Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC) NewsFlash SCOTUS rules 6-3 that workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender   (cnbc.com) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, Homosexuality, Sexual orientation, Gender, Supreme Court, Transgender, sexual orientation, Donald Zarda, LGBT  
•       •       •

6617 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 15 Jun 2020 at 10:20 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

728 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-15 10:17:56 AM  
Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?
 
2020-06-15 10:21:58 AM  
Nifty.
 
2020-06-15 10:22:03 AM  
This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.
 
2020-06-15 10:22:10 AM  
Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.
 
2020-06-15 10:22:30 AM  
Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously
 
2020-06-15 10:22:59 AM  

Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?


They wanted to Make America Great Again. Or something like that.
 
2020-06-15 10:23:05 AM  
*cheersloudly!*
 
2020-06-15 10:23:08 AM  
Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?
 
2020-06-15 10:23:12 AM  
Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>
 
2020-06-15 10:23:13 AM  
So what will this do to Dump's EO that removed LBGTQ rights to healthcare under the ACA?
 
2020-06-15 10:23:15 AM  
Hell yeah. GFY Kavanaugh
 
2020-06-15 10:23:32 AM  
Wowza. Pleased as punch about the results, slightly shocked at the 6-3 split.

Happy Pride Month, everyone!
 
2020-06-15 10:23:32 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


Thomas felt icky.
 
2020-06-15 10:23:54 AM  
Justice I LIKE BEER is delivering as best he can, it appears.

Trump can't be given another chance to put someone else like him on the Supreme Court.
 
2020-06-15 10:24:04 AM  

danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously


kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"
 
2020-06-15 10:24:18 AM  
"I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:24:33 AM  
Good
 
2020-06-15 10:24:33 AM  
In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.
 
2020-06-15 10:24:40 AM  
It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.
 
2020-06-15 10:24:46 AM  
6-3.  Better than i thought it would be, and nowhere near where it should have been.

In any case, GOOD!
 
2020-06-15 10:24:47 AM  
Imagine being on the side that says, in 2020, of course you can be fired for being gay.

Republicans. Never even once
 
2020-06-15 10:24:48 AM  
Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.
 
2020-06-15 10:24:51 AM  

Chabash: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

Thomas felt icky.


He was trying to quash the nickname Tingly Thomas
 
2020-06-15 10:24:55 AM  
Good.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:00 AM  
Jesus wept.

Republican Jesus, anyway.

Biblical Jesus, who turned water into wine, hung out with hookers, and whipped moneychangers' asses, shrugged.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:07 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


The three are who you thought they were.  Their reasoning is "who the fark knows?".
 
2020-06-15 10:25:09 AM  

Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?


According to the dissent they though congress needed to amend the law to add sub classes of sexes to not be discriminated against apparently.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:09 AM  
This is cool. I wasn't expecting to wake up to a freer country at any point this year.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:20 AM  

Sidepipes: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.  'Nuff said.


The Three Stooges.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:21 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:25:31 AM  

Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?


The only thing I find unexpected is that it wasn't already federal law.

/My company would never can someone over their sexuality
 
2020-06-15 10:25:34 AM  
The logic is unassailable.  The 3 dissenters are farking trash.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:41 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


This is just me bullshiatting, so take it with a huge grain of salt and go read the decision when it comes out and expert analysis, but I suspect they made a lot of legislative intent since  those who originally passed the law did NOT intend to protect LGBTQ people.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:48 AM  
Great! But what if the business owner uses the excuse of religion?
 
2020-06-15 10:26:04 AM  
Good
 
2020-06-15 10:26:07 AM  

markie_farkie: So what will this do to Dump's EO that removed LBGTQ rights to healthcare under the ACA?


Nothing.  Although they might start making campaign T-shirts reading "Fark your Rulings."
 
2020-06-15 10:26:11 AM  

jake_lex: Justice I LIKE BEER is delivering as best he can, it appears.

Trump can't be given another chance to put someone else like him on the Supreme Court.


Hey, the Nationals have a great chance at making the pennant race next year and those tickets don't pay for themselves.
 
2020-06-15 10:26:18 AM  
Roberts was with the 6? Is it because it's Monday and his asshole meter isn't totally filled up yet?
 
2020-06-15 10:26:39 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


Probably that if you can't fire someone for being gay then you can't fire someone for running around naked and masturbating into the eggplants. They just can't imagine that a gay person could be 'normal'.
 
2020-06-15 10:26:49 AM  

eiger: This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.


Yes, this is huge and the bigots will be apoplectic about it. Good.
 
2020-06-15 10:27:03 AM  
Yay. A sliver of good news finally.
 
2020-06-15 10:27:09 AM  
media.giphy.comView Full Size


I thought we were better than this.  Clearly not.  This should not have gone all the way to the SCOTUS.

How about any "Chief" corporate person gets $0 and no bonuses if they are fired or commit a crime.
 
2020-06-15 10:27:18 AM  

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"


Interesting.  One has to wonder if BEER! would have voted the other way if it had been a closer decision.  Being split like this would make it "safe" for him to dissent without changing the outcome.
 
2020-06-15 10:27:30 AM  

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"


I Like Beer was trying the "It's not our job" defense.
 
2020-06-15 10:27:45 AM  
There's our good ruling of the season.  Enjoy it.
 
2020-06-15 10:28:04 AM  

Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.


What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex
 
2020-06-15 10:28:36 AM  
Good. Maybe shiathead Republican employers will stop firing employees for being black or women or Democrats some day.
 
2020-06-15 10:28:42 AM  

Eclectic: Waiting for this decision has filled me with so much dread for weeks now. I fully expected 5-4 against.

That it wasn't 9-0 "no you can't be bigots" is disgusting, but I'll take the victory.


Nah, I was fairly confident in Roberts at least and sorta expected Gorsuch to come down as he did. I LIKE BEER was my only real question mark (and now I see where he lies), but I also completed expected Alito and Thomas to be farksticks.
 
2020-06-15 10:28:45 AM  

markie_farkie: So what will this do to Dump's EO that removed LBGTQ rights to healthcare under the ACA?


The SCOTUS case isn't directly on the same point as the EO, but it will be highly persuasive when the EO is challenged in court.
 
2020-06-15 10:28:49 AM  
Gerald Bostock?  Came for the Jethro Tull references, leaving disappointed, Farkers.  Disappointed!


/6-3?
//wtf is wrong with those 3?
///three slashies so bite me.
 
2020-06-15 10:29:01 AM  
So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?
 
2020-06-15 10:29:08 AM  
This will lead to people hiring turtles and being unable to fire them, you know.
 
2020-06-15 10:29:18 AM  
Thomas of course was no. The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots. They guy literally sleeps on the bench and has had to be woken up by his fellow justices. He's written perhaps two opinions, maybe, and one of them was likely a complaint about coffee. I wish we could fire these asshats. The Supreme Court is a very bad idea imho. America needs an overhaul.

/ Our system is way too old, imperious and subject to the whims of opinion.
 
2020-06-15 10:29:49 AM  
Was expecting 4-5 or 5-4.  Gorsuch is clearly not what conservatives were expecting.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:03 AM  

markie_farkie: So what will this do to Dump's EO that removed LBGTQ rights to healthcare under the ACA?


Nothing.  But Joe can shred it after he's sworn in.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:16 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)
 
2020-06-15 10:30:17 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

I Like Beer was trying the "It's not our job" defense.


No arguments there -- Conservatives hate "Judicial Activism" unless it's their side doing it.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:22 AM  
Happy Pride!
 
2020-06-15 10:30:37 AM  
Would the reason for dissent be one of those religious liberty bits?

Honest question.

Having said that - yay!!!
 
2020-06-15 10:30:40 AM  
Chalk me up as another "it should have been 9-0, but I was expecting 4-5, so I'll gladly take the 6-3."
 
2020-06-15 10:30:50 AM  

FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?


not the Constitution, just the law itself that sets special groups.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:51 AM  

Sidepipes: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.  'Nuff said.


These 3 farks should spend the rest of their lives in prison getting buttfarked.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:12 AM  

Russ1642: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

Probably that if you can't fire someone for being gay then you can't fire someone for running around naked and masturbating into the eggplants. They just can't imagine that a gay person could be 'normal'.


Where do you work that such eggplants a readily available?

Asking for a friend.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:13 AM  

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

kavanaugh ends with:
...Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"


Someone needs to explain to Kavanaugh that, even when dissenting, he's still legislating from the bench.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:29 AM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>


Please elaborate.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:32 AM  
Faith No More - A Small Victory (Official Music Video)
Youtube i9_hCjcFNO0
positive baby steps

fark you, justice rapey.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:33 AM  

sprag: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

Interesting.  One has to wonder if BEER! would have voted the other way if it had been a closer decision.  Being split like this would make it "safe" for him to dissent without changing the outcome.


It's a lifetime appointment. Why would he have to worry about playing it "safe"?
 
2020-06-15 10:31:39 AM  

eiger: This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.


And I could easily have dated Rita Hayworth in my youth,
 
2020-06-15 10:31:43 AM  
So, Goresuch is the wild card these days? Interesting.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:51 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:32:06 AM  
Jushtish Drinky McDrunkerton had a stupid? Was it a regular stupid or was he drunk at the time?

And Justice Ol' Dirty Bastich is still true to his homie Scalia. Every time Thomas works to remove rights he pours one out for his fascist opus dei home boy
 
2020-06-15 10:32:11 AM  

Demetrius: In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.


Actually, as per the quote above yours, BeerDude doesn't think it's okay.  He just thinks Congress needs to do their job, first.
 
2020-06-15 10:32:21 AM  
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

Fark user imageView Full Size


ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:32:30 AM  

Walker: "I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
[Fark user image 840x560]


"BUT IF A GAY MAN OFFERS ME A BEER, IT'S NOT GAY TO DRINK IT!"
 
2020-06-15 10:32:32 AM  

thaylin: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

According to the dissent they though congress needed to amend the law to add sub classes of sexes to not be discriminated against apparently.


Yup, the dissent was that they felt it's unconstitutional to rule that the part of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination in the workplace on account of "sex" should be ruled to include sexual orientation and gender identity. . .that Congress in 1964 only meant conventional physical sex and that to deviate from that definition would take a new Act of Congress (meaning approval of Moscow Mitch and the GOP)

What I felt was really a shocker was that Gorsuch of all people joined in the majority.  Trump's handpicked replacement for Scalia wouldn't do as he was told.
 
2020-06-15 10:32:39 AM  
I was suspecting a 5-4. Roberts is conservative, but he is cognizant of how his role in history will play out and knows which way the wind is blowing. Gorsuch was a bit of a surprise.
 
2020-06-15 10:32:49 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

I Like Beer was trying the "It's not our job" defense.


He's not completely wrong, but it's obvious Congress wasn't going to do it.
 
2020-06-15 10:33:12 AM  
How the hell am I supposed to extort my gay employees into covering shifts now?  total BS
 
2020-06-15 10:33:15 AM  
...they say - that America's small heart grew three sizes that day.
 
2020-06-15 10:33:40 AM  

thaylin: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

According to the dissent they though congress needed to amend the law to add sub classes of sexes to not be discriminated against apparently.


Which is kicking the can down the road because they knew congress would never pass an ammendment.  Though now that Mitcheypoo has changed the rules to break a filibuster with 51 votes if democrats take enough seats it won't be a problem.

This "we go high and you go low" shiat or the obverse from republicans "we go low and you go high" shiat needs to stop.  They want to play dirty, we can just use the rules they changed to do the same thing.  fark em.
 
2020-06-15 10:33:43 AM  
The topic made I Like Beer uncomfortable.  It unrepressed a memory of that time his bud said "just let me rub it in your butt, Bro". And another time when he passed out and woke with that guy cuddling him and the other time when the chick he promised didn't show so he did the handies for the guys and of course, that time he passed out...

And a few others.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:09 AM  

Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.


If Democrats actually manage the long shot and flip the senate this election, they should have a running list of all the crap like this that needs to be cleared up so this doesn't happen again.

Court precedent is not a strong enough deterrent to stop this in the future.  All this does is grant a reprieve until the balance in the court shifts again.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:19 AM  
Blackout Brett likes beer but not gay people.  Wow, that's shocking.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:27 AM  
I will just stop here to that this is fantastic & thank God

I very well could have gone the other way.

Congratulations friend Farkers who can sigh with a (little) relief

I know quite a few of you are celebrating
 
2020-06-15 10:34:28 AM  

CrazyCurt: Thomas of course was no. The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots. They guy literally sleeps on the bench and has had to be woken up by his fellow justices. He's written perhaps two opinions, maybe, and one of them was likely a complaint about coffee. I wish we could fire these asshats. The Supreme Court is a very bad idea imho. America needs an overhaul.

/ Our system is way too old, imperious and subject to the whims of opinion.


Not true. Thomas speaks extremely infrequently (but more often in recent years) but he does write opinions. Well, I assume he writes them. He has all of the trademarks of an impostor in trying to avoid being exposed.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:28 AM  

Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?


Unexpected?  Try surprising, but also awesome.  Great news for a Monday morning.  And shocking that Not Garland did the right thing.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:44 AM  
Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?
 
2020-06-15 10:34:50 AM  

Walker: "I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
[Fark user image 840x560]


Well, he cannot rape (male) gay people.  So, that explains his point of view.
Now, if he can get that cute lesbian over there to deliver a beer and taste his roofie, well...
 
2020-06-15 10:34:54 AM  

Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.


Considering the Senate right now...

I had a thought about optics, but I realized that Moscow Mitch doesn't give a shiat about anything but his own power and stacking the courts with partisan hacks.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:08 AM  
People ITT Grouching About Trump:lol suck it MAGAts and conservatives, etc. etc.

You guys are going to be real mad when you notice who authored the opinion.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:09 AM  

CrazyCurt: Thomas of course was no. The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots. They guy literally sleeps on the bench and has had to be woken up by his fellow justices. He's written perhaps two opinions, maybe, and one of them was likely a complaint about coffee. I wish we could fire these asshats. The Supreme Court is a very bad idea imho. America needs an overhaul.

/ Our system is way too old, imperious and subject to the whims of opinion.


I think that federal judges should get appointed for one, non-renewable, 10 year term.  The exception would be that you can promote judges -- that is,a judge could serve a 10 year term as a district judge, then serve a term on the circuit, then on to the Supreme Court.

But  a disaster of a president like Trump should never be allowed to clog up the court system with judges who are, quite literally, incompetent (a lot of these judges Moscow Mitch is hand-picking for him are not considered qualified by the ABA) for decades after he's tossed out on his ass in shame.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:10 AM  
I thought Kavanaugh was Bi.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:24 AM  

Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?


Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
 
d23 [OhFark]
2020-06-15 10:35:34 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


"Gay and Trans people are icky!"
 
