, adoption, Fostering parenthood generally has been a considerable battleground. In many states. Recently and Have a story here, Um At the Supreme Court. U S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an Indiana suit over lesbian couples on birth certificates. Indiana Lesbian couples will be able to include both people's names on their Children's birth certificates after a decision by the U. S Supreme Court today. Court decided not to hear a lawsuit over the issue that began back in 2016. Uh, The Indiana birth certificate lists only the names of the mother and father, eight lesbian couples sued, seeking the right to include both the birth mother and her partner. A couple said denying them. Their place on the birth certificate cost them rights and benefits. And while the state argued lesbian couples should go through the adoption process that, couples said That was both lengthy and costly. Both federal District Court and the seventh Circuit Court of Appeals cited with the lesbian couples. But Republican Attorney General Curtis Hill took the case to the U. S. Supreme Court, he argued. The that Indiana was following quote basic biology in only, including birth mother and father on a burst certificate. But the Supreme Court refused to hear the case leaving in place. The appellate court decision, which reported repudiated Bill's position, so Um, you know, this is refreshing. I got to say, we have lately had many instances now off what had been somewhat the doom and gloom expectations of a arch conservative Supreme Court and its potential. Influence on decisions related to LGBT Q issues as well as other political issues, Um, not necessarily manifesting those arch conservative viewpoints. On instead either letting stand or refusing to hear cases that Fall in favor, then of the LGBT Q or liberal or progressive. Position. E think that's really pretty pretty cool there. I have to agree. Um So we're talking about courts, right? Is this thing going on in Michigan? Um So The court ruled that Oh, I'm sorry. Michigan court has ruled that businesses can refuse gay and by people, but not trans people. There's the lead Okay, You know, philosophically that Z Go ahead. Uh, The state civil rights law includes neither sexual orientation nor gender identity. But the Michigan Civil Rights Commission voted in 2018 to interpret the state's ban on discrimination. On the basis of sex to include discrimination against LGBT Q people and interpretation that federal courts have agreed with, and that was later used by the Supreme Court in both stock V. Clayton County this past year to rule that federal law already bans job discrimination against LGBT Q people. State Court of Claims Judge Christopher Emery issued a summary judgment and to discrimination cases, one based on anti gay discrimination and the other on anti trans discrimination. One case involved Rouch World A wedding venue that refused to host weddings for same sex couples. And the other involved uprooted electrolysis, a hair removal service. Great name uprooted nice, their hair removal service that refused to serve a transgender client. The lawsuits were combined into one Murray reference to state Supreme Court in bar bore The Department of Social Services, where the court ruled that the state's ban on discrimination because of sex does not ban discrimination against gay and bisexual people. Marie wrote quote. Whether barbers reasoning is no longer valid in light of both stock fee. Clayton County is a matter for the court of Appeals, not this court. So It kind of sounds like kicking the can down down the road to me. Um But the state Supreme Court has not yet ruled on anti transgender discrimination. So Murray referred to several federal rulings, including both stock, which Murray said held quote. That an employer violates title seven when it treat an employee born male but who now identifies this female differently than an employee born female. That type of dissimilar treatment the court held was discrimination because of sex unquote. State civil rights legislation, Marie said, is similar enough to apply the same reasoning, so the case about anti transgender discrimination can proceed. While the case about anti gay discrimination cannot Okay. Yeah. So, uh, well, we can already see that this is going to go on to appeals. In fact, I think I just saw They're at it is being appealed. Yes. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel to appeal case involving Well, yeah. So, uh, Kind of weird. Um But But I mean, you know, that's kind of You know, that is really interesting. The idea that, um You know, on the basis of sex versus sexual orientation, right? There can be no discrimination or lack of discrimination nor, yeah, that's that's really I have some work to do. Yeah, right. I mean, doesn't everybody But yeah. See how this one goes. One or two. Wait. No, they were combined so Yeah. All right, miss again. Well, speaking of I suppose trans related. In this case issues. Um Former Democratic primary running person. We'll see covered. Huh? Representative From why, uh Well, this news from the Los Angeles Bleed another reporting. Right wing media outlets have earned more than two million Facebook interactions on content, praising a new bill introduced by Representative Tulsi covered Uh, we had representative Mark Wain Mullen of Tahoma that would prevent trans athletes from competing as their authentic Selves in school sports. Advocates have called the bill quote, blatantly Transphobic and said it was quote weaponizing fear of trans nous to hurt all women. Notably, Cabot has previously worked for an anti LGBTQ organization in opposed LGBTQ rights, though she claimed to be committed. Quote to fighting for LGBTQ equality during her fell 2020 presidential run. Staff from extreme anti LGBT Q Group Alliance. Defending Freedom, which is leading the charge against trans athletes praised Gabbert's bill..

Coming up next