LGBTQ Supreme Court Legal History

the eighth case that the Supreme Court saw in regards

to LGBTQ civil rights and liberties occurred in 2013, and

it is the United States vs Windsor Ed.

If Windsor is the widow and sole executor of the

estate of her late spouse, theater aspire.

They were married in 2007 in Canada, where gay marriage

is legal.

At this point in time, New York recognizes the marriages

of gays but has not legalized it.

Fire died in 2000 and nine, leaving her estate to

her wife under the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.

The definition of marriage and spouse only referred to those

of heterosexual couples as a result, when there was not

able to receive the benefits of the marital tax exemption

on the estate of her wife.

When they're inspires, marriage is not federally recognized.

So when they had to pay $363,000 in taxes, she

filed sue in district courts, stating that DOMA was unconstitutional.

On November 9th 2010, the government said that it would

defend DOMA in court.

A few short weeks later, on February 23rd 2011, the

president and the attorney general stated that they would not

defend DOMA in court any longer.

On April 18th of 2011, the bipartisan Legal advisory group

of the House of Representatives filed a petition to continue

to defend DOMA in court.

There are several issues involved in this case.

The first is.

Does the executive branches agreement with the lower court that

DOMA was unconstitutional mean that the Supreme Court does not

have jurisdiction to decide the case?

The second question is, Does the bipartisan legal advisory group

of the House of Representatives have standings in the case?

The third and final issue is.

Does the Defense of Marriage Act deprives same sex couples

of the right to equal protection under federal law and

the Fifth Amendment, when states legally allow and recognize same

sex marriage?

Overall, the core made a 5 to 4 ruling on

the first issue.

No, the Supreme Court still had the jurisdiction here.

The case, even though the executive branch believes that the

law is unconstitutional because the government still had a substantial

stake in the results of the case.

The court did not rule on the second matter whether

the bipartisan legal advisory group participation in the case was

either legal nor illegal.

The third and most important part of United States vs

Windsor is the third ruling.

The court held that the states have the right to

define marital relationships, that DOMA is unconstitutional.

The states have the power in the Fifth Amendment that

states that they can create more specific laws than the

federal government has in regards to protections.

Many states at several states at this point recognized already

legally same sex marriage or if they didn't recognize it.

They had laws that allows same sex marriage in the

state. Because those laws are more specific than the federal

law. The state's power overruled that of federal legislation.

The ninth Case and one of the largest victories for

the LGBTQ community is that of Audra Fell versus Hodges

in 2015.

This case was a combination of several same sex couples

that sued the states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee,

challenge the constitutionality of those states, bands on gay marriages

or their refusal to recognize the legality of gay marriages

that occurred in other states where it is legal.

They argue that these statutes violated the equal protection clause

and due process clause of the 14th Amendment in the

suit that they brought also encompasses claims under the Civil

Rights Act of 1984.

There are two main issues in this case.

Does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a

marriage between two members of the same sex?

And if the court decides it does not require this

does The 14th Amendment requires a state to recognize the

marriage between two people of the same sex that was

legally licensed and performed in another state?

In a 54 ruling, the court ruled that the due

process clause of the 14th Amendment as protects the fundamental

liberties of marriage and recognize that there is no difference

between a heterosexual couple union and the same sex couples

unions with respect to its principles.

In 2015, the decision of Ashraful versus Hodges legalized gay

marriage for the first time in the United States.

The second to last case that will be discussed is

the Masterpiece Cake Shop versus a Colorado civil rights commission.

In 2018.

In July of 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went

to the Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colorado, and Ashley

owner Jack Phillips to design and create a cake for

their wedding.

Phillips believes that his cake decorating is an art form

that honors God and God's wishes.

He believed that it was against his religious beliefs to

create a cake for a same sex couple, Phillips offer

to create them anything else for their wedding except the

wedding cake.

Craig and Mullins file charges of discrimination with the Colorado

Civil Rights division, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under

the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission had heard several cases before

with regards Thio LGBT couples.

In each case, the commission sided with those who, with

the previous cases, a commission heard they were neutral in

their decisions when they decided in favor of those expressing

their religious beliefs.

In this case in particular, there was biased on those

in the commission that did not believe Phillips was refusing

to serve the couple based on his religious views but

his personal views.

So they voted in favor of the L G B

T Q couple.

