Share this story...
Utah reacts LGBTQ Supreme Court
Latest News

Utahns react to US Supreme Court’s latest LGBTQ ruling

United States Supreme Court building exterior, equal justice under the law, WASHINGTON, DC, USA

SALT LAKE CITY — The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled that companies cannot fire an employee just for being gay, lesbian, or transgender. 

The court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on sex, also applies to LGBTQ workers.

Many Utahns are celebrating the LGBTQ ruling. Others have reservations. 

Troy Williams, Executive Director of Equality Utah, believes most Utahns won’t notice the difference, as the state has had rules against LGBTQ discrimination in housing and employment since 2015. 

He is happy more people now have some of those protections.

“Twenty-nine states in our country don’t have those basic protections. If you live in Utah but then you move to Idaho or Arizona or Montana, all of a sudden, you’re not protected. So, it’s really critical and important that we have federal protections in employment,” Williams said. 

RELATED READING:  So-called conversion therapy banned in conservative Utah

Williams would also like more work to be done on a federal level. 

“Whether it’s access to healthcare, hospitals, restaurants, etc. We would really like to see federal protections across the board. We still encourage Congress to act,” Williams said. 

Several religious institutions filed briefs with the court outlining their concerns if those protections were extended in an LGBTQ ruling. 

Brigham Young University, like many religious schools, believed a court ruling like that which was announced today, could change student housing and healthcare rules, as well as eventually cost faith-based colleges their tax-exempt status. 

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) tweeted that he disagreed with the ruling for the same reasons Justice Samuel Alito outlined in his dissent.

 Justice Alito believes the court, by saying sex discrimination covers sexual orientation along with gender, legislated instead of interpreted the law. He said that by doing so the court overstepped its bounds and did a job only Congress is supposed to do.