2020-06-15 10:35:47 AM  
I'm beginning to think the Supreme Court can see the "wrong side of history" a little more clearly now.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:50 AM  

CrazyCurt: The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots.


Dredd Scott actually makes a fair bit of sense in the context of the time and is in keeping with a lot of American legal tradition up to 1857. The problem was that northern opinion on the matter had shifted dramatically over the previous several years.

People who say it's a "bad decision" are typically either not treating it historically but instead in the context of modern constitutional interpretation or focusing on its effects (one of the crucial triggers of northern disaffection and the Civil War), which were unpredictable and unforeseen at the time.

So, yeah, it's probably unfair to the Dred Scott justices to compare them to Thomas, who is utterly useless.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:07 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.


They've recognized that since deciding Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins back in 1989.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:10 AM  

ukexpat: markie_farkie: So what will this do to Dump's EO that removed LBGTQ rights to healthcare under the ACA?

The SCOTUS case isn't directly on the same point as the EO, but it will be highly persuasive when the EO is challenged in court.


This.

It sets SCOTUS precedent that sex-based protections also apply to trans and gay people. This ruling may end up having even farther-reaching implications than the marriage equality ruling.

So the entire line of cases extending quasi-protected status to women on the 14th Amendment may now apply to LGBT folks. Something SCOTUS expressly declined to do in the marriage cases.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:16 AM  
I'm very happy for this ruling. Of course it doesn't mean I can't be fired for being gay. It just means, after lots of lawyers and effort fighting it, my boss can't get away with it now.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:31 AM  

Gubbo: Imagine being on the side that says, in 2020, of course you can be fired for being gay.

This is why the "both sides" argument really only circles back to entitled white [cis straight] people.  The Democratic base is a loose collection of people the Republicans have directly and deliberately hurt, and the sliver of unaffected Americans with empathy.

It's really kind of why the Democrats get away with so much maddening crap -- because they know to their voters, the choice is obvious.  One side is incompetent, complicit and corrupt; the other side is literally a fascist institution that stands against their very existence.  When entitled white jackasses say "both sides [are bad]" they're referring to petty grift and, when really stretching for it (like w BLM), Democratic inaction on problems the right wing caused, sustained, escalated, and gridlocked to prevent reform.  When liberals disagree, it's because they see one side clearly wanting to erase their existence.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:32 AM  
But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".
 
2020-06-15 10:36:43 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


Since 1776, 'equal protection' doesn't actually  apply to anyone but white men.


It's the same argument over and over.  They just keep adding qualifiers like "straight," and other bullshiat they pull out of their ass to get around the plain motherfarking text.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:16 AM  
"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender," Gorsuch wrote. "The answer is clear. 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."


Damn
 
2020-06-15 10:37:18 AM  

Unright: sprag: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

Interesting.  One has to wonder if BEER! would have voted the other way if it had been a closer decision.  Being split like this would make it "safe" for him to dissent without changing the outcome.

It's a lifetime appointment. Why would he have to worry about playing it "safe"?


True that, but everyone knows he's a hack that never should have made it to the court.  By playing the middle like this he's trying to remove the shiat that's all over him from his appointment -- he congratulates the LGBT+ community while at the same time he's saying he doesn't approve of judicial activism.

Of course, he's still a rapey drunken bastard that shouldn't be representing himself in small claims let alone the supreme court.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:22 AM  

dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch


Gorsuch was on our side 0.o wut?
Also fark you Kavenaugh, you should know better.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:32 AM  

eiger: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

This is just me bullshiatting, so take it with a huge grain of salt and go read the decision when it comes out and expert analysis, but I suspect they made a lot of legislative intent since  those who originally passed the law did NOT intend to protect LGBTQ people.


I read through the first few paragraphs, and this seems to be exactly the basis.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:53 AM  

dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch


Thomas (duh) Alito (another duh) Kavanaugh. Thinks its congresses role to determine who should be afforded protection from discriminatory employment practices.

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. 172 pages.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:55 AM  
Phew. Dodged a bullet.

Of course, there are a bunch more chambers in the gun...
 
2020-06-15 10:38:05 AM  
Don't worry bigots, they're going to make sure that a religious person can fire people over sincerely held beliefs in future rulings.
 
2020-06-15 10:38:09 AM  
The dissenters didn't say it should be ok to fire someone because they are gay.  They answered the question, does Title 9 protect them?  The answer is no because it doesn't.  They furthermore said it should be re-written to include that language and protect them.

SCOTUS answers specific questions.  If you ask it the wrong way you can get an answer you don't like.
 
2020-06-15 10:38:18 AM  

New Farkin User Name: Hell yeah. GFY Kavanaugh


Looks like the blackmail "forever-lock" that Trump and the Boys has on associate Justice Kegger is very potent.
 
2020-06-15 10:38:38 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh.  Kav wrote the dissenting opinion.  Giant PDF Warning
 
2020-06-15 10:39:06 AM  
Sounds like...
Hey, we all know this is going to pass, right? Right!
OK, new guy, take one for the team. Vote against, and use it as an opportunity to biatch at Congress for yet again forcing us to do their jobs for them. What is it they do over there again?!
 
2020-06-15 10:39:06 AM  

madgonad: I was suspecting a 5-4. Roberts is conservative, but he is cognizant of how his role in history will play out and knows which way the wind is blowing. Gorsuch was a bit of a surprise.


Gorsuch is by no means, 'not a conservative' but he seems to be a wildcard on a strange set of particulars.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:09 AM  

dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch


dababler: dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Gorsuch was on our side 0.o wut?
Also fark you Kavenaugh, you should know better.


Aye.
I was expecting a 5-4 split, with Roberts realizing what this meant for his legacy.
Gorsuch being on the right side... I am wondering a bit.
I *know* there are Republicans throwing crap right now.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:38 AM  

Grungehamster: [Fark user image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)


Close your quotes, you goat farking child molester.

/Sorry
 
2020-06-15 10:39:42 AM  

Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?


So, Thomas, Alito, and who else?
 
2020-06-15 10:39:45 AM  
The punted on qualified immunity.

Congress could easily fix that issue through legislation. I am 100% certain they will not.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:45 AM  

danvon: dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Thomas (duh) Alito (another duh) Kavanaugh. Thinks its congresses role to determine who should be afforded protection from discriminatory employment practices.

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. 172 pages.


Or congress' role, for that matter.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:57 AM  

Grungehamster: [Fark user image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)


Eric Erickson is a joke.

I met him at a hotel bar in Austin.  I was in town at the same time as one of his Red State events and they had it in the Sheraton I was staying in.  It was funny, I was chatting with "the dude next to me at the bar" and after a spell introduced my self.  "Hey, I'm me, what's your name?"  He seemed a little put off that I didn't know who he was.

Since he's on the local news radio here I can say one thing:  He doesn't like Trump.

/Seems his show comes on when I'm gloved up and putting a finish on a woodworking project and can't change the station
//If Rush comes on I'll happily waste 80 cents of gloves to change the station
///The Mark Arum show is good stuff.  Funny as all hell.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:24 AM  

MythDragon: But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".


This has always been the Achilles' heel of anti-discrimination law; it can be very hard to prove that the intent for the firing is due to the fact that an employee is a member of a protected class.  Meanwhile, if your read the employee's handbook for your job, you'll find tons of petty rules that pretty much every employee routinely violates.  So all you have to do is assemble a dossier of those violations, fire the employee when you have enough, then present it if they do sue you.

I mean, that's what HR is for at any company of any size.  They sure as shiat aren't on your side.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:28 AM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>


This is a satire account, right? I just can't tell any more.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:32 AM  

Sidepipes: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.  'Nuff said.


Ah, that figures.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:38 AM  
Why is this still up for debate?
 
2020-06-15 10:40:51 AM  
The freepers are handling with the expected class.

Won't paste anything they said here. But LOL they mad.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:11 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.


They might enjoy that
 
2020-06-15 10:41:17 AM  
it's somewhat comforting to know that the folks who would vote for full on fascism are in the minority. unfortunately that breaks less favorably for us on the issue of regular ol corporate corruption, and greed.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:22 AM  

FormlessOne: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

So, Thomas, Alito, and who else?


Kavanaugh.

Thomas and Alito on the three thousand page angry scream into the darkness.

Kavanaugh on the "I'm voting dissent because this really isn't our job, but good on you guys for winning" so you know marginally not as bad.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:22 AM  

jake_lex: Justice I LIKE BEER is delivering as best he can, it appears.

Trump can't be given another chance to put someone else like him on the Supreme Court.


Agreed, since he put someone like Gorsuch on the Court.  THAT may have just cost Il Douche reelection.  The base is not going to be pleased about that.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:42 AM  

NoahFenze: Why is this still up for debate?


Because freedom to discriminate is one of the most American and fundamental freedoms. Duh.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:45 AM  

NotThatGuyAgain: Grungehamster: [Fark user image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)

Eric Erickson is a joke.

I met him at a hotel bar in Austin.  I was in town at the same time as one of his Red State events and they had it in the Sheraton I was staying in.  It was funny, I was chatting with "the dude next to me at the bar" and after a spell introduced my self.  "Hey, I'm me, what's your name?"  He seemed a little put off that I didn't know who he was.

Since he's on the local news radio here I can say one thing:  He doesn't like Trump.

/Seems his show comes on when I'm gloved up and putting a finish on a woodworking project and can't change the station
//If Rush comes on I'll happily waste 80 cents of gloves to change the station
///The Mark Arum show is good stuff.  Funny as all hell.


Erik Son of Erik was briefly a never-Trumper until Fox News stopped calling him, and he got back on board.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:50 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


They are not enumerated protected classes.  Legally, it's a lot more of a leap of logic for the 6.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:51 AM  

jake_lex: MythDragon: But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".

This has always been the Achilles' heel of anti-discrimination law; it can be very hard to prove that the intent for the firing is due to the fact that an employee is a member of a protected class.  Meanwhile, if your read the employee's handbook for your job, you'll find tons of petty rules that pretty much every employee routinely violates.  So all you have to do is assemble a dossier of those violations, fire the employee when you have enough, then present it if they do sue you.

I mean, that's what HR is for at any company of any size.  They sure as shiat aren't on your side.


HR isn't there to help you. it's to minimize liability exposure for the company.

Never, ever assume HR is there to provide you with help.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:08 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.


In the same sentence they relate sex and sexual orientation - two exceptionally different ideas.  The point is that the flipping of one switch doesn't invalidate your rights to basic protections under the law.

Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:19 AM  

NeoCortex42: They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend


I mean, that's a legitimate view, but that also fundamentally calls to question the role of the Supreme Court. Their whole job is to decide the implications of laws as written. If he feels that way about things like Brown v. Board of Education or Obergefell v. Hodges, cases where law was transformed overnight because of the opinion of learned justices, what is it he thinks the justices are supposed to be doing?
 
2020-06-15 10:42:30 AM  

johnphantom: Walker: "I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
[Fark user image 840x560]

"BUT IF A GAY MAN OFFERS ME A BEER, IT'S NOT GAY TO DRINK IT!"


Schmitts Gay - SNL
Youtube hCOSejS1SSY
 
2020-06-15 10:42:50 AM  

Unright: sprag: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

Interesting.  One has to wonder if BEER! would have voted the other way if it had been a closer decision.  Being split like this would make it "safe" for him to dissent without changing the outcome.

It's a lifetime appointment. Why would he have to worry about playing it "safe"?


They are all playing a dumb political game with the other 8 justices.  It might be a lifetime appointment, but if the other 8 justices don't respect you in the least, you're basically just a benchwarmer.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:51 AM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>


Goresuch knows that Trump will not be president forever, or even for very much longer.
 
2020-06-15 10:43:09 AM  
A joyous day. After Trump's LGBT "regulations" last week, this is welcome news.

I find it fascinating that Kavanaugh refused to join Thomas and Alito and instead wrote his own dissent that, while similar in reasoning, actually quite vocally supports the goal, just not the method. He ends with such a positive endorsement of LGBT rights that I can easily see Republicans being pissed at him for it, only slightly less than Freepers are right now at Gorsuch and Roberts.
 
2020-06-15 10:43:15 AM  

The Bestest: Eclectic: Waiting for this decision has filled me with so much dread for weeks now. I fully expected 5-4 against.

That it wasn't 9-0 "no you can't be bigots" is disgusting, but I'll take the victory.

Nah, I was fairly confident in Roberts at least and sorta expected Gorsuch to come down as he did. I LIKE BEER was my only real question mark (and now I see where he lies), but I also completed expected Alito and Thomas to be farksticks.


My take on Roberts is that if the case doesn't deal with corporate or voting rights, he's more likely to side with the liberals.
 
2020-06-15 10:43:15 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.


Also keep in mind if you do decide to suck it hard, you're legally protected from being discriminated against.  So you got that going for you which is nice.
 
2020-06-15 10:43:54 AM  
The dissenting judges

.
ocregister.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:43:56 AM  

Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.

They've recognized that since deciding Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins back in 1989.


I love it when people say trans people were born that way AND gender is a social construct.
 
2020-06-15 10:44:35 AM  
Great news, but sad that we needed a Supreme Court ruling on this.
 
2020-06-15 10:44:41 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh. And my guess is the real reasoning, regardless of what they said, was 'Telling the Job Creators that they aren't allowed to do something is the WORST form of tyranny!'
 
2020-06-15 10:44:50 AM  

John the Magnificent: The dissenting judges

.[ocregister.com image 482x599]


In their judicial robes...

daily.jstor.orgView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:44:55 AM  

Another Government Employee: OtherLittleGuy: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

I Like Beer was trying the "It's not our job" defense.

He's not completely wrong, but it's obvious Congress wasn't going to do it.


The House could pass the appropriate law, but Moscow Mitch would not let it go to a vote in the Senate.
 
2020-06-15 10:44:59 AM  

thaylin: Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.
What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex


Trumpy decided that having "sex" include people of in-between sex was too complicated, so he removed them from existence.

It was something like that.  I was listening to NPR.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:01 AM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>


You could always pray for their swift deaths
 
2020-06-15 10:45:03 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

I Like Beer was trying the "It's not our job" defense.


Yup. Scalia was a big fan of it, too.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:03 AM  
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size


Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:03 AM  
Trump's OWN COURT PICK wrote the majority decision!

media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:45:19 AM  

thaylin: Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.

What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex


Precedent in further published court cases defined it.  In the latr 70's a gay man was fired and a court found that it wasn't defined that vii covered sexual orientation, just what you got between your legs is what mattered.  Then further court cases said your gender identity had nothing to do with sex so it trans people didn't get the protections either.

