（雅思課外精讀）美國采取措施保護(hù)LGBT員工在工作中不受歧視

同學(xué)們您是否也想知道【雅思課外精讀】美國采取措施保護(hù)LGBT員工在工作中不受歧視，這個(gè)問題的分析和解答呢？相信你通過以下的文章內(nèi)容就會(huì)有更深入的了解，話不多說，接下來就跟著中國教育在線小編一起看看吧。

LGBT rights性少數(shù)群體的權(quán)利

Americas Supreme Court protects LGBT workers against discrimination美國最高法院保護(hù)

LGBT員工不受歧視

A momentous 6-3 ruling一個(gè)重大的6比3裁決

1. WHEN ANTHONY KENNEDY retired in 2018, gay-rights supporters fretted overthe loss of a justice who had anchored four expansions of gay and lesbian rights. With his replacement by the more conservative Brett Kavanaugh, and President Donald Trumps appointment of Neil Gorsuch 18 months earlier, LGBT activists worried the progress would come to a halt. On June 15th the Supreme Court allayed those fears with a momentous decision that protects gay and transgender people against discrimination in the workplace.

安東尼肯尼迪曾四次支持?jǐn)U大同性戀權(quán)利，他2018年退休的時(shí)候，人們擔(dān)心同性戀權(quán)利得不到保障。繼任安東尼肯尼迪的是更加保守的布雷特卡瓦諾(Brett Kavanaugh)和唐納德特朗普總統(tǒng)18個(gè)月前任命的尼爾戈薩奇(Neil Gorsuch)， LGBT活動(dòng)人士擔(dān)心同性戀權(quán)利擴(kuò)大的進(jìn)程會(huì)停滯。6月15日，最高法院做出了一項(xiàng)重大決定，保護(hù)同性戀和跨性別者在工作場所不受歧視，這減輕了人們的擔(dān)憂。

2. By a 6-3 margin, the court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964a provision that bars discrimination because of a number of characteristics including sexprohibits firing or disfavouring workers on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. The majority view was penned by Justice Gorsuch.

最高法院以6比3的票數(shù)裁定，1964年《民權(quán)法案》第七條禁止因包括性別在內(nèi)的一系列特征而產(chǎn)生的歧視，禁止因員工的性取向或性別認(rèn)同而解雇或歧視他們。戈薩奇法官起草了多數(shù)意見。 3. Roughly half of Americas states have laws of their own protecting gay and trans workers; the rest do not. So until the latest decision, known as Bostock v Clayton County, an employee in much of America could legally marry a member of the same sex over the weekend and be legally sacked for being gay when returning to work. Now some 8.1m LGBT workers across America will enjoy federal protection from discrimination when they clock in.

美國大約一半的州都有自己的法律保護(hù)同性戀和跨性別者；其余的州則不然。因此，直到最近波斯托克訴克萊頓縣的裁決，美國大部分地區(qū)的雇員周末可以合法和自己的同性對(duì)象結(jié)婚，但是周一去上班就會(huì)被合法解雇。現(xiàn)在，全美約有810萬LGBT員工受聯(lián)邦法律保護(hù)，在工作場合不被歧視。

4. At the oral arguments last October, Justice Gorsuch leaned towards the LGBT plaintiffsview. But he feared that a win for them might herald massive social upheaval. Now, as author of the majority opinion (attracting the votes of Chief Justice John Roberts and the four more liberal justices), his worries seem to have vanished. Sex plays a necessary andundisguisable role in an employers decision to fire a worker for being gay or transgender, he wrote, and that is exactly what Title VII forbids.

在去年10月的口頭辯論中，戈薩奇法官傾向于支持LGBT原告。但他擔(dān)心LGBT的勝利會(huì)帶來大規(guī)模的社會(huì)動(dòng)蕩?，F(xiàn)在，作為多數(shù)意見的作者(吸引了首席大法官約翰羅伯茨和四位較為自由派法官的投票)，他的擔(dān)憂似乎已經(jīng)消失了。他寫道，在雇主決定解雇同性戀或跨性別員工時(shí)，性扮演著不可掩飾的角色，而這正是《憲法第七條》所禁止的。

5. The matter was simple, he contended, involving the straightforward application of legal terms with plain and settled meanings. A host of Supreme Court precedents stand for the same principle. These include discrimination against mothers, sexual harassment against men and other types of workplace bias Congress may not have contemplated in 1964. No one might have imagined back then that Title VII would prohibit a boss from firing gay or trans workers because of their identity, but major initiatives like a civil-rights law often have unexpected consequences.

他辯稱，其實(shí)很簡單， 直接應(yīng)用意義明確的法律術(shù)語就行。最高法院的許多案例都支持同樣的原則。其中包括對(duì)母親的歧視、對(duì)男性的性騷擾，以及國會(huì)在1964年可能沒有考慮到的其他類型的職場偏見。在當(dāng)時(shí)，沒有人會(huì)想到《憲法第七修正案》會(huì)禁止老板因?yàn)閱T工的同性戀或變性人的身份而解雇他們，但是像民權(quán)法這樣的重大舉措往往會(huì)產(chǎn)生意想不到的后果。

6. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a dissent admonishing the majority for legislating from the bench. [W]e are judges, he wrote, not members of Congress. For the more vituperative Justice Samuel Alito (joined in dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas), the radical result in Bostock is based on preposterous reasoning. Although the majority invokes the late Justice Antonin Scalias teaching that judges should pay heed only to the words of a statute, Justice Alito wrote, no one should be fooled by the ruling. Justice Gorsuchs opinion is like a pirate ship sailing under a textualist flag but silently updat[ing] old statutes so that they better reflect the current values of society.

