Nebraska lawmakers vote to affirm U.S. Supreme Court's LGBTQ discrimination ruling

[Omaha Steve]

Source: Omaha World Herald

By Martha Stoddard

LINCOLN — Nebraska lawmakers voted Wednesday to back a U.S. Supreme Court decision banning job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The high court ruled on June 15 that firing someone for being gay or transgender violates federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed by President Trump, wrote the majority opinion.

Legislative Resolution 466, introduced by State Sen. Patty Pansing Brooks of Lincoln and co-sponsored by 28 colleagues, put the Legislature on record as affirming the court's decision. The vote approving the resolution was 28-8, with seven senators abstaining.

Pansing Brooks said the resolution was intended to send a message to Nebraska employers, workers and youths that the state is committed to being a welcoming place for all, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other people and their families.

Read more: https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/nebraska-lawmakers-vote-to-affirm-u-s-supreme-courts-lgbtq-discrimination-ruling/article_8af15cad-148a-514d-a78d-48f11f0b48bd.html

---

[cstanleytech]

1. Ok, bit confused but what do they mean affirm? States have no power to reject a SCOTUS ruling

let alone to affirm it.

[jayfish]

3. "Pansing Brooks said the resolution was intended to send a message...

to Nebraska employers, workers and youths that the state is committed to being a welcoming place for all, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and other people and their families.

'It is what we must do as a kind and civil society,' she said."

[cstanleytech]

10. Ahhh, k.

[BigDemVoter]

2. They didn't have much choice, did they?

They can affrirm or deny or whatever the hell they want, but they still MUST follow the law, WHATEVER they 'think.'

[forgotmylogin]

5. Hopefully in this case "affirm" means "This is the law so you need to follow it."

They got backup from the SCOTUS so all good.

[Faux pas]

4. Kickin' with gusto!

[TlalocW]

6. It's a good thing but should be unnecessary

I read stuff like this as putting assholes on notice saying, "the thing you didn't like the Supreme Court doing? Don't think we're going to let shit slide by us."

TlalocW

[sandensea]

7. But will Racketts veto it?

The bastard is eyeing 2024 - and needs to establish his fascist bonafides to the Chumpkins (who will soon be left without a leader).

[NurseJackie]

8. I welcome this show of support. Leading by example...

I welcome this show of support. Leading by example... and bringing attention to it. Was it legally necessary, likely not. But I think it helps to create goodwill and it forces others to be aware and hopefully rethink their attitudes.

It's all good. It's unclear to me why there would be any angst or disapproval.

[Hortensis]

9. Yes. From them, a statement of support matters. nt