So vii would require congress to specify what they meant by sex and modify it to specifically mentioned sexual orientation and identity and not just sex.  Because as it's written now sex is what you were defined at birth, so even if you were a trans man or trans woman you weren't fired for being your birth sex...  So unless they could claim they were fired because of their original sex, not what they "transitioned" to it didn't hold water.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:32 AM  

FormlessOne: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

So, Thomas, Alito, and who else?


Beer O'Rape-a-clock.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:41 AM  
I hope I get to keep reposting this today.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:45:46 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.


And now they can't be fired for sucking it in their private lives.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:08 AM  

Russ1642: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

Probably that if you can't fire someone for being gay then you can't fire someone for running around naked and masturbating into the eggplants. They just can't imagine that a gay person could be 'normal'.


Louie CK likes this.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:13 AM  

Sir Paul: Don't worry bigots, they're going to make sure that a religious person can fire people over sincerely held beliefs in future rulings.


This ruling makes that extremely difficult.  While this was in limbo, the sincerely held religious belief argument can be used.  But with this ruling in place, the immediate counter argument is "can you fire someone for being black because of your sincerely held religious belief?"

The bigots haven't been able to climb that hill.  And if they can't, the legal equivalency created by this ruling takes all of the air out of that one.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:16 AM  

shastacola: I'm beginning to think the Supreme Court can see the "wrong side of history" a little more clearly now.


About 10 years too late.

There's also the abortion case, I think. And definitely the Trump taxes case, which is interesting because when a President makes this kind of suit, they get their asses handed to them (Nixon, Clinton, and Obama). If that's not 9-0, we know we're farked.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:21 AM  
Good
 
2020-06-15 10:46:23 AM  
Prank Call of Cthulhu:

Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.

And no teeth this time, Brett.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:46:32 AM  

FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?


I started trying to correct all the things that are wrong in your post, but then I figured you wouldn't want to read and comprehend any of it, anyway.
 
2020-06-15 10:47:02 AM  

Wave Of Anal Fury: Great news, but sad that we needed a Supreme Court ruling on this.


It's great to see that bigotry is still unacceptable, despite a bigoted demagogue President.
 
2020-06-15 10:47:04 AM  
It's about time
Do equal rights, and protect black people, POC, and affordable housing for the millions of people who are struggling. That's more than half the country, total.
Oh, and health care be a required basic need and right?
 
2020-06-15 10:47:19 AM  

dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch


Two out of three ain't bad.

s/Gorsuch/I Like Beer/
 
2020-06-15 10:47:27 AM  
EVERYONE KNOWS UOU CAN ONLY BE GAY WHEN YOU'VE KICKED KEG NUMBER SEVEN AND YOU MISJUDGE WHAT YOU'RE GROPING

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:47:40 AM  

The Bestest: Eclectic: Waiting for this decision has filled me with so much dread for weeks now. I fully expected 5-4 against.

That it wasn't 9-0 "no you can't be bigots" is disgusting, but I'll take the victory.

Nah, I was fairly confident in Roberts at least and sorta expected Gorsuch to come down as he did. I LIKE BEER was my only real question mark (and now I see where he lies), but I also completed expected Alito and Thomas to be farksticks.


I pretty much agreed with your pre-ruling assessment of how the justices would go, although I had higher odds that Kavanaugh would go for the protections than Gorsuch. Alito and Thomas were never in play.
 
2020-06-15 10:47:52 AM  

jake_lex: Justice I LIKE BEER is delivering as best he can, it appears.


And yet he was the deciding vote in the case where Georgia can no longer copyright the law.

That was a strange bedfellows case.
 
2020-06-15 10:47:59 AM  

Flappyhead: markie_farkie: So what will this do to Dump's EO that removed LBGTQ rights to healthcare under the ACA?

Nothing.  But Joe can shred it after he's sworn in.


Wow, you think it won't be thrown out long before that?  Are you expecting every federal judge to get the Rona in the next few weeks?
 
2020-06-15 10:48:06 AM  

Herbie555: Wowza. Pleased as punch about the results, slightly shocked at the 6-3 split.

Happy Pride Month, everyone!


I think Proud To Be An American should be rerecorded as a gay anthem
It would only need to be like 6-9% more gay than it already is


Reported
 
2020-06-15 10:48:40 AM  

Russ1642: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

Probably that if you can't fire someone for being gay then you can't fire someone for running around naked and masturbating into the eggplants. They just can't imagine that a gay person could be 'normal'.


Big Train - Work Place W@nking
Youtube VKH9ECC_Qa4
 
2020-06-15 10:48:44 AM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.

In the same sentence they relate sex and sexual orientation - two exceptionally different ideas.  The point is that the flipping of one switch doesn't invalidate your rights to basic protections under the law.


As well it shouldnt.

Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.


No, science does
 
2020-06-15 10:48:46 AM  

Another Government Employee: So, Goresuch is the wild card these days? Interesting.


Not really a wildcard. He's generally predictable, but not necessarily along a party line paradigm. He's consistently good on civil rights issues and consistently errs on the side of businesses with chevron deference issues. He appears to be reliable in applying a consistent philosophy and reasoning, and coming to the logical conclusion of that process rather than starting with a desired outcome and backfilling a justification for it. There will be results you like and results you don't, but it at least appears to be an intellectually honest approach.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:03 AM  

Grungehamster: [pbs.twimg.com image 601x559]

Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.


media.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:49:25 AM  

johnny queso: [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/i9_hCjcF​NO0] positive baby steps

fark you, justice rapey.


He still won't hear.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:27 AM  

sprag: Unright: sprag: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

Interesting.  One has to wonder if BEER! would have voted the other way if it had been a closer decision.  Being split like this would make it "safe" for him to dissent without changing the outcome.

It's a lifetime appointment. Why would he have to worry about playing it "safe"?

True that, but everyone knows he's a hack that never should have made it to the court.  By playing the middle like this he's trying to remove the shiat that's all over him from his appointment -- he congratulates the LGBT+ community while at the same time he's saying he doesn't approve of judicial activism.

Of course, he's still a rapey drunken bastard that shouldn't be representing himself in small claims let alone the supreme court.


And by 'Judicial Activism' they basically mean "not ruling how I want". That's the only way I can take it when the people throwing that line around are the same ones who supported making corporations equivalent to people (minus the negatives of course) which was never a thing until they made it one. It's a bad faith argument from the get go.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:32 AM  

Destructor: Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?


I've actually seen it happen, although of course it wasn't the 'official' reason for termination.  The reality of it is that if management wants you gone, no matter how valid or invalid the reason, they'll find a way.

Pick two demographics and I've seen people from demographic A unfairly fire people from demographic B.

Pick one demographic and I've seen people from that demographic unfairly protect people from that demographic.

/Life isn't fair.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:41 AM  
Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?
 
2020-06-15 10:49:55 AM  

thaylin: What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex


Sex != gender.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:59 AM  

FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?


In short, the 3 side of the Court put forward a separation of powers reasoning.  They argue that the Civil Rights Act, as written, is not specific enough to be interpreted as including sexual orientation or trans people.  By deciding that the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation, they are legislating from the bench.  The proper remedy: It is the job of Congress to be clear, and not SCOTUS to find a way to make it clear.  

In another timeline, where Congress isn't run by howler monkeys benefiting from gerrymandering, I'm actually in agreement with that reasoning.  But we don't live in that kind of rational and fair timeline, so I'm happy for whatever little bits of justice arise from wherever they do arise.
 
2020-06-15 10:50:52 AM  

Myrdinn: dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

dababler: dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Gorsuch was on our side 0.o wut?
Also fark you Kavenaugh, you should know better.

Aye.
I was expecting a 5-4 split, with Roberts realizing what this meant for his legacy.
Gorsuch being on the right side... I am wondering a bit.
I *know* there are Republicans throwing crap right now.


Gorsuch has broken off a few times already. Do a quick search for gorsuch deciding vote and I think you'll be surprised.
I haven't quite figured out what his angle is, but it seems to be he has some level of bullshiat detector that supercedes ideology.
A lot of the Supreme Court cases really are made up of legal details that define the decision, and I think it takes a little bit of bullshiat sniffing to say "hmm, even with all the details, there is still a right and wrong answer here."
 
2020-06-15 10:50:53 AM  

danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously


I'm actually fairly impressed by Gorsuch. He's been a fairly consistent socially moderate/liberal swing vote in these cases.

Same goes for Roberts
 
2020-06-15 10:50:54 AM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.

In the same sentence they relate sex and sexual orientation - two exceptionally different ideas.  The point is that the flipping of one switch doesn't invalidate your rights to basic protections under the law.

Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.


So the idea is that if you would fire me (a guy) for being married to a guy, but you wouldn't fire a woman for being married to a guy, then my sex enters into your decision-making impermissibly.

So sex and sexual orientation aren't the same thing, but they're interrelated.

/Not the argument I'd make, but I'll take it.
//This seems to make lgbt a quasi-protected class
///Three for traditions' sake
 
2020-06-15 10:51:00 AM  
Gorsuch is going to give Trump an anyeurism.  

Karma's a MItch.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:08 AM  
"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.

I like that.

I now wish for all of Trump's staff to present as the opposite sex.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:21 AM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.


Yeah. They can't be fired for it now.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:21 AM  

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"


Kavanaugh's excuse is analogous to Southerners' claim that "the Civil War was about States Rights, not slavery!"

He's (of course) claiming that he totally, totally supports gay rights, b-b-but Congress should be the one to change it, not me!!!
 
2020-06-15 10:51:36 AM  
The reality is people will probably still be fired because of their sexual orientation.  The difference now is, your employer can't say it is because of sexual orientation.  Or something like that.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:51 AM  
Blog seems to indicate a 7-2 decision in the Appalachian Trail case (Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association)

The theoretical case - Can the Forest Service do stuff on the trail if the trail also counts as a national park and therefore hypothetically exempt from a non national parks agency doing stuff

The practical case - Forest Service wants to drill baby drill..

Decision 7-2 Thomas wrote the opinion for the court. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Kagan.  The Fourth Circuit's decision is reversed and remanded.

The Court holds in the US Forest Service Case (also known as the Appalachian Trail case) that because the Department of the Interior's decision to assign responsibility over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service did not transform the land over which the trail passes into land within the National Park system, the Forest Service had the authority to issue the special use permit" to Atlantic Coast Pipeline.


And that is the last opinion for the day.

Ruling 1 - No one is allowed to fire you for drilling who you want.
Ruling 2 - Per ruling one we wanna drill mother earth right in her Appalachian Trail.
 
2020-06-15 10:52:12 AM  
No offense, but I can't farking believe you could fire someone for being gay or transgender. "Yo dude, we don't like tailgunners 'round here so GTFO. Sorry, not sorry."

farking really? Really?
 
2020-06-15 10:52:38 AM  

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"


So... he's thrilled he's still on the losing side of the argument because it lost and the LGBT community should celebrate his side being the dissenters?
 
2020-06-15 10:52:44 AM  
This is a kick-back for Trump.  Since it's an election year, the conservative justices needed to throw him a base-charging bone.  Not to mention, Gorsuch's opinion came across as ultra libertarian based.
 
2020-06-15 10:52:54 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does


No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.
 
2020-06-15 10:53:12 AM  

jake_lex: I think that federal judges should get appointed for one, non-renewable, 10 year term.  The exception would be that you can promote judges -- that is,a judge could serve a 10 year term as a district judge, then serve a term on the circuit, then on to the Supreme Court.

But  a disaster of a president like Trump should never be allowed to clog up the court system with judges who are, quite literally, incompetent (a lot of these judges Moscow Mitch is hand-picking for him are not considered qualified by the ABA) for decades after he's tossed out on his ass in shame.


So theoretically, under your system, a two-term Trump would mean he has appointed close to 100% of judges by the end of his term.

I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.
 
2020-06-15 10:53:18 AM  

brantgoose: Good. Maybe shiathead Republican employers will stop firing employees for being black or women or Democrats some day.


They'll just be more careful and weaselly about not stating the reason why they're being fired.
 
2020-06-15 10:54:15 AM  

Krashash: FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?

In short, the 3 side of the Court put forward a separation of powers reasoning.  They argue that the Civil Rights Act, as written, is not specific enough to be interpreted as including sexual orientation or trans people.  By deciding that the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation, they are legislating from the bench.  The proper remedy: It is the job of Congress to be clear, and not SCOTUS to find a way to make it clear.

In another timeline, where Congress isn't run by howler monkeys benefiting from gerrymandering, I'm actually in agreement with that reasoning.  But we don't live in that kind of rational and fair timeline, so I'm happy for whatever little bits of justice arise from wherever they do arise.


It's absolutely clear that discriminating against people based on who they fark is in fact sex discrimination.   Because if they were farking the 'right' sex, they'd still be working.

Let's be very clear, the dissent is a perversion of logic and totally bankrupt as a rationale.
 
2020-06-15 10:54:30 AM  

Buttknuckle: Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.


Just don't be like the young straight bro at the water cooler talking about their "o" face. This transcends all identities.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:54:36 AM  

Grungehamster: [pbs.twimg.com image 601x559]

Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.


It must be ulcer inducing to have to keep swinging from one opinion to the other like that. I'm sure that guy has been confidently boasting about the conservative lock of the SC for months, then one decision comes down and it's straight back to Johnny Reb levels of violent ass hurt.
 
2020-06-15 10:54:46 AM  

Khellendros: Sir Paul: Don't worry bigots, they're going to make sure that a religious person can fire people over sincerely held beliefs in future rulings.

This ruling makes that extremely difficult.  While this was in limbo, the sincerely held religious belief argument can be used.  But with this ruling in place, the immediate counter argument is "can you fire someone for being black because of your sincerely held religious belief?"

The bigots haven't been able to climb that hill.  And if they can't, the legal equivalency created by this ruling takes all of the air out of that one.


The whole idea that deep-rooted delusions exempt a person from civil rights laws is very American, and very insane.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:02 AM  

Herbie555: Wowza. Pleased as punch about the results, slightly shocked at the 6-3 split.

Happy Pride Month, everyone!


You know, say what you will about Gorsuch, but I really would have thought he'd rule in favor of a business of doing whatever it wanted with its chattel, I'm sorry, employees.

He's surprised me on a few of these decisions. Still a corpo-fascist, but not as bad as I thought.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:23 AM  
At issue: the text of a 1964 civil rights law barring employment discrimination based on sex, and whether that term should be understood to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

"The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed," Alito said. "The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."


In case anyone wondered how you could not vote for this.  Apparently it said you cannot discriminate based on sex.  So now it has been decided that that also means the sexual intercourse that you have.  Which is...well...whatever.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:35 AM  

Grungehamster: Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.


No, you don't get it.  Trump can rule as he wishes.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:38 AM  

GhostOfSavageHenry: And by 'Judicial Activism' they basically mean "not ruling how I want". That's the only way I can take it when the people throwing that line around are the same ones who supported making corporations equivalent to people (minus the negatives of course) which was never a thing until they made it one. It's a bad faith argument from the get go.