The decision then can went to the Supreme Court, and

the issue is, does the application of Colorado's public accommodations

law on the cake maker violate his free speech or

free exercise clause is of the First Amendment, and it

needs to be noted that the original time frame of

this case was in 2012 before average fell versus Hodges.

So not every state recognized or legalize gay marriage.

At this point.

The court ruled 72 that the law had been applied

and that if the law had blend applied in a

neutral manner in regards to religion that they would have

found in favor of Philips.

The court found that the commission was not neutral in

their decision, thus reversing the decision of the commission.

The court said that gay couples are afforded rights and

protections under the Constitution.

Those rights, however, do not infringe on other rights that

are protected under the Constitution, such as freedom of religion.

And the free exercise clause is my lips sincerely believed

in his religious convictions, which is why he firmly was

against creating the cake for the gay couple.

He was not opposed to creating anything else for them,

but he did refuse to do the cake.

The final and most recent case occurred at the beginning

of 2020.

Mrs Bostock versus Clayton County.

These Air three cases combined into one cases.

The main case involves Gerald Bar Faster.

He began working for Clayton County, Georgia, as a child

welfare service is coordinator in 2003.

In 2013, he began participating in a gay softball league,

and the news reached his employers.

Despite positive evaluations and accolades for his work, he was

fired for his sexual orientation for quote, conduct unbecoming of

its employees, bossa file discrimination charges with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission and then, in 2016, filed a discrimination suit

based on Title seven of the Civil Rights Act of

1964. The first case I was consolidated into Bosox case

was that of Donald's Arda.

He worked for Altitude Express as a skydiving instructor on

Long Island in New York.

For his job requirements.

He jumps in tandem with his customers.

When female customers started to feel uncomfortable being strapped to

a man in tandem, Zara would often reveal his sexual

orientation of being gay to alleviate their fear.

One woman claimed that Zara sexually touched her and that

he was saying he was gay to cover up his

actions. He was subsequently fired.

Zara then sued his previous employer under the New York

Human Rights Law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation

and under Title seven of the Civil Rights Act of

1964. Unfortunately, Zardad died before he heard his case return

it to the Supreme Court.

The second case I was consolidated into Bosox case was

that of Amy Stephens.

She worked as a funeral director for our G and

G R.

Harris Funeral Homes for over 60 years when she announced

to her co workers and her boss that she was

transitioning to be herself as a woman.

Stephen spent almost 20 years working in the funeral service

is industry.

Two weeks after she revealed she was transitioning from a

man to a woman and will be preferred to be

called a Me, the funeral home fired her.

This took place in 2013.

Stevens lost her ilk, income and health insurance, which impacted

her family's finances in a way they have not been

able to recover from.

Stevens died as the result of years of kidney disease

and failure in May of 2020 before the court made

its decision in her case, Amy Stephens cases, the first

transgender case to be heard by the Supreme Court.

The issue is Does Title seven of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964 which prohibits against employment discrimination because of

sex, include discrimination based on an individual sexual orientation.

The court ruled in a 6 to 3 decision.

The title seven of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

protects one from employment discrimination based on their sexual orientation

and or sexual identity.

Justice Gorsha delivered the opinion of the court.

The answer is clear on employer.

Who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires

up person for trace or actions that would not have

questioned the members of a different sex sex place unnecessary

and undistinguished herbal role in the decision exactly what Title

seven forbids.

The court also acknowledges that the legislatures in 1964 do

not believe or know the extent of what their legislation

would per that the legislation would have results touches this.

The definition of sex was either person that was biologically

male or female at birth in 1964 This was a

huge one for the L G B T Q Community

because it means that they cannot be discriminated because of

who they are and who they identify us.

Unfortunately, this is not the last fight that the LGBTQ

community will have in regards to their civil rights and

liberties. Future issues are ones that involve the transgender community.

Issues that are coming up in legal battles across the

country include what bathrooms transgender should use their participation in

competitive sports, especially in high school and college, in the

coverage of transitioning medical service is by different health insurances.

They have come a long way, but the battle is

still not over these.

They're just some of the issues that are to be

looked at in the next few years.

The bathroom issues is one that is actually being debated

in the legal system and brought the Supreme Court this

term. Thank you for your time.

And I hope you enjoyed this presentation on LGBTQ rights

in the United States.

LGBTQ Supreme Court Legal History

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated