MINNEAPOLIS — The Supreme Court’s decision expanding the workplace rights of the LGBTQ community stands as one of the most critical rulings in the history of gay rights, according to legal experts.
On Monday, KARE 11’s Karla Hult sat down with civil rights attorney, Abu Amara, for more insight on what this ruling means to the LGBTQ community and the country at large.
Hult: “In the history of gay rights battles and decisions, how significant is this ruling today?”
Amara: “I would argue it is the second-most important case in the history of civil rights for the LGBT community. The first being a couple years ago when the courts said LGBT people can get married.”
Hult: “It obviously brings to mind the saying, ‘Married on Sunday, fired on Monday.’ This addresses that, does it not?
Amara: “It absolutely does for those who work for a living and are members of the LGBT community. It provides you protection against discrimination in the workplace. Places like Minnesota, we already had those protections, but a majority of states across the country did not. And so now, every person in this country who’s a member of the LGBT community has the protection to say, ‘If I’m discriminated against, and my boss fires me because I got married, I now have a recourse under federal rule.’”
“So in a majority of states in this country, you could have been fired for being gay 24 hours ago. And because of this decision, that is no longer the case.”
Hult: “Was there anything surprising about what this court decided and how it came down?”
Amara: “I was shocked at Justice Neil Gorsuch, the thrust of his opinion in this case. Oftentimes, we make assumptions about how the court is going to go based on were they appointed by Republican or Democratic presidents… Justice Gorsuch in this case really leaned in and put forth a strong opinion for the rights of every American and the right to not be discriminated against.”
Hult: “Maybe we expected that the Chief Justice [John Roberts] might have decided with the majority in this case, but Gorsuch was the shocking factor in all of this.”
Amara: “Gorsuch was a surprise. Many people thought it would be a 5-4 split decision, another civil rights issue that splits the country. But Gorsuch standing on the side of civil rights really makes this opinion a bipartisan opinion, if you will, that it extends beyond that normal divide and it stands on the side of civil rights.”
Hult: “Was this decision necessarily based on civil rights, on human rights, on what people could argue are humanitarian grounds? Or was this something more in the details and specifically in the language…”
Amara: “Many outside the legal world look at it as a human rights issue, as you say, but really this came down to analyzing specific language in the Civil Rights Act: ‘because of sex.’ Does ‘sex’ include members of the LGBT community? And Justice Gorsuch said the answer to that is ‘yes.’ And so we have to extend all the protections to members of the LGBT community as it applies to employment.”
Hult: Does this decision adequately protect the LGBT community from discrimination?
Amara: “This is an important decision, but the work is not done about whether you can discriminate in places of public accommodation. Meaning, if you show up at a restaurant, can you be discriminated against because you’re a member of the LGBT community?”
Amara: “Congress can pass the Equality Act to ensure that there’s no doubt that every member of the LGBT community has the right or protection of the Civil Rights Act… This is a good step but it has to go further, that’s why the Equality Act would end any doubt that any American, regardless of your sexual orientation has protections under federal law.”
Hult: “Can you speak to… how again, it comes down to that issue of language, moreso perhaps than any sort of values or humanitarian issues?”
Amara: “Justice Gorsuch understood that to win the argument on the text on the language itself, he really had to analyze the word ‘sex.’ So what does ‘sex’ mean? So he goes into the examples of the man and the woman who both may be attracted to a man, and that speaks to the modern understanding of what ‘sex’ means. ‘Sex’ in 1960 may have generally meant something else. But in today’s world, we understand that ‘sex’ is directly tied to sexual orientation, to gender identity; and those are indistinguishable concepts for the purposes of the Civil Rights Act. So he’s really analyzing the texts of the language to really then afford the protections of the LGBT community.”
Hult: “It also seems like he upheld a little bit of that traditional definition of ‘sex’ in doing that, because he essentially, he just said, ‘well look, we’re just looking at his gender,’ in saying that. And irregardless of orientation and other issues, he’s still being discriminated against, based on gender…”
Amara: “It’s a fascinating opinion because he uses the text in a way that I think is brilliant. He doesn’t ask, ‘What do they mean by the word ‘sex?’ What does the word ‘sex’ mean in and of itself?’ He’s going straight to the text. He’s not making a policy argument. He’s not making a political argument. He’s saying merely the word ‘sex’ must be analyzed. And I think the dissent really looks at what does ‘sex’ mean at the time. So the brilliance of argument is he’s looking at the literal words, and asking us what does that mean? Compared to some of the other justices that I think wanted us to think in the mindset of the 1960s.”
Hult: What does this say about the Supreme Court and possible future decisions?
Amara: “This is a signal that this court might not be what we thought it may have been a couple years ago.”
Hult: What does it say to LGBTQ individuals and our greater community?
Amara: “I think it means you matter, and each day you can go to work, without fear, that you can be married on Sunday and fired on Monday. And I think anytime this country has taken steps toward including more and more people in its protections, that’s a good day for this country. So I hope members of the LGBT community feel a bit more seen, that their government understands their values and that they matter.”
Amara: “I hope this is a moment when we can see the humanity in each other, when we can remind ourselves no matter who we love, no matter what you look like, in this country we all are equal. I hope and pray that this administration will see the goodness of this moment and not take advantage of it and celebrate it.”
Amara: “I would say to all communities who have faced discrimination and oppression in the past, that we can create change in the country, elections matter, that the law matters. People of good will can change the country for the better, this is an example of that.”