Yep.  I had an acquaintance that was conservative that would rail on any ruling that he didn't like as the liberals "legislating from the bench!"  but any ruling he liked, regardless of how out of whack it was in regards to the law or common sense was just undoing all of the "judicial activism"

I don't talk to him anymore because while he's a smart guy in his field and generally a good person, he had the conservative kool aid injected directly into his veins.   Also it was funny how quick his views on women who got pregnant out of wedlock changed when his daughter got pregnant in college...
 
2020-06-15 10:55:53 AM  
Huh. Gorsuch. I was not expecting that.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:56 AM  
Three of nine people in the highest court of our nation think the US Constitution doesn't apply to people that don't love like they do. Funny how that 33% keeps popping up. Basically it seems our country is populated by one-third bigots, racists, and assholes.
 
2020-06-15 10:56:06 AM  
Does this apply to military service?
 
2020-06-15 10:56:54 AM  

BMFPitt: jake_lex: I think that federal judges should get appointed for one, non-renewable, 10 year term.  The exception would be that you can promote judges -- that is,a judge could serve a 10 year term as a district judge, then serve a term on the circuit, then on to the Supreme Court.

But  a disaster of a president like Trump should never be allowed to clog up the court system with judges who are, quite literally, incompetent (a lot of these judges Moscow Mitch is hand-picking for him are not considered qualified by the ABA) for decades after he's tossed out on his ass in shame.

So theoretically, under your system, a two-term Trump would mean he has appointed close to 100% of judges by the end of his term.

I don't think you've thought your cunning plan all the way through.


The poor bastards should be allowed to retire. So much of our future hinges on RBG's pancreas. It's medieval.
 
2020-06-15 10:57:22 AM  

Demetrius: In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.


BroKav tried to cover it by saying "durr that's congress's job" completely forgetting how things end up in front of the supreme court in the first place.
 
2020-06-15 10:57:28 AM  

Walker: "I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
[Fark user image 840x560]


Actually, his was a rather weasely dissent.  Basiclaly, he agreed with the outcome, but felt it was up to Congress to re-write the law to explicitly cover gays/transgenders.
 
2020-06-15 10:57:48 AM  

Grungehamster: [pbs.twimg.com image 601x559]

Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.


Well, Trump does idolize Andrew Jackson, who apocryphally said "the Supreme Court has made their decision, let them enforce it" about making being Native Americans on American soil illegal being completely unconstitutional.
 
2020-06-15 10:58:13 AM  
Wrong decision for good reasons.  Congress should have passed a law.

On the other hand, there are only so many words you can redefine based on changes in public perception over time,  so it seems unlikely thst this will lead to a slew of new bad decisions.

But it ranks up with Kelo in judicial overreach.
 
2020-06-15 10:59:28 AM  
The 6-3 holding, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative appointed by President Donald Trump

That was a nice middle finger to Donnie*.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:19 AM  
Please understand that this does not mean one cannot be fired for being toxic, disruptive, what have you.  Divas and drama queens, be they straight/gay/transgender, can always be shown the door.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:22 AM  

NotThatGuyAgain: Destructor: Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?

I've actually seen it happen, although of course it wasn't the 'official' reason for termination.  The reality of it is that if management wants you gone, no matter how valid or invalid the reason, they'll find a way.

Pick two demographics and I've seen people from demographic A unfairly fire people from demographic B.

Pick one demographic and I've seen people from that demographic unfairly protect people from that demographic.

/Life isn't fair.


A white teacher in KC won a lawsuit alleging a black principal racially discriminated against her. She won $4.3 million in her lawsuit.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:33 AM  

New Farkin User Name: Hell yeah. GFY Kavanaugh


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:00:36 AM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.

In the same sentence they relate sex and sexual orientation - two exceptionally different ideas.  The point is that the flipping of one switch doesn't invalidate your rights to basic protections under the law.

Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.


sex and sexual orientation are not exceptionally different ideas, other than how people have used the words colloquially. the dictionary and the thesaurus  do not list sex and gender as synonyms, and the only time they relate is when talking about how they play a role in each other.

In fact the definition lists sex as 2 MAJOR forms, not all forms, but it also lists behavioral characteristics of the organism, not just physical characteristics of the organism.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:38 AM  

thaylin: Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.

What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex


If it was that obvious, we wouldn't have needed this case to tell us so.  You can look around the country and find a number of states and cities that have updated their anti-discrimination laws to have a bigger list of protected classes.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:00 AM  

thaylin: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

According to the dissent they though congress needed to amend the law to add sub classes of sexes to not be discriminated against apparently.


Well, now they don't have to.

And it's not legislation from the benc, to determine how laws apply to the american people. That's literally the job of the courts. These three farks just didn't want to give gay and trans people legal protections.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:06 AM  
Once in a while, Roberts doesn't want to be remembered as a bigot for the rest of history.
It's nice.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:11 AM  

espiaboricua: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

Please elaborate.


it's pretty obvious, right? Title VII in no way covers sexual preference or LARPing preference. See Kavanagh's magisterial dissent.

LesterB: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

This is a satire account, right? I just can't tell any more.


What if the account is honest, but reality is a sad satire? <galaxy brain>

flondrix: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

Goresuch knows that Trump will not be president forever, or even for very much longer.


More's the pity. If Trump had handled Covid-19 better, this 'social justice' nonsense would never have taken root, and he'd be romping to a win. As it is he's a coin toss. Although in a better world, he'd be down in the polls against "Iron" mike Bloomberg...

spongeboob: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

You could always pray for their swift deaths


That seems unreasonable. They could just resign, take Kagan, Ginsburg, and Solomeyer with them, so Trump/Pence/McConnell can appoint their replacements with true, constitutional jurisprudence.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:28 AM  

sprag: GhostOfSavageHenry: And by 'Judicial Activism' they basically mean "not ruling how I want". That's the only way I can take it when the people throwing that line around are the same ones who supported making corporations equivalent to people (minus the negatives of course) which was never a thing until they made it one. It's a bad faith argument from the get go.

Yep.  I had an acquaintance that was conservative that would rail on any ruling that he didn't like as the liberals "legislating from the bench!"  but any ruling he liked, regardless of how out of whack it was in regards to the law or common sense was just undoing all of the "judicial activism"

I don't talk to him anymore because while he's a smart guy in his field and generally a good person, he had the conservative kool aid injected directly into his veins.   Also it was funny how quick his views on women who got pregnant out of wedlock changed when his daughter got pregnant in college...


Hypocrisy is a Conservative value.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:33 AM  

dkulprit: thaylin: Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.

What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex

Precedent in further published court cases defined it.  In the latr 70's a gay man was fired and a court found that it wasn't defined that vii covered sexual orientation, just what you got between your legs is what mattered.  Then further court cases said your gender identity had nothing to do with sex so it trans people didn't get the protections either.

So vii would require congress to specify what they meant by sex and modify it to specifically mentioned sexual orientation and identity and not just sex.  Because as it's written now sex is what you were defined at birth, so even if you were a trans man or trans woman you weren't fired for being your birth sex...  So unless they could claim they were fired because of their original sex, not what they "transitioned" to it didn't hold water.


or having those precedents reversed...
 
2020-06-15 11:01:36 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


That Congress should have changed the law explicitly and the Court should not rewrite law for Congress.  They did not think that the 1964 law as written included sexual orientation and gender, which I think it not unreasonable given the culture and law of the U.S. in the 1960's.  I like the outcome, and think we all should, but I do think Congress should have dealt with this long before now.  Part of the reason the Supreme Court has become such a hot button politically is because people now expect them to do things Congress should be doing but won't.  So, good for equality, but definitely gives Congress more of an excuse to not act on things, which is not good. The law of unintended consequences and all that.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:44 AM  

bluorangefyre: jake_lex: Justice I LIKE BEER is delivering as best he can, it appears.

Trump can't be given another chance to put someone else like him on the Supreme Court.

Agreed, since he put someone like Gorsuch on the Court.  THAT may have just cost Il Douche reelection.  The base is not going to be pleased about that.


Gorsuch is a corporatist; his past controversial rulings confirmed that. Gorsuch is no David Souter, who had more of a moderate record.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:18 AM  

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"


"Congress should be stepping up to do this instead of relying on us to do their job" is a valid point. The same was true of ending DOMA and the reversal of same-sex marriage bans.

However, valid or not, the argument is coming from a man that has had no issue overriding these protections in the past so any assumption of good faith is lost before its ever considered.

In short; fark off and get your shine box, Kavanaugh, you disingenuous twunt.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:18 AM  

lincoln65: The poor bastards should be allowed to retire. So much of our future hinges on RBG's pancreas. It's medieval.


I'm not even worried about her pancreas right now.  I want her behind like 3 layers of isolation with everyone in between wearing full biohazard suits.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:26 AM  

This text is now purple: thaylin: What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex

Sex != gender.


Ayup.  Until now, they could say, "We're not firing you because you are a [man|woman], we're firing you because you are a [woman|man] fraudulently claiming to be a [man|woman]"
 
2020-06-15 11:02:40 AM  

Eclectic: Waiting for this decision has filled me with so much dread for weeks now. I fully expected 5-4 against.

That it wasn't 9-0 "no you can't be bigots" is disgusting, but I'll take the victory.


Pretty much this. I was not at all expecting an affirmative ruling. This feeling I'm feeling right now isn't triumph or jubilation; it's more like a slight loosening of the muscles in my shoulders for a few minutes while I wait to see whether my governor caves to DeVos and signals that trans rights can be ruled back if its expedient, which would be a big step backward for this state.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:40 AM  

Animatronik: Wrong decision for good reasons.  Congress should have passed a law.


They did in 1964, that was the entire point of the case.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:48 AM  
Every major advance of society in human history has been opposed by conservatives.  From voting rights for blacks, for women, for anti-slavery legislation, to emancipation, to the American experiment itself.  Conservatives oppose, and have opposed progress of every society at all turn in all eras throughout history.

Conservatives stand for war, hatred, violence, and oppression, period. They stand against learning, education, knowledge, progress, and personal freedom.  "Conservative" is a bad word, and should not be uttered without shame and personal depression.  It is an insult, to call someone a conservative, not a point of pride. There is nothing good to be had by claiming to be a 'conservative'.
 
2020-06-15 11:03:02 AM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.


Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.
 
2020-06-15 11:03:25 AM  

flondrix: Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?


Yes.

Even the "at will" states can't fire you for your race or religion or sex.  They can invent other non-protected reasons, though... or even no reason at all.

- What's your favorite MLP character?
- What?
- Did I stutter?
- What?
- Say what one more time, motherfarker!
- What?
- you're fired.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:04 AM  

thaylin: Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.

What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex


I always thought this.

"I am romantically attracted to men."
"That is not OK."
"Would it be OK if I were a woman?"
"Of course. That would be fine"
"So it is not OK because I am a man?"
"That's the long and short of it, yes."

Clear cut case of discrimination on the basis of gender.
How is this not already being enforced?
 
2020-06-15 11:04:04 AM  

This text is now purple: thaylin: What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex

Sex != gender.


Correct, the law covers sex, the definition of sex covers sexual orientation. If the law stated gender then the law would need to be changed.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:24 AM  
It's interesting how many people would rather make up what they think the rationales for both the decision and the dissent were, instead of, y'know, downloading the PDF and reading it. It's not paywalled or restricted. The big words can be looked up in a dictionary. You don't score points for opining quickly; you don't lose anything by taking a half-hour or so to at least skim the relevant portions to grasp the essence of what's said.

The decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions​/​19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
 
2020-06-15 11:04:41 AM  

SamFlagg: madgonad: I was suspecting a 5-4. Roberts is conservative, but he is cognizant of how his role in history will play out and knows which way the wind is blowing. Gorsuch was a bit of a surprise.

Gorsuch is by no means, 'not a conservative' but he seems to be a wildcard on a strange set of particulars.


I think that about sums it up.  John Paul Stevens was the same.  Ford nominated him because he was a reliable "moderate" from the Midwest and he expected that the senate would confirm him easily, which it did.  But Stevens wasn't reliably moderate or conservative or liberal - he was just reliably unreliable.  He really hoed his own furrow, which meant he wrote a lot of concurrences and dissents all by himself.

As an appellate judge, Gorsuch had something of a reputation for being a bit libertarian on social issues.  Usually, that just means that he could be counted on to express "concern" for things like police brutality or discrimination before voting the straight conservative line.  This time, however, he actually lived up to the label, which may bode well for the future.  If you want to see an opinion written by someone who might claim to be libertarian but who is actually a conventional conservative, read Kavanaugh's hand-wringing dissent.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:47 AM  
Oh wow, Alito is just completely melting down.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:59 AM  

Animatronik: Wrong decision for good reasons.  Congress should have passed a law.


We all know the reason Congress didn't pass such a bill even though those bills have been brought up in every Congressional session since 2007: Republicans want gay and trans Americans to be subject to workplace discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
 
2020-06-15 11:05:07 AM  

Troy McClure: thaylin: Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.

What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex

If it was that obvious, we wouldn't have needed this case to tell us so.  You can look around the country and find a number of states and cities that have updated their anti-discrimination laws to have a bigger list of protected classes.


clarifying because of obtuse bigots does not mean it should be needed.
 
2020-06-15 11:05:23 AM  

thaylin: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

According to the dissent they though congress needed to amend the law to add sub classes of sexes to not be discriminated against apparently.


Think about how up their own asses they are.  A woman talks about her marriage to a man, doesn't get fired.  A man talks about being married to a man, gets fired.  That's sexual discrimination, only women are fee to speak openly about their marriage to a man. And vise versa for lesbians and men.
 
2020-06-15 11:05:57 AM  

flondrix: Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?


Yes, it does. They will make up some bullshiat excuse (as they did with the cases were heard). But if you can PROVE you were fired for being gay/trans then you can sue.
 
2020-06-15 11:06:13 AM  

Animatronik: But it ranks up with Kelo in judicial overreach.


There's at least a case to be made that it is a legally sound decision for trans people.  Shaky, but still a case.

Kelo was absolutely without a shred of legal merit.

// I only have my Fark GED in law, but I think I'm close to the top of the class in that
 
2020-06-15 11:07:23 AM  
i.gr-assets.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:07:46 AM  

Gubbo: Imagine being on the side that says, in 2020, of course you can be fired for being gay.

Republicans. Never even once


Then you got the Meghan McCain's saying Republicans don't hate gays IDK why the MSM pushes that Fake News
 
2020-06-15 11:07:57 AM  
America gets slightly better today. Hooray!
 
