The group uses the longer version of the acronym, in which the Q stands for “questioning” — as in still exploring one’s sexuality — or “queer.””The court has caught up to the majority of our country, which already knows that discriminating against LGBTQ people is both unfair and against the law,” he said in a statement. Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for president, hailed the decision as “a momentous step forward for our country.” “Before today, in more than half of states, LGBTQ+ people could get married one day and be fired from their job the next day under state law, simply because of who they are or who they love,” said Biden, who was vice president when the court made its historic ruling in favor of same sex marriage in 2015.Rights activists had feared that Trump’s appointment of two new conservative judges to the top court could hinder further wins for their cause.Yet it was one of them, Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority decision, joining with the court’s four progressive-leaning judges and Chief Justice John Roberts.”An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids,” Gorsuch wrote.”Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result,” Gorsuch said. “But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands.” Trump’s administration had effectively thrown in its lot with employers, but the president later Monday called the ruling “very powerful”.”They ruled and we live with their decision,” he said.Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights activists, as well as Democratic politicians and several major businesses, had been demanding that the court spell out that the community was protected by the law. “This is a huge victory for LGBTQ equality,” said James Esseks, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. The US Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for the gay and transgender communities Monday when it ruled that employers cannot discriminate against workers because of their sexual orientation.In a blow to the administration of President Donald Trump, the court ruled by six votes to three that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination against employees because of a person’s sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.”Today we must decide whether someone can be fired simply for being homosexual or transgender,” the court said. “The answer is clear.” Topics : ‘Fired for coming out’ Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the government’s position before the court, argued that “sex refers to whether you were born woman or man, not your sexual orientation or gender identity.” He said it was the job of Congress to update the law, not the justice system.The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian religious freedom group, said the court’s decision was “truly troubling” and encroached on the religious beliefs of employers.Donna Stephens, the wife of transgender plaintiff Aimee Stephens who died last month, hailed her late partner’s struggle for justice after being sacked by a Detroit funeral parlor when she came out.”For the last seven years of Aimee’s life, she rose as a leader who fought against discrimination against transgender people,” Stephens said. “I am grateful for this victory to honor the legacy of Aimee, and to ensure people are treated fairly regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity,” she said in a statement.Among Democratic leaders hailing the ruling was Pete Buttigieg, the former Navy officer and mayor who became the first openly gay person to run for the Democratic presidential nomination. “It was only 11 years ago this summer that I took an oath and accepted a job that I would have lost, if my chain of command learned that I was gay. Firing us wasn’t just permitted — it was policy,” he said.Pop superstar Taylor Swift also lauded the decision, tweeting, “We still have a long way to go to reach equality, but this is a beautiful step forward.”
Doubts remain, however, whether the IASB’s latest effort to win over long-term investors will succeed.Speaking during the 18 October discussion, IASB member Mary Tokar said: “We aren’t setting a requirement – we are just doing an unnecessary acknowledgement in the text of the standard that we may make asymmetric decisions. That is what we were asked to acknowledge.“I think, then, we should draft it in accordance with that, which is that this does not preclude the board from establishing requirements that may be asymmetrical.”Project manager Anne McGeachin said: “For you to be able to reach a decision about asymmetry, you need to be able to conclude it provides relevant information and that the information was faithfully represented. To be faithfully represented, it would need to be neutral.” The board is attempting to juggle the demands from some UK-based long-term investor interests on the one hand and the need to maintain convergence with the US FASB’s accounting model on the other.Chapter 2 of the Conceptual Framework currently follows a form of words agreed with the US board that eliminated the notion of conservatism from the accounting rubric.Meanwhile, the UK Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has concluded that “reporting quality is generally good, but companies have room for improvement”.The verdict comes in the audit watchdog’s Annual Review of Corporate Reporting 2015-16. In its latest review of the UK reporting landscape over the past year, the FRC concluded: “Given the complexity and breadth of corporate reporting, it is not possible to assess the overall quality of corporate reporting in one sentence.“Compliance with the accounting framework, particularly by larger public companies, is generally good, and the introduction of the strategic report has improved the quality of narrative reporting.”The FRC has also repeated its call from 2015 for preparers to adopt the requirements of the IASB’s draft amendments early to its asset-celling guidance in IFRIC 14.The IFRS Interpretations Committee agreed at its September meeting to press ahead with the amendments.Further in relation to pensions, the FRC flagged up what it calls “recent high-profile corporate failures” as having highlighted the risk posed by defined benefit scheme deficits in today’s low interest rate and low-return environment.The FRC urged directors to consider “whether a company’s obligations under pension agreements with current and future employees create principal risks and uncertainties to be disclosed and explained in the strategic report”.Lastly, the FRC has released a consultation on improvements to the cashflow statement.The FRC has said it wanted to hear views on potential improvements to the statement.It plans to feed through input from interested parties to the IASB’s Primary Financial Statements project.This project, a research initiative, is at an early stage and examining possible changes to the structure and content of the primary financial statements.In particular, the FRC discussion paper contains an analysis of the direct method cashflow statement.This method proved highly controversial when floated by the IASB during its abandoned project on financial statement presentation. The International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) has agreed to include a discussion of asymmetry in the main body of its Conceptual Framework document.Staff will now work on a revised form of words to work into Chapter 2 of the framework. The decision to include an analysis of asymmetry is driven by the board’s earlier decision to reintroduce a reference to prudence back into its framework.Since the financial crisis, the accounting establishment has come under pressure for what some critics see as its inherently imprudent standards.