At the beginning of October, the Supreme Court heard three cases concerning LGBTQ+ rights: Altitude Express v. Zarda, Bostock v. Clayton County, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The first two cases, Altitude and Bostock, the Supreme Court is questioning whether sexuality is protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which states that “All personnel actions affecting employees . . . shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” The basis of the prosecution’s argument is that the section of title VII that outlines “sex,” includes a person’s sexuality. Therefore, a person could not be fired for identifying as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or any other sexuality.

The third Supreme Court Case, Harris v. Equal Employment, concerns the rights of the transgender community. The case questions whether someone being fired from their job for being transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or violates the sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. Similar to the previous two cases, the prosecution is arguing that firing someone for being transgender discriminates against someone on the basis of sex, thus violating the Civil Rights Act. The second case the prosecution is using, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, argues that someone cannot be fired from their position simply because they don’t fit the ideal definition of their identified sex.

Currently, 17 states have no laws protecting workplace discrimination against LGBTQ workers. This means that such workers identifying as anything other than straight and cisgender can be fired at anytime, regardless of their workplace performance and achievements.

The lack of laws protecting the LBGTQ+ community from discrimination in the United States is unacceptable. As a world leader, the US should be at the forefront of social change and should lead other countries to protect those who are most discriminated against in our society.