2020-06-15 11:08:09 AM  
I consider myself a conservative. I'm pretty old school. And I agree with this. The only thing that should be used to keep you from employment is lack of required skills or someone else has more experience etc. Not what color you are. Not whether you're gay or straight. Not whether you're fat or thin etc.
 
2020-06-15 11:08:37 AM  

markie_farkie: So what will this do to Dump's EO that removed LBGTQ rights to healthcare under the ACA?


Definitely put in under gender discrimination, which is illegal. I'm not surprised that the three GOP hacks went with the party, while the two more constitutionalist GOP picks just followed the constitution and legal precedent.
 
2020-06-15 11:08:43 AM  

flondrix: Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?


"At will" states do not require any reason for termination of employment.
Much like how all 50 states allow you to quit any time you want for no reason at all.

Which in the end seems fair until you get into bigots then protections are needed.
 
2020-06-15 11:09:02 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.


Whoa.  Pretty sweet promotion to God you got there.
 
2020-06-15 11:09:07 AM  

Corn_Fed: brantgoose: Good. Maybe shiathead Republican employers will stop firing employees for being black or women or Democrats some day.

They'll just be more careful and weaselly about not stating the reason why they're being fired.


I am surprised that they have not been hiring "experts" to draft custom horoscopes or feng shui diagrams to justify their hiring/firing decisions.

Hired prophets are a long and honorable tradition, after all.
 
2020-06-15 11:09:14 AM  
Well i certainly know which 3 justices are judicial activists. They got some real twisted idea of what the constitution means
 
2020-06-15 11:10:49 AM  

Krashash: In short, the 3 side of the Court put forward a separation of powers reasoning.  They argue that the Civil Rights Act, as written, is not specific enough to be interpreted as including sexual orientation or trans people.  By deciding that the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation, they are legislating from the bench.


Collapsing sex and gender into a single category may have some interesting downstream effects. I'm curious how general they will make that ruling.
 
2020-06-15 11:11:46 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Huzzah! Suck it, bigots.
 
2020-06-15 11:12:07 AM  

flondrix: This text is now purple: thaylin: What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex

Sex != gender.

Ayup.  Until now, they could say, "We're not firing you because you are a [man|woman], we're firing you because you are a [woman|man] fraudulently claiming to be a [man|woman]"


I'll throw out a counter-hypothetical.

If sex and gender are the same, then under Title IX, gay women must compete against men, and vice-versa.

Figure skating will never be the same.
 
2020-06-15 11:12:09 AM  
"Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age" - European Society of Endocrinology

https://www.ese-hormones.org/media/15​0​6/transgender-brains-are-more-like-the​ir-desired-gender-from-an-early-age.pd​f
 
2020-06-15 11:12:36 AM  
Some of the best news of 2020. I mean the list of choices isn't long, but still this is massive.
 
2020-06-15 11:13:03 AM  

flondrix: Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?


This is something of an urban myth.  All states are "at will" states.  As long as your employment contract/agreement doesn't give you any kind of rights to your job (such as a collective bargaining agreement might), then your employer can fire you for any reason or for no reason.  That's true in every state.  The one exception to that is that you can't be fired for a reason that would violate some protected right.  What the Supreme Court said today is that, under federal anti-discrimination laws which protect everyone from being discriminated against because of sex, workers can't be fired solely because of their homosexuality.  And that's now the law everywhere in the US.
 
2020-06-15 11:13:10 AM  
Poor Brett Kavanaugh.

Does anybody actually believe "boofing" refers to "farting"?

I'm certain that refers to something a little bit more...sinful, shall we say?  Is he "Lord God King Bu-Fu"?

Not that I care about that, but he seems to be so scared to admit it that he'd trample on other's rights and that's a problem.
 
2020-06-15 11:13:19 AM  
 
2020-06-15 11:13:50 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.


Your worldview is so narrow and provincial that you sound like a right-wing asshat.
 
2020-06-15 11:14:14 AM  
Congratulations to the lgbt members in Fark. This is a big deal.
 
2020-06-15 11:15:35 AM  

Diogenes: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

Whoa.  Pretty sweet promotion to God you got there.


IKR? There is one true God. His nae is Entropy and Darwin is one of his many prophets. Peace be upon them.
 
2020-06-15 11:16:28 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:16:33 AM  
I'm struggling to pay attention as I read this for some reason but from what I can read, it looks to me like Gorsuch is picking on Kavanaugh again and again and again. It's almost like he's going out of his way to call him an idiot.
 
2020-06-15 11:16:41 AM  

Malenfant: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

Your worldview is so narrow and provincial that you sound like a right-wing asshat.


I'll side with science. You side with feelings and moral outrage... just like a fundie
 
2020-06-15 11:17:04 AM  

Chabash: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

Thomas felt icky.


They are paid for.
 
2020-06-15 11:17:05 AM  

eiger: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

This is just me bullshiatting, so take it with a huge grain of salt and go read the decision when it comes out and expert analysis, but I suspect they made a lot of legislative intent since  those who originally passed the law did NOT intend to protect LGBTQ people.


Oh, and just how do you know this for sure?
 
2020-06-15 11:17:08 AM  
skipping non-voting comment in contest thread:

Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

Let me introduce you to some basic information on how wrong you are:

Read, educate yourself, then go find more in depth information if you care cure your grade school understanding of humanity.
 
2020-06-15 11:17:16 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.


What biological sex would you say these people are?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:18:09 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas. Their reasoning is that because the people who wrote the laws only meant to prohibit discrimination on the bases of biological sex by itself, it would be the court creating new laws to extend that protection to LGBT folks and that Congress needs to get off their ass and pass an equal rights law.

I personally find the majority's opinion to be much more persuasive - Gorsuch put it very accurately when he wrote that you can't discriminate against someone for being trans or gay without it also being discrimination on the bases of sex.
 
2020-06-15 11:18:52 AM  

Hey Nurse!: Three of nine people in the highest court of our nation think the US Constitution doesn't apply to people that don't love like they do. Funny how that 33% keeps popping up. Basically it seems our country is populated by one-third bigots, racists, and assholes.


I've noticed that 33% of whackjob racist rightwingers isn't confined to America. Across near every other country, that percentage seems to be a constant.
 
Boe [OhFark]
2020-06-15 11:19:03 AM  
This is fanfarkingtastic!!!!!!

Roberts:  if you think you're going to taint my legacy you can GFY
 
2020-06-15 11:19:54 AM  

Buttknuckle: Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.


As good as that is, if it's a right to work state they can just come up with anything or nothing to remove you from the workforce.
 
2020-06-15 11:20:58 AM  

FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?


Unfortunately yes, from my understanding of legal constructs, that is exactly how you are supposed to read it.      I think the legal term is expressio unius. To me it looks like the debate was whether they should rule on whats socially right or whats legally right.   Maybe the fark lawyers can correct me if i am wrong.
 
Boe [OhFark]
2020-06-15 11:21:33 AM  

Persnickety: Was expecting 4-5 or 5-4.  Gorsuch is clearly not what conservatives were expecting.


Merrick Garland chuckles liberally
 
2020-06-15 11:21:36 AM  

Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

What biological sex would you say these people are?

[Fark user image 850x475]


I'm not sure, but if I was the store manager, I'd be ducking under the desk.
 
2020-06-15 11:21:50 AM  
Those 3 that voted to allow companies to fire employees for being gay or transgender need to be removed immediately.

What others do they feel that companies should be allowed to be fired for being? Black? Jewish? Muslim?

Those 3 have no business being on the bench or allowed to practice law.
 
2020-06-15 11:22:15 AM  
And while everyone's celebrating this, no one is talking about how they declined to review the "qualified immunity" doctrine shielding police officers from accountability, which is a farking HUGE disappointment, especially at this particular moment.
 
2020-06-15 11:23:10 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender could be thought of as a spectrum.


Which would be true, but misleading.

The canonical binary, actual binary language, in practice functions via voltage switching. Ideally, this is 0V and 100% voltage, which is treated as 1. 0 need not be actual 0, just some arbitrary lower datum. There is a high value treated as 1 and a low value treated as 0.

But...sometimes you end up with spurious line voltage, or voltage sag, or a cosmic ray, and sometimes analog is a biatch and you end up with something noisy. If enough of that adds up, you can flip a bit. Or a lot of them. With enough noise, sometimes a 1 becomes a 0, or a 0 becomes a 1.

Kind of looks like this:
Fark user imageView Full Size


Human gender sort of works like that. The vast majority of the signal is encoded as a 0 or a 1, but the system isn't so sensitive to noise that intermediate values or bit flips aren't possible. Sometimes a fair coin lands on its edge. So it's a continuum, technically. But it's not normally-distributed. It's extremely Weibull.
 
2020-06-15 11:24:22 AM  

Murkanen: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread:

Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

Let me introduce you to some basic information on how wrong you are:

Read, educate yourself, then go find more in depth information if you care cure your grade school understanding of humanity.


Intersex conditions dont invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. To procreate, you need 2 sexes with 2 very specific gametes
 
2020-06-15 11:24:32 AM  
Apart from the way the justices lined up in this case, the biggest surprise to me is that Alito and Thomas joined Kavanaugh without writing their own dissent.  Kavanaugh's dissent is fairly narrow - he basically says that "while I love the gays, the statute says 'sex,' and 'sex' isn't the same thing as 'sexual orientation,' and we have to interpret statutes according to their 'ordinary' meaning rather than their 'literal' meaning, but, that being said, good for you, gays."  It's surprising that Alito and Thomas would agree with this because: (1) they definitely don't love the gays; and (2) they are always interpreting statutes and the constitution according to their literal meaning and they condemn any other kind of interpretation as some kind of heresy.  I can only guess that they decided to lay low on this one so they can unleash their fury in a future case where they'll be in the majority.
 
2020-06-15 11:24:35 AM  

udhq: Oh wow, Alito is just completely melting down.


Alito's judicial record is even more conservative than Thomas. Alito is hands-down the most consistently conservative judge of all the nine.
 
2020-06-15 11:24:36 AM  
I gotta wonder what evangelic voters are thinking.

Trump's Supreme Court picks justified everything. Now what do they have to show for supporting Trump?
 
2020-06-15 11:25:04 AM  

Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

What biological sex would you say these people are?

[Fark user image 850x475]


Depends on their gametes
 
2020-06-15 11:25:25 AM  
In other Supreme Court news, Thomas wrote a dissent to denying cert on a qualified immunity case, expressing a desire to revisit and tone down QI. Since it takes 4 Justices to grant cert, that means at least one of the liberal Justices is fine with leaving QI as stupidly overbroad as it's currently used.
 
2020-06-15 11:25:35 AM  

Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?


Those three... can't say I'm surprised.
 
2020-06-15 11:26:02 AM  
skipping non-voting comment in contest thread:

I'll side with science.

Your understanding of the "science" of human sexuality and gender is about 30 years out of date.  Clinging to the belief that there are only 2 static sexes, because intersexed individuals don't count as real people, is like clinging to the steady-state theory of cosmology.
 
2020-06-15 11:26:02 AM  

meanmutton: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas. Their reasoning is that because the people who wrote the laws only meant to prohibit discrimination on the bases of biological sex by itself, it would be the court creating new laws to extend that protection to LGBT folks and that Congress needs to get off their ass and pass an equal rights law.

I personally find the majority's opinion to be much more persuasive - Gorsuch put it very accurately when he wrote that you can't discriminate against someone for being trans or gay without it also being discrimination on the bases of sex.


I said this back when gay marriage was decided. You can't ban gay marriage because that's discriminating based on the sex of the participants.
 
2020-06-15 11:26:31 AM  

This text is now purple: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender could be thought of as a spectrum.

Which would be true, but misleading.

The canonical binary, actual binary language, in practice functions via voltage switching. Ideally, this is 0V and 100% voltage, which is treated as 1. 0 need not be actual 0, just some arbitrary lower datum. There is a high value treated as 1 and a low value treated as 0.

But...sometimes you end up with spurious line voltage, or voltage sag, or a cosmic ray, and sometimes analog is a biatch and you end up with something noisy. If enough of that adds up, you can flip a bit. Or a lot of them. With enough noise, sometimes a 1 becomes a 0, or a 0 becomes a 1.

Kind of looks like this:
[Fark user image 850x586]

Human gender sort of works like that. The vast majority of the signal is encoded as a 0 or a 1, but the system isn't so sensitive to noise that intermediate values or bit flips aren't possible. Sometimes a fair coin lands on its edge. So it's a continuum, technically. But it's not normally-distributed. It's extremely Weibull.


I agree. Most peoples technical understanding came from gene studies.
 
2020-06-15 11:27:06 AM  
The face when you realize Garland would have been more conservative than Gorsuch

Fark user imageView Full Size


The face when you realize your going to seat 1-2  more judges before the year is out and effectively paint scotus the way you want it.

Fark user imageView Full Size



/we will need to take the court up to 11 judges next year
//however many trump seats is how many more Biden and D should increase the bench
 
2020-06-15 11:27:10 AM  

Myrdinn: dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

dababler: dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Gorsuch was on our side 0.o wut?
Also fark you Kavenaugh, you should know better.

Aye.
I was expecting a 5-4 split, with Roberts realizing what this meant for his legacy.
Gorsuch being on the right side... I am wondering a bit.
I *know* there are Republicans throwing crap right now.



Ben Shapiro is having a tiny little shiat fit.
 
2020-06-15 11:27:27 AM  

Boe: Persnickety: Was expecting 4-5 or 5-4.  Gorsuch is clearly not what conservatives were expecting.

Merrick Garland chuckles liberally


It's not the first time, good
 
Boe [OhFark]
2020-06-15 11:27:44 AM  

Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.

They've recognized that since deciding Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins back in 1989.


THIS
 
2020-06-15 11:28:14 AM  

Murkanen: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread:

I'll side with science.

Your understanding of the "science" of human sexuality and gender is about 30 years out of date.  Clinging to the belief that there are only 2 static sexes, because intersexed individuals don't count as real people, is like clinging to the steady-state theory of cosmology.


There is a difference between personhood and biological sex. And you need to learn what a strawman argument is
 
2020-06-15 11:28:32 AM  
While I am not an attorney and never went to law school, I find it curious how justices argue their points based upon some high and mighty proposition, and are willing to throw out pragmatism.  Gorsuch basically took the path of pragmatism.

Roberts, on the other hand, is thinking legacy, and doesnt want to be the jerk of history.  If I were bringing a case to the court I would think I would angle that end into every argument somehow.
 
2020-06-15 11:28:58 AM  

Animatronik: Wrong decision for good reasons. Congress should have passed a law.

