There are three LGBTQ rights cases before SCOTUS.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

I'm afraid we're going to lose them all unless Justice Roberts surprises us. Haters suck

We still have the economic power to bring most businesses who dare to discriminate to their knees.

I wish I could be more eloquent and upbeat.

[elleng]

1. On L.G.B.T. Rights, the Supreme Court Asks the Question.by Linda Greenhouse

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016230954

Interesting bit of 'history,' and prospects not ALL bad.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I have an ego but I would never be so happy to be wrong.

[elleng]

4. Is a very intereting article,

thorough and thoughtful as Linda Greenhouse always is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. I hope her informed analysis is better than my seat of the pants one.

The thing is some justices arrive at a decision and then work backwards to justify it.

[elleng]

6. I think it probably is, and begins with fact it took them an unusually long time to decide to review

'It was no snap judgment.'

[dsc]

2. Most knowledgeable people agree with your outlook on our chances

though as pointed out below one big one disagrees. But economic power only goes so far. The major problem are local businesses and governments in those states where we aren't protected. Those are harder to economically pressure.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. If that happens, I am sure we will see people out in the streets protesting.

j/k

[Buckeyeblue]

8. Language evolves over time

Since laws are based in language, the laws too must evolve. The reason laws are typically written is such broad, somewhat ambiguous, language is so they can be applied to different scenarios. And while we can easily argue that 55 years ago there was no intent for the law to include LGBTQ individuals, the law does use the word "sex." In 2019 I would argue the word sex would also include one's sexual orientation.

I could be wrong about this but I don't think Roberts wants his court to be known for creating chaos. And a verdict against LGBTQ rights would not only create chaos but could put the court in a bind depending on the logic of their ruling. If they use original intent, they tie their hands on all future cases. If they go off the deep end with some other reason it will just make them look partisan.

[melm00se]

9. The neat thing about (good) laws

and the Constitution is that they are specific where they need to be and vague where they can.

This allows these laws and the Constitution to transcend the time and place of their drafting and applicable to future (now current) needs.

[Ms. Toad]

10. Technically, we can't lose what we never had.

But I agree that these are potentially devastating cases.

Until now, the Supreme Court has remained silent on the interpretation of the relevant statutes - leaving the circuit courts free to interpret sex discrimination as including discrimination baased on sexual orientation. (Personally, from a legal basis, I think that interpretation is a stretch - even though I am grateful that some courts have made that stretch.)

Once the Supreme Court rules, the circuit courts of appeal will no longer be free to rule as they have - and we will need to eihter pass new federal anti-discrimination laws that expressly included sexual orientation and gender identiy or expression, or get a later court to overrule these decisions. Both are harder than nudging the circuit courts of appeal to broadly interpret "sex" in the absence of an express prohibition by the Supreme Court.