卡瓦諾法官寫了一份異議書，呼吁法官立法。我們都是法官，他寫道，不是國會(huì)議員。對(duì)于和克拉倫斯托馬斯(Clarence Thomas)法官一起反對(duì)立法的塞繆爾阿利托(Samuel Alito)法官來說，波斯托克案的激進(jìn)結(jié)果是基于荒謬的推理。盡管大多數(shù)人援引已故大法官安東寧斯卡利亞(Antonin Scalia)的教誨，即法官應(yīng)該只關(guān)注法令的文字，但阿利托法官寫道，任何人都不應(yīng)該被這項(xiàng)裁決愚弄。戈薩奇法官認(rèn)為，此次裁決 像一艘海盜船在文本主義旗幟下默默航行，默默更新舊法規(guī)，以便它們更好地反映當(dāng)前的社會(huì)價(jià)值。

7. What are the broader implications of the ruling for LGBT rights? It depends whom you ask. Justice Gorsuch left open whether employers with religious objections to the gender identity or sexuality of their workers may one day claim an exemption from anti-discrimination laws. But his erstwhile concern about social upheaval is nowhere to be found in the majority opinion. Bostock is just about workplace rights, he wrote, not sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms and dress codes. The court does not prejudge these questions.

對(duì)LGBT權(quán)利的裁決有什么更廣泛的影響?這取決于你問誰。戈薩奇法官?zèng)]有明確表示，對(duì)員工性別認(rèn)同或性取向持宗教異議的雇主是否有一天可以申請(qǐng)反歧視法的豁免。但他過去對(duì)社會(huì)動(dòng)蕩的擔(dān)憂已不復(fù)存在。他寫道，博斯托克案件涉及的是工作場所權(quán)利，而不是性別隔離的衛(wèi)生間、更衣室和著裝規(guī)范。法院不會(huì)預(yù)先判斷這些問題。

8. Justice Alitos 54-page jeremiad berated the majority for failing to grapple with the potential implications. Many federal laws bar sex discrimination, and the majoritys brusque refusal to contemplate how they will be altered by the Bostock ruling is irresponsible. What about transgender employees challenging health plans that do not cover costly sex-reassignment surgery? Or women who have suffered sexual assault, for whom viewing the anatomy of a male in a confined and sensitive location such as a bathroom or locker room can cause serious psychological harm? Or a transgender persons desire to compete in a sporting competition previously reserved for members of one biological sex?

阿利托大法官在長達(dá)54頁的長篇大論中指責(zé)多數(shù)派未能把握住潛在的影響。許多聯(lián)邦法律禁止性別歧視，多數(shù)人粗暴拒絕考慮博斯托克裁決對(duì)這些法律的影響，這是不負(fù)責(zé)任的?？缧詣e員工挑戰(zhàn)了不包括昂貴的變性手術(shù)的醫(yī)療計(jì)劃怎么辦？或者是遭受過性侵犯的女性提出在一個(gè)狹窄敏感的場所，如衛(wèi)生間或更衣室，觀看一個(gè)男性的解剖，可能會(huì)造成嚴(yán)重的心理傷害時(shí)要怎么辦？或者一個(gè)跨性別者想要參加體育比賽的愿望如何實(shí)現(xiàn)？

9. Religious conservatives who helped elect Mr Trump and were cheered by his Supreme Court picks are shocked by Justice Gorsuchs defection from the cause. Their dismay may do little to soften evangelicals support for Mr Trump in November, but the decision to stand up for gay and trans rights may undermine several of his administrations policies targeting LGBT people. A recently announced regulatory change allowing doctors to deny health care to trans people under the Affordable Care Act is now under a cloud, as are moves to allow adoption agencies toshut out same-sex couples and let school districts discriminate against trans students.

曾幫助特朗普當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)并因他的最高法院人選備受鼓舞的宗教保守派人士對(duì)戈薩奇大法官的背叛感到震驚。他們的沮喪可能不會(huì)削弱福音派在11月對(duì)特朗普的支持，但支持同性戀和變性人權(quán)利的決定可能會(huì)削弱政府針對(duì)LGBT人群的一些政策。最近宣布的一項(xiàng)監(jiān)管改革，允許醫(yī)生根據(jù)《平價(jià)醫(yī)療法案》(Affordable care Act)拒絕為跨性別人士提供醫(yī)療服務(wù)，允許收養(yǎng)機(jī)構(gòu)將同性伴侶拒之門外、允許學(xué)區(qū)歧視跨性別學(xué)生的舉措，現(xiàn)在都受到了質(zhì)疑。

10. For now, Bostock seems bound to serve conservatives with an example of burnishing the image of the Supreme Court as a fair-minded tribunal. Chief Justice Roberts is particularly keen to rescue justices from the charge that they are merely politicians in robes. In 1989 Scalia joined the liberal side of the court to strike down a law banning flag-burning. That was his exhibit A of how his jurisprudence was rooted in law, not personal ideology. Justice Gorsuch, Scalias successor, now has a similar landmark.

以上就是“【雅思課外精讀】美國采取措施保護(hù)LGBT員工在工作中不受歧視”的全部內(nèi)容了，希望小編整理的資料能幫助到考生。如果想要了解更多相關(guān)資訊，歡迎關(guān)注外語頻道，為您提供更多精彩內(nèi)容。

>> 雅思 托福 免費(fèi)課程學(xué)習(xí)，AI量身規(guī)劃讓英語學(xué)習(xí)不再困難<<