No, they got it right.  Article I, Section 9 of the U.S Constitution is both concise and specific regarding using the law (or lack thereof) to punish people for merely existing:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

That's it.  This was so cut-and-dry to them that they assumed the definition of a bill of attainder was self-explanatory.  Note, also, that they hated these things so much that they made sure to include an explicit ban in the first go-round, unlike anything in the Bill of Rights.
In this case, a disingenuously narrow interpretation of the CRA would mean it was specifically worded to exclude certain groups.  Now, that by itself doesn't make a law unconstitutional (sorry, wingnuts, you can't throw out the CRA by suggesting it wasn't liberal enough), but the CRA clearly intends to be inclusive, so it's in fact any nit-picking that would be unconstitutional -- you're trying to twist the wording until you materialize a bill of attainder out of thin air.  That is in fact the very "legislating from the bench" the right is supposedly so preoccupied with.  It's oddly specific to interpret the CRA to say certain groups are excluded so we need another law to close this loophole created by this conveniently narrow interpretation that's essentially banned (and at the very least, frowned upon) by the Constitution.
This isn't an issue of complex legalese; this is basic civics -- when it comes to protecting rights, legislation defining [groups of] people should be interpreted with the broadest possible context.  That's not just due to the Constitution; the principle is written into the Declaration of Independence as well.  In fact, any attempt to make these things complex should be eyed with suspicion -- neither the Constitution nor the CRA were written to be persnickety.
P.S. I would even go so far as to define a bill of attainder as one that rewards a special interest, which would throw out about 90% of the tax code, but that would be a bridge too far for this country.
 
2020-06-15 11:29:46 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

What biological sex would you say these people are?

[Fark user image 850x475]

Depends on their gametes


And how would you know what someone's gametes were if not through a DNA test that reveals their 23rd pair of chromosomes?
 
2020-06-15 11:30:07 AM  
While I am so happy that this has been determined, I'm also sad that this wasn't a thing sooner.
 
2020-06-15 11:31:57 AM  
And of course this is cross-linked to main page, which is why we have someone in here arguing that intersexed individuals are genetic monstrosities that should be ignored, or have their identity destroyed, in order to protect something that hasn't been considered true by scientists since the late 90's when they realised that maybe erasing the identity of millions of people through involuntary surgery without their consent is a touch unethical.

farking hell, this site sometimes.
 
2020-06-15 11:32:16 AM  

Error 482: In other Supreme Court news, Thomas wrote a dissent to denying cert on a qualified immunity case, expressing a desire to revisit and tone down QI. Since it takes 4 Justices to grant cert, that means at least one of the liberal Justices is fine with leaving QI as stupidly overbroad as it's currently used.


Probably not Ginsburg as far as these things go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentuck​y​_v._King
This would suggest Kagan and Sotomayor are in play.
 
2020-06-15 11:33:01 AM  
I'm sure Trump was tickled pink when he heard this
 
2020-06-15 11:33:19 AM  
Didn't read the entire thread, so this may have been covered already.

The linked article doesn't go into why the three judges dissented, but I found a more detailed one: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p​o​litics/2020/06/15/supreme-court-denies​-job-protection-lgbt-workers/445674900​2/

In short, Alito et al said that the original intent of the Civil Rights Act didn't cover gay rights, and it isn't the Court's job to create new laws based on re-interpreting existing ones.  He technically isn't wrong - Congress should amend the Civil Rights Act to specifically cover LGBT, to clarify the whole issue.  Hopefully, we'll have Democratic majorities in both houses, plus Biden, in 2021, and can get the job done right.

I'm guessing Gorsuch and Roberts went with protecting LGBT given that earlier Court decisions have already reinterpreted the Civil Rights Act to including LGBT (the gay marriage decision, for one), so it's now a legal precedent.

Now, whether Alito et al used the original intent of the Civil Rights Act as a fig leaf to cover up they fact they just don't like gays, is both a separate issue, and probably likely.

In short, I can see both arguments.  I'm glad it went this way, but I really wish Congress would just update the Civil Rights Act directly, so we don't need to rely on the Court to keep it up to date.
 
2020-06-15 11:33:20 AM  
From a friend of mine that works in this area of law:

"Before you get too excited about the Supreme Court ruling, just a couple of things to keep in mind:
(1) it only applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
(2) Anti-discrimination laws are, in my opinion, largely useless, because the courts have made it virtually impossible to win the cases. They allow employers to offer literally ANY non-discriminatory reason, no matter how obviously implausible, and will dismiss the case on that basis. The Courts dismiss these cases like it's going out of style. I won't even take discrimination cases anymore for that reason. They're impossible to evaluate because the strength of your facts simply does not matter."
 
2020-06-15 11:34:44 AM  

Murkanen: And of course this is cross-linked to main page, which is why we have someone in here arguing that intersexed individuals are genetic monstrosities that should be ignored, or have their identity destroyed, in order to protect something that hasn't been considered true by scientists since the late 90's when they realised that maybe erasing the identity of millions of people through involuntary surgery without their consent is a touch unethical.

farking hell, this site sometimes.


If this is what it takes for them to get their jollies you are a better person then them by several orders of magnitude

/the quality of the provocation here is crap
 
2020-06-15 11:34:44 AM  

Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

What biological sex would you say these people are?

[Fark user image 850x475]

Depends on their gametes

And how would you know what someone's gametes were if not through a DNA test that reveals their 23rd pair of chromosomes?


You can identify cells without analyzing dna.
 
2020-06-15 11:35:57 AM  

This text is now purple: Error 482: In other Supreme Court news, Thomas wrote a dissent to denying cert on a qualified immunity case, expressing a desire to revisit and tone down QI. Since it takes 4 Justices to grant cert, that means at least one of the liberal Justices is fine with leaving QI as stupidly overbroad as it's currently used.

Probably not Ginsburg as far as these things go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky​_v._King
This would suggest Kagan and Sotomayor are in play.


They make deals all the time. I bet  that may have been the cost of leaving the second amendment cases alone
 
2020-06-15 11:36:16 AM  
Dying to read the minority opinion.  WTH guys?  Well, even Dred Scott was a close one with 2 dissents.
 
2020-06-15 11:36:21 AM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: espiaboricua: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

Please elaborate.

it's pretty obvious, right? Title VII in no way covers sexual preference or LARPing preference. See Kavanagh's magisterial dissent.

LesterB: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

This is a satire account, right? I just can't tell any more.

What if the account is honest, but reality is a sad satire? <galaxy brain>

flondrix: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

Goresuch knows that Trump will not be president forever, or even for very much longer.

More's the pity. If Trump had handled Covid-19 better, this 'social justice' nonsense would never have taken root, and he'd be romping to a win. As it is he's a coin toss. Although in a better world, he'd be down in the polls against "Iron" mike Bloomberg...

spongeboob: Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>

You could always pray for their swift deaths

That seems unreasonable. They could just resign, take Kagan, Ginsburg, and Solomeyer with them, so Trump/Pence/McConnell can appoint their replacements with true, constitutional jurisprudence.


SOLOmeyer sounds like you're type of Justice

I refuse to link that stupid Toby Kieth song so here is a more dignified 'parody' version
2 Girls 1 Cup (Red Solo Cup Parody) - by Joe Denim
Youtube 4-IyR4YumKI
also more dignified than Trump, McConnell, Pence. S.Collins and the entire New England Patriots
 
2020-06-15 11:37:07 AM  

Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

What biological sex would you say these people are?

[Fark user image 850x475]


Who cares?  The one with the (lime) green shirt and pink earrings is cute.
 
2020-06-15 11:37:35 AM  
Good.
 
2020-06-15 11:37:52 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.


Hi. I'm an abnormality. I have to round to one side of the binary.
I always knew there were things wrong with me, but a few years ago I finally found out that when I was born, doctors wanted to make me a girl due to some pretty obvious misfortune.

The condition I have is called Klinefelter's Syndrome. I have it worse than some, but it turns out that about 1 in 1000 people is born with an extra X chromosome. That's not incredibly common, but nor is it so rare that we can pretend it doesn't happen. Trans and intersexed people are all edge cases, but intersexed folks are often in the same boat, even if they don't have some of the doubts or dysmorphia. Intersexed people of all sorts can have missing or malformed internal or external anatomy, such that "Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina"-type thinking actually winds up being particularly unhelpful in the ultimate choice of which way to round to.

The truth is, if you're writing laws that codify a binary when you know as a matter of fact that some people exist outside the binary for whatever reason, you're writing bad or dumb laws. Eventually you'll have to deal with the exceptions. They don't just go away because they're difficult.

It's wishful thinking to hope we could just ignore biological sex or gender in our legal system, but I suspect it would be easier to put forth an Equal Rights Law that does say that matters of gender, sex and sexuality should be taken as equal and equivalent for all people rather than having to review every single matter that relates to those things.
 
2020-06-15 11:37:54 AM  

jake_lex: MythDragon: But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".

This has always been the Achilles' heel of anti-discrimination law; it can be very hard to prove that the intent for the firing is due to the fact that an employee is a member of a protected class.  Meanwhile, if your read the employee's handbook for your job, you'll find tons of petty rules that pretty much every employee routinely violates.  So all you have to do is assemble a dossier of those violations, fire the employee when you have enough, then present it if they do sue you.

I mean, that's what HR is for at any company of any size.  They sure as shiat aren't on your side.


I lost my job while deployed to Iraq. Despite being a military contractor working on an AFB, my company didn't like its employees being in the Guard. I came back to find I was  "let go".
I told them I thought they couldn't fire me for being deployed. They said "we can if we were going to eliminate that position anyway." (5 of us worked there. Mine was the only position eliminated.)
I asked, "aren't you required by law to find me a new position?" 'Only if there is a similar position, and we don't have any othets doing work in another aircraft telemetry lab. Feel free to check our website and apply for any job you think you are qualified for. Anything else? No? Have a good day sir."

Bastards.
 
2020-06-15 11:38:13 AM  

Buttknuckle: Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.


"sorry dude, you were 5 minutes late last Wednesday and you left early this one day last February, so I'm afraid we're going to have to fire you for your ongoing absences"
 
2020-06-15 11:38:36 AM  

Myrdinn: Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

What biological sex would you say these people are?

[Fark user image 850x475]

Who cares?  The one with the (lime) green shirt and pink earrings is cute.


anyone post this yet?

Here is a cute happy couple (in a nerdy kinda way)

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:39:13 AM  
QQ: Does this thereby make Trump's TG military ban illegal?
 
2020-06-15 11:39:19 AM  

eiger: This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.


Considering who's ON the bench? It SHOULD have gone the other way. This is, however, a pleasant surprise gift I will happily accept.
🏳🌈🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈

/Waves flag for my Fam.
//Waves flag for them that can't [yet]
///Queered slashies!
 
2020-06-15 11:40:11 AM  
I'm here for the buyers remorse on Gorsuch.

/Deeeeeeeeep Staaaaaaaaaaaaaate!
 
2020-06-15 11:40:12 AM  

Animatronik: But it ranks up with Kelo in judicial overreach.


I would be very interested in knowing what the Venn diagram of people who thought that Kelo was was the wrong decision, but Keystone XL had the right to seize private property for profit, looks like.
 
2020-06-15 11:40:32 AM  

Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

What biological sex would you say these people are?

[Fark user image image 850x475]


The I don't-care-but-second-row-with-orange-​earrings-and-bottom-row-middle-are-hel​la-cute! Sex?
 
2020-06-15 11:41:08 AM  
Gorsuch is trying to prove he deserves to be there, notwithstanding the manner he got on the bench.
 
2020-06-15 11:41:16 AM  

danvon: dababler: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Thomas (duh) Alito (another duh) Kavanaugh. Thinks its congresses role to determine who should be afforded protection from discriminatory employment practices.

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. 172 pages.


Gorsuch's opinion was only 33 pages. The rest of the pages are dissent, including 107 from Alito, who can FOAD mad about it.
 
2020-06-15 11:41:19 AM  

Cornelis de Gyselaer: Probably not Ginsburg as far as these things go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky​_v._King
This would suggest Kagan and Sotomayor are in play.

They make deals all the time. I bet  that may have been the cost of leaving the second amendment cases alone


You see similar breakouts for all the police powers cases, and those are much more numerous than 2A cases, which are about as commonplace as 3A cases, and about as recent.
 
2020-06-15 11:41:28 AM  

deadromanoff: Buttknuckle: Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.

As good as that is, if it's a right to work state they can just come up with anything or nothing to remove you from the workforce.


Really any company in any state can come up with anything pretty much.  This is at least some protection.
 
2020-06-15 11:41:42 AM  
WTF? That should be all pride flags!
 
2020-06-15 11:41:48 AM  

roddikinsathome: eiger: This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.

Considering who's ON the bench? It SHOULD have gone the other way. This is, however, a pleasant surprise gift I will happily accept.
🏳🌈🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈

/Waves flag for my Fam.
//Waves flag for them that can't [yet]
///Queered slashies!


One of the happiest days of my life was walking back to my colleagues office to tell her  about Obergefell & that her MN marriage would now be recognized elsewhere (she had been afraid to look)
 
2020-06-15 11:42:06 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Great! But what if the business owner uses the excuse of religion?


Already a protected class
 
2020-06-15 11:42:15 AM  

This text is now purple: flondrix: This text is now purple: thaylin: What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex

Sex != gender.

Ayup.  Until now, they could say, "We're not firing you because you are a [man|woman], we're firing you because you are a [woman|man] fraudulently claiming to be a [man|woman]"

I'll throw out a counter-hypothetical.

If sex and gender are the same, then under Title IX, gay women must compete against men, and vice-versa.

Figure skating will never be the same.


i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:42:27 AM  

RogueWallEnthusiast: Gorsuch is trying to prove he deserves to be there, notwithstanding the manner he got on the bench.


Gorsuch was described as a libertarian right from the start, so this isn't entirely a surprise. OTOH, I have yet to read why he was on the side against the condemned in the Death Penalty case today which was also 6-3 with Kavanaugh siding with Roberts and the liberals.
 
2020-06-15 11:42:44 AM  

Excelsior: Buttknuckle: Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.

"sorry dude, you were 5 minutes late last Wednesday and you left early this one day last February, so I'm afraid we're going to have to fire you for your ongoing absences"


Sadly yeah, that's still going to happen. But at least now that fired worker gets their day in court to try and prove it was pretextual, just like thousands of women and minority employees do each year after they're fired on made-up grounds.  If this decision had gone the other way, they wouldn't have had to even try and make up a reason and the worker would have been SOL.

This decision won't fix bigotry and hate, but it's sure as hell going to make bigotry and hate open their pocket books in civil litigation in the years ahead.
 
2020-06-15 11:43:03 AM  

roddikinsathome: WTF? That should be all pride flags!


This is Fark dude parse fail is how it works here

/We knew what ya meant
 
2020-06-15 11:44:03 AM  

eiger: those who originally passed the law did NOT intend to protect LGBTQ people.


Citation needed. They passed a law that prohibits discrimination based on sex. As far-right "fascism forever" Trump appointed justice Neil Gorusch wrote:

it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.

Logically, then, those who wrote and passed the statute prohibiting sex discrimination must have intended to also prohibit sexual orientation and transgender discrimination, unless there is clear legislative history to the contrary.

Now, certainly if your source of law is conservative ideology instead of neutral principles of statutory construction, this case could easily have come out the other way.

But at least two of the Court's conservative activists chose not to apply conservative ideology here, for unclear reasons.
 
2020-06-15 11:44:06 AM  

eiger: This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.


I agree this is great, BUT this is the kind of decision they point to in order to justify CU and other authoritarian BS that they were installed to approve.
 
2020-06-15 11:44:09 AM  
I like how it seems that people have a lot to say about what the decision says when they clearly didn't read it.

Gorsuch's reasoning, BTW, applies to things like the ACA.
 
2020-06-15 11:44:11 AM  

flondrix: I would be very interested in knowing what the Venn diagram of people who thought that Kelo was was the wrong decision, but Keystone XL had the right to seize private property for profit, looks like.


The class of people who thought Kelo was the wrong decision is the US Population-5. Even Kelo thought it was the wrong call.

So that's not very useful as a discriminator.
 
2020-06-15 11:44:23 AM  
I think it's terrifying that three Justices on the United States Supreme Court of Appeals can't recognize a basic human right.
 
2020-06-15 11:44:37 AM  

SamFlagg: Gorsuch is by no means, 'not a conservative' but he seems to be a wildcard on a strange set of particulars.


Gorsuch gave us some insight into his originalism thought process last year(via his book):

Originalism teaches only that the Constitution's original meaning is fixed; meanwhile, of course, new applications of that meaning will arise with new developments and new technologies. Consider a few examples. As originally understood, the term "cruel" in the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause referred (at least) to methods of execution deliberately designed to inflict pain. That never changes. But that meaning doesn't just encompass those particular forms of torture known at the founding. It also applies to deliberate efforts to inflict a slow and painful death by laser. Take another example. As originally understood, the First Amendment protected speech. That guarantee doesn't just apply to speech on street corners or in newspapers; it applies equally to speech on the Internet. Or consider the Fourth Amendment. As originally understood, it usually required the government to get a warrant to search a home. And that meaning applies equally whether the government seeks to conduct a search the old-fashioned way by rummaging through the place or in a more modern way by using a thermal imaging device to see inside. Whether it's the Constitution's prohibition on torture, its protection of speech, or its restrictions on searches, the meaning remains constant even as new applications arise.

This is a very different view than the way people like Thomas think, despite theoretically having the same method of interpretation.  Thomas would say the internet didn't exist, so it was never intended to cover the internet.  Gorsuch's view is agnostic and based on the ideas(spirit of the law, you might say).  Here, he's saying the intent of the Civil Rights Act was to protect these people, and that's very consistent with his stated method of interpretation.  Gorsuch, if anything, seems fairly consistent in that his decisions are based on his stated judicial philosophy rather than political philosophy or reactions to current events, but is what I'd expect for someone who was specifically chosen to replace Scalia in what seemed like a "like for like" replacement
 
2020-06-15 11:45:52 AM  

likefunbutnot: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

Hi. I'm an abnormality. I have to round to one side of the binary.
I always knew there were things wrong with me, but a few years ago I finally found out that when I was born, doctors wanted to make me a girl due to some pretty obvious misfortune.

The condition I have is called Klinefelter's Syndrome. I have it worse than some, but it turns out that about 1 in 1000 people is born with an extra X chromosome. That's not incredibly common, but nor is it so rare that we can pretend it doesn't happen. Trans and intersexed people are all edge cases, but intersexed folks are often in the same boat, even if they don't have some of the doubts or dysmorphia. Intersexed people of all sorts can have missing or malformed internal or external anatomy, such that "Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina"-type thinking actually winds up being particularly unhelpful in the ultimate choice of which way to round to.

The truth is, if you're writing laws that codify a binary when you know as a matter of fact that some people exist outside the binary for whatever reason, you're writing bad or dumb laws. Eventually you'll have to deal with the exceptions. They don't just go away because they're difficult.

It's wishful thinking to hope we could just ignore biological sex or gender in our legal system, but I suspect it would be easier to put forth an Equal Rights Law that does say that matters of gender, sex and sexuality should be taken as equal and equivalent for all people rather than having to review every single matter that relates to those things.


Legality is not the same as morality is not the same as objective reality. No one should be discriminated against. Biology functions on reproduction. Sexual reproduction functions with 2 different types of cells. Hence sex isnt a spectrum. Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.
 
2020-06-15 11:46:11 AM  
Paraphrasing: "It's impossible to discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating based on sex."

Me, very much not a lawyer: "...Did a legal back door just open for the ERA? Maybe not as an amendment but as an actual SCOTUS ruling?"
 
2020-06-15 11:46:18 AM  

Warthog: Excelsior: Buttknuckle: Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.

"sorry dude, you were 5 minutes late last Wednesday and you left early this one day last February, so I'm afraid we're going to have to fire you for your ongoing absences"

Sadly yeah, that's still going to happen. But at least now that fired worker gets their day in court to try and prove it was pretextual, just like thousands of women and minority employees do each year after they're fired on made-up grounds.  If this decision had gone the other way, they wouldn't have had to even try and make up a reason and the worker would have been SOL.

This decision won't fix bigotry and hate, but it's sure as hell going to make bigotry and hate open their pocket books in civil litigation in the years ahead.


"That term incorporates the but-for causation standard, id., at 346, 360, which, for Title VII, means that a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment action. " - today's decision.
 
2020-06-15 11:46:44 AM  

Great_Milenko: I think it's terrifying that three Justices on the United States Supreme Court of Appeals can't recognize a basic human right.


Thomas is the Anti-Marshal I mean WTF he has written dissents the would make his own marriage illegal
 
2020-06-15 11:47:11 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.


"Plenty", like there are "plenty" of climatologist that think man affecting climate change is a myth.  It's easy to find quacks that support your pet zoological theories.  The overwhelming number of biologists and psychologists would laugh at what you wrote.  Especially your incredibly simplistic (and quite wrong) assertion about the history of sexual reproduction.

Behavioral biology would categorize what you wrote in the same place physicists put geocentrism and steady state cosmology.  You're crowing two hundred year old social theory that got destroyed by evidence before any of us were born.

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Depends on their gametes


What's amusing is that you'd start stammering the first time you were presented a population of people with XY chromosomes that physically would be identified as female in every way.  Or vice versa.  There's not a single unified relationship between chromosomes, sex organs, physical morphology, and gender psychology.  What you see in the world around you is what people socially present.  What you don't know is how that relates to the genes they carry, the hormones in their system, their mental construct, nor the dangly bits between their legs.

The more you look at the science of sexual biology, the more your perspective falls apart.
 
2020-06-15 11:47:15 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: likefunbutnot: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

Hi. I'm an abnormality. I have to round to one side of the binary.
I always knew there were things wrong with me, but a few years ago I finally found out that when I was born, doctors wanted to make me a girl due to some pretty obvious misfortune.

The condition I have is called Klinefelter's Syndrome. I have it worse than some, but it turns out that about 1 in 1000 people is born with an extra X chromosome. That's not incredibly common, but nor is it so rare that we can pretend it doesn't happen. Trans and intersexed people are all edge cases, but intersexed folks are often in the same boat, even if they don't have some of the doubts or dysmorphia. Intersexed people of all sorts can have missing or malformed internal or external anatomy, such that "Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina"-type thinking actually winds up being particularly unhelpful in the ultimate choice of which way to round to.

The truth is, if you're writing laws that codify a binary when you know as a matter of fact that some people exist outside the binary for whatever reason, you're writing bad or dumb laws. Eventually you'll have to deal with the exceptions. They don't just go away because they're difficult.

It's wishful thinking to hope we could just ignore biological sex or gender in our legal system, but I suspect it would be easier to put forth an Equal Rights Law that does say that matters of gender, sex and sexuality should be taken as equal and equivalent for all people rather than having to review every single matter that relates to those things.

Legality is not the same as morality is not the same as objective reality. No one should be discriminated against. Biology functions on reproduction. Sexual reproduction functions with 2 different types of cells. Hence sex isnt a spectrum. Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.


Sorry, science disagrees with your opinion
 
2020-06-15 11:47:37 AM  
So, only 3 complete assholes on the bench. Not bad.
 
2020-06-15 11:47:46 AM  
While I, as at least two of the letters in LGBTQ+, applaud the decision, the fact is that with "at will" employment being a thing, employers can just come up with another non-discriminatory "reason" to fire someone as a smoke screen and be in the clear, legally. Only the absolute DUMBEST employers would fire someone and say it's "because you're gay" or "because you're a transwoman" or anything like that. No, they'll say "it's because of your attitude" or they'll wait for you to be 30 seconds late and use that as an excuse. They'll blame you for something you didn't do. They'll find another "legitimate" reason to kick you to the curb.
 
2020-06-15 11:47:46 AM  

Aetre: Paraphrasing: "It's impossible to discriminate based on sexuality without discriminating based on sex."

Me, very much not a lawyer: "...Did a legal back door just open for the ERA? Maybe not as an amendment but as an actual SCOTUS ruling?"


"And less than a decade after Title VII's passage, during debates over the Equal Rights Amendment, others counseled that its language-which was strikingly similar to Title VII's- might also protect homosexuals from discrimination. " - today's decision.
 
2020-06-15 11:47:49 AM  
My take is, was, and will always be this:
When BOTH parties consent of their own free will without outside influence and nobody is harmed, who the fark cares who you do, and why should they? If you keep your work and personal lives separate, then your employer should not be using it as a factor.

The real truth though is this: The law has ZERO impact in an "at-will" state anyway. As long as the employer doesn't actually document the real reason, they can make up anything they want to justify firing you. I've seen things where people get fired for just about everything from refusing to sleep with a manager to having appeared in the audience in a Maury episode from a vacation trip to the area. Who watches trash tv that close to look for employees in the audience to fire them? The worst one though? a coworker was fired for filing for divorce where is wife was not an employee or related to an employee, she was simply the daughter of a personal friend of the manager. Sad. But all the more reason you document EVERYTHING.
 
2020-06-15 11:47:52 AM  

that bosnian sniper: People ITT Grouching About Trump:lol suck it MAGAts and conservatives, etc. etc.

You guys are going to be real mad when you notice who authored the opinion.


That's the best part.
 
2020-06-15 11:48:01 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


=====================================

That they felt like they were legislating and it should be up to congress to specifically add that.

Which is a valid concern... but I disagree that it applies here.
 
2020-06-15 11:48:12 AM  

phenn: Would the reason for dissent be one of those religious liberty bits?

Honest question.

Having said that - yay!!!


No separation of powers in this case.  Also dumber than the religious angle in this instance
 
2020-06-15 11:48:31 AM  

Chevello: So, only 3 complete assholes on the bench. Not bad.


Well, look at Andrus v. Texas before you rush to that conclusion.
 
2020-06-15 11:48:32 AM  

This text is now purple: The class of people who thought Kelo was the wrong decision is the US Population-5. Even Kelo thought it was the wrong call.

So that's not very useful as a discriminator.


Well Kelo was the plantiff, who lost, so obviously he wasn't a fan.

But I have a certain Farker tagged as having defended the Kelo decision, so at least 6 people are wrong about it.
 
2020-06-15 11:48:33 AM  

FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?


Alito, Thomas, and BeerBro.  Because they're pieces of sh*t.
 
2020-06-15 11:49:25 AM  

MythDragon: jake_lex: MythDragon: But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".

This has always been the Achilles' heel of anti-discrimination law; it can be very hard to prove that the intent for the firing is due to the fact that an employee is a member of a protected class.  Meanwhile, if your read the employee's handbook for your job, you'll find tons of petty rules that pretty much every employee routinely violates.  So all you have to do is assemble a dossier of those violations, fire the employee when you have enough, then present it if they do sue you.

I mean, that's what HR is for at any company of any size.  They sure as shiat aren't on your side.

I lost my job while deployed to Iraq. Despite being a military contractor working on an AFB, my company didn't like its employees being in the Guard. I came back to find I was  "let go".
I told them I thought they couldn't fire me for being deployed. They said "we can if we were going to eliminate that position anyway." (5 of us worked there. Mine was the only position eliminated.)
I asked, "aren't you required by law to find me a new position?" 'Only if there is a similar position, and we don't have any othets doing work in another aircraft telemetry lab. Feel free to check our website and apply for any job you think you are qualified for. Anything else? No? Have a good day sir."

Bastards.


Yup.  My employer had a policy of giving an "unsatisfactory" rating the first year you were in any job, because you were new at it and could still improve...

Legally, they can't fire someone who goes on medical leave.

So what they did, for a when you came back from a burn out, they'd offer to transfer you to a different job so you wouldn't face the same stressful situation or coworkers or boss that caused you to burn out.  Docs were extremely happy about it and encouraged at as it showed my employer was being understanding and taking mental health seriously.

However, it also meant you would get an "unsat" in your yearly review, which meant you were the first on the chopping block whenever there were staff cuts.
 
2020-06-15 11:49:58 AM  

dragonchild: Animatronik: Wrong decision for good reasons. Congress should have passed a law.
No, they got it right.  Article I, Section 9 of the U.S Constitution is both concise and specific regarding using the law (or lack thereof) to punish people for merely existing:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

That's it.  This was so cut-and-dry to them that they assumed the definition of a bill of attainder was self-explanatory.  Note, also, that they hated these things so much that they made sure to include an explicit ban in the first go-round, unlike anything in the Bill of Rights.
In this case, a disingenuously narrow interpretation of the CRA would mean it was specifically worded to exclude certain groups.  Now, that by itself doesn't make a law unconstitutional (sorry, wingnuts, you can't throw out the CRA by suggesting it wasn't liberal enough), but the CRA clearly intends to be inclusive, so it's in fact any nit-picking that would be unconstitutional -- you're trying to twist the wording until you materialize a bill of attainder out of thin air.  That is in fact the very "legislating from the bench" the right is supposedly so preoccupied with.  It's oddly specific to interpret the CRA to say certain groups are excluded so we need another law to close this loophole created by this conveniently narrow interpretation that's essentially banned (and at the very least, frowned upon) by the Constitution.
This isn't an issue of complex legalese; this is basic civics -- when it comes to protecting rights, legislation defining [groups of] people should be interpreted with the broadest possible context.  That's not just due to the Constitution; the principle is written into the Declaration of Independence as well.  In fact, any attempt to make these things complex should be eyed with suspicion -- neither the Constitution nor the CRA were written to be persnickety.
P.S. I would even go so far as to define a bill of attainder as one that rewards a special inte ...


I don't think you're interpreting the attainder clause correctly.  Attainders are punishments on certain person or group of people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attain​de​r).  The clause specifically prevents you from punishing people by legislation, without a trial.

The Civil Rights Act created new rights for certain people.  As in, it didn't punish anyone, but it decided to provide additional rights to a certain subset of people.  Whether the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex included LGBT, or should be interpreted broadly, is a different question, but it doesn't come down to attainder.

Likewise, your example of the tax code is also incorrect - special tax breaks for certain groups are a privilege, not a punishment, and thus not subject to the attainder prohibition.  If you argued that additional taxes on cigarettes are a bill of attainder, punishing smokers via legislation, I might see your point.  But then, the Courts have allowed such things when there are strong public good reasons, so even then it probably wouldn't be unconstitutional.
 
2020-06-15 11:50:25 AM  

overthinker: When BOTH parties consent of their own free will without outside influence and nobody is harmed, who the fark cares who you do, and why should they?


=)

Define "harm."
 
2020-06-15 11:50:32 AM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Hence sex isnt a spectrum. Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.


*RED BUZZER NOISE*

Incorrect.  And incredibly ignorant of the basics of biological science.
 
2020-06-15 11:50:48 AM  

Warthog: Excelsior: Buttknuckle: Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.

"sorry dude, you were 5 minutes late last Wednesday and you left early this one day last February, so I'm afraid we're going to have to fire you for your ongoing absences"

Sadly yeah, that's still going to happen. But at least now that fired worker gets their day in court to try and prove it was pretextual, just like thousands of women and minority employees do each year after they're fired on made-up grounds.  If this decision had gone the other way, they wouldn't have had to even try and make up a reason and the worker would have been SOL.

This decision won't fix bigotry and hate, but it's sure as hell going to make bigotry and hate open their pocket books in civil litigation in the years ahead.


Um yes....about that,
There are no Court's, if it's a right to work state the best you get is arbitration.
 
2020-06-15 11:51:00 AM  
Merry Farking Christmas.

Suck is you discriminatory turds.
 
2020-06-15 11:51:25 AM  

cyberspacedout: johnphantom: Walker: "I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
[Fark user image 840x560]

"BUT IF A GAY MAN OFFERS ME A BEER, IT'S NOT GAY TO DRINK IT!"

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/hCOSejS1​SSY?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3​A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsap​i=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&​widgetid=1]


Still miss the original with Van Halen's "Beautiful Girls"
 
2020-06-15 11:51:53 AM  

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"


I mean, fine, you don't like the methodology, and you don't like having to do someone else's job.  But you have the opportunity to right a wrong, and you don't take it?  This isn't a matter of principle or procedure!  These are people's lives.  Go f*ck yourself, "Justice" BeerWhore.
 
2020-06-15 11:51:55 AM  

tyyreaunn: Likewise, your example of the tax code is also incorrect - special tax breaks for certain groups are a privilege, not a punishment, and thus not subject to the attainder prohibition.


You still need some car how they are phrased.

Something like a 5% tax break for everyone except tuureaunn would be frowned upon.
 
2020-06-15 11:51:59 AM  

WilderKWight: While I, as at least two of the letters in LGBTQ+, applaud the decision, the fact is that with "at will" employment being a thing, employers can just come up with another non-discriminatory "reason" to fire someone as a smoke screen and be in the clear, legally. Only the absolute DUMBEST employers would fire someone and say it's "because you're gay" or "because you're a transwoman" or anything like that. No, they'll say "it's because of your attitude" or they'll wait for you to be 30 seconds late and use that as an excuse. They'll blame you for something you didn't do. They'll find another "legitimate" reason to kick you to the curb.


Which is no different for any other person out there.  They can fire for any reason, just not an illegal one.  So, this clarifies that this is an illegal reason.  Just like race, ethnicity, or religion.   That is, the burden is still on the fired person to prove the reason was illegal, but the right exists independent of this.
 
2020-06-15 11:53:53 AM  

Persnickety: Was expecting 4-5 or 5-4.  Gorsuch is clearly not what conservatives were expecting.


The majority of the Supreme court were GOP appointments.
There are only 3 that do not swing.
 
2020-06-15 11:54:18 AM  

ViolentEastCoastCity: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"

I mean, fine, you don't like the methodology, and you don't like having to do someone else's job.  But you have the opportunity to right a wrong, and you don't take it?  This isn't a matter of principle or procedure!  These are people's lives.  Go f*ck yourself, "Justice" BeerWhore.


That's a bad takeaway. The SCOTUS should not be overstepping their bounds and legislating from the bench. The reality is that Kavanaugh is just straight-up wrong, and legislating from the bench is not what happened with this majority decision. Title VII exactly as it was written should have always protected against this kind of discrimination.
 
2020-06-15 11:54:21 AM  

eagles95: Roberts was with the 6? Is it because it's Monday and his asshole meter isn't totally filled up yet?


On Friday he's going to look back and be like, "Ah f*ck!!"
 
2020-06-15 11:54:21 AM  

ViolentEastCoastCity: I mean, fine, you don't like the methodology, and you don't like having to do someone else's job.  But you have the opportunity to right a wrong, and you don't take it?  This isn't a matter of principle or procedure!  These are people's lives.


A Man for All Seasons (1966) [1080p] Give the Devil the Benefit of law Scene
Youtube u2a2fAEQaGo


We give the devil the benefit of the law for our own protection.
 
2020-06-15 11:54:33 AM  

WilderKWight: Only the absolute DUMBEST employers would fire someone and say it's "because you're gay" or "because you're a transwoman" or anything like that.


Yet, it still happened.

Shows you how dumb some employers are.  Including Uncle Sam.
 
2020-06-15 11:54:53 AM  
Article would be much better with the dissenting opinion.

I'm pretty sure that if you can fire people for being gay, you can fire them for being straight, which would be a pretty bizarre opinion to support.
 
2020-06-15 11:55:17 AM  

BMFPitt: This text is now purple: The class of people who thought Kelo was the wrong decision is the US Population-5. Even Kelo thought it was the wrong call.

So that's not very useful as a discriminator.

Well Kelo was the plantiff, who lost, so obviously he wasn't a fan.

But I have a certain Farker tagged as having defended the Kelo decision, so at least 6 people are wrong about it.


Scalia's dead.  5.
 
2020-06-15 11:55:22 AM  

FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?


Thomas is an abortion of a justice.  It is criminal that that lump is in that seat forever.  At least Alito seems to have some twisted up logic for his ultra conservatism.  Beer just likes beer, and waving his dong around.  Thomas is a null zone of conservative decisions.  It's like he is sitting around making conservative knee jerk reactions.
 
2020-06-15 11:56:45 AM  

vygramul: Chevello: So, only 3 complete assholes on the bench. Not bad.

Well, look at Andrus v. Texas before you rush to that conclusion.


I said "complete." There are many different levels of asshole available to the other 6.
 
2020-06-15 11:57:32 AM  

Grungehamster: [Fark user image image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:57:43 AM  
It's sad that all this decision did was grant me a very brief feeling of relief.
 
2020-06-15 11:58:03 AM  
Does this apply to guns as well?
 
2020-06-15 11:58:06 AM  

Grungehamster: [Fark user image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)


"Ah, here we go, 'Republican farker!' No, wait - what?"
 
2020-06-15 11:58:17 AM  

overthinker: The real truth though is this: The law has ZERO impact in an "at-will" state anyway. As long as the employer doesn't actually document the real reason, they can make up anything they want to justify firing you


1) All states are at-will states, so that's redundant.

2) An invalid reason for termination allows you to collect unemployment insurance at a minimum and opens the possibility of recovering damages via a civil suit. This ruling gives the same financial protections to homosexual and transgendered people that heterosexual and cisgendered people enjoy people in states that don't protect them in their human rights laws, such as Georgia.
 
2020-06-15 11:58:38 AM  
Myrdinn:

Who cares?  The one with the (lime) green shirt and pink earrings is cute.

Middle of the front row was who caught my attention.

/it was the eyes.
 
2020-06-15 11:58:56 AM  

Chevello: vygramul: Chevello: So, only 3 complete assholes on the bench. Not bad.

Well, look at Andrus v. Texas before you rush to that conclusion.

I said "complete." There are many different levels of asshole available to the other 6.


Well, by that reasoning, Kavanaugh siding with Roberts and the Liberals in the death penalty case means he's not complete.
 
2020-06-15 11:59:02 AM  

Flab: Scalia's dead.  5.


Scalia was in the minority.  But I forgot that Stephens died, so yeah, 5.
 
2020-06-15 11:59:19 AM  

tyyreaunn: Didn't read the entire thread, so this may have been covered already.

The linked article doesn't go into why the three judges dissented, but I found a more detailed one: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/po​litics/2020/06/15/supreme-court-denies​-job-protection-lgbt-workers/445674900​2/

In short, Alito et al said that the original intent of the Civil Rights Act didn't cover gay rights, and it isn't the Court's job to create new laws based on re-interpreting existing ones.  He technically isn't wrong - Congress should amend the Civil Rights Act to specifically cover LGBT, to clarify the whole issue.  Hopefully, we'll have Democratic majorities in both houses, plus Biden, in 2021, and can get the job done right.

I'm guessing Gorsuch and Roberts went with protecting LGBT given that earlier Court decisions have already reinterpreted the Civil Rights Act to including LGBT (the gay marriage decision, for one), so it's now a legal precedent.

Now, whether Alito et al used the original intent of the Civil Rights Act as a fig leaf to cover up they fact they just don't like gays, is both a separate issue, and probably likely.

In short, I can see both arguments.  I'm glad it went this way, but I really wish Congress would just update the Civil Rights Act directly, so we don't need to rely on the Court to keep it up to date.


That will have to wait until the senate isn't controlled by a party who would like to repeal said act if they could.
 
2020-06-15 12:00:54 PM  

Demetrius: In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.


That's not what they said in their dissent.  You should read more than headlines, maybe like original source material or something.
 
2020-06-15 12:01:36 PM  

tyyreaunn: He technically isn't wrong -


No he is technically wrong for fark's sake.  Can you create different rules for the sexes when it comes to employment?  The answer is farking NO.  Which means you can't fire women for farking a woman unless you're also firing men for farking women.  That's what *technically* means.


The logic is clear and concise.
 
2020-06-15 12:02:03 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.

In the same sentence they relate sex and sexual orientation - two exceptionally different ideas.  The point is that the flipping of one switch doesn't invalidate your rights to basic protections under the law.

Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.


It is not much different from when they extended men's rights to women.
They knew it was not the original intent of the law, but it should have been.
Kavanaugh's dissent is that the Supreme Court should not change laws, but only invalidate existing ones.
 
2020-06-15 12:02:19 PM  

Magnus: Demetrius: In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.

That's not what they said in their dissent.  You should read more than headlines, maybe like original source material or something.


They think it's not okay but legal, which is still wrong
 
2020-06-15 12:02:23 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: Persnickety: Was expecting 4-5 or 5-4.  Gorsuch is clearly not what conservatives were expecting.

The majority of the Supreme court were GOP appointments.
There are only 3 that do not swing.


6 out of 9 people are swingers.  Just like the 1970s.
 
2020-06-15 12:03:38 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.

In the same sentence they relate sex and sexual orientation - two exceptionally different ideas.  The point is that the flipping of one switch doesn't invalidate your rights to basic protections under the law.

Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.

It is not much different from when they extended men's rights to women.
They knew it was not the original intent of the law, but it should have been.
Kavanaugh's dissent is that the Supreme Court should not change laws, but only invalidate existing ones.


The scotus didn't change any laws though. Discriminating based on sex has always been illegal under that law
 
2020-06-15 12:03:49 PM  

deadromanoff: Warthog: Excelsior: Buttknuckle: Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.

"sorry dude, you were 5 minutes late last Wednesday and you left early this one day last February, so I'm afraid we're going to have to fire you for your ongoing absences"

Sadly yeah, that's still going to happen. But at least now that fired worker gets their day in court to try and prove it was pretextual, just like thousands of women and minority employees do each year after they're fired on made-up grounds.  If this decision had gone the other way, they wouldn't have had to even try and make up a reason and the worker would have been SOL.

This decision won't fix bigotry and hate, but it's sure as hell going to make bigotry and hate open their pocket books in civil litigation in the years ahead.

Um yes....about that,
There are no Court's, if it's a right to work state the best you get is arbitration.


That's not how Title VII works: https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-la​wsuit

If you signed an arbitration agreement with your employer at the time you were hired, yeah you probably end up in arbitration.  But you cannot be forced into arbitration if you didn't consent to being a party to the arbitration.

Even in an at will state -- which are 49 out of the 50 states -- you cannot be fired for reasons that violate Title VII.  Here's a good write-up, from Texas: https://work.chron.com/limitat​ions-atw​ill-employment-3715.html
 
2020-06-15 12:05:06 PM  

dankaiser: I'm very happy for this ruling. Of course it doesn't mean I can't be fired for being gay. It just means, after lots of lawyers and effort fighting it, my boss can't get away with it now.


Nah, it just means he'll have to find something else to fire you for first.  He can still get away with it if he's willing to put in the work.

In "employment at will" states he doesn't even have to have a reason.  He may end up paying you unemployment but he can let you go for basically no reason at all if he chooses to.
 
2020-06-15 12:05:25 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Magnus: Demetrius: In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.

That's not what they said in their dissent.  You should read more than headlines, maybe like original source material or something.

They think it's not okay but legal, which is still wrong


No.  That's not what they said in the dissent.

They were very straightforward when they said sex and sexual orientation are not the same and the legislation does not cover it and it is up to the legislature to do their job and change the law not the court.

Read the dissent.
 
2020-06-15 12:05:51 PM  

eiger: FarkingChas: Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?

This is just me bullshiatting, so take it with a huge grain of salt and go read the decision when it comes out and expert analysis, but I suspect they made a lot of legislative intent since  those who originally passed the law did NOT intend to protect LGBTQ people.


I didn't know those guys were psychic mind readers...
 
2020-06-15 12:06:12 PM  

vygramul: Chevello: vygramul: Chevello: So, only 3 complete assholes on the bench. Not bad.

Well, look at Andrus v. Texas before you rush to that conclusion.

I said "complete." There are many different levels of asshole available to the other 6.

Well, by that reasoning, Kavanaugh siding with Roberts and the Liberals in the death penalty case means he's not complete.


Only a complete one would vote that it's OK to fire someone because their gender option is not one of two choices. They may vote sensibly on other things, but still, the completeness is complete.
 
2020-06-15 12:06:18 PM  

Flab: flondrix: Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?

Yes.

Even the "at will" states can't fire you for your race or religion or sex.  They can invent other non-protected reasons, though... or even no reason at all.

- What's your favorite MLP character?
- What?
- Did I stutter?
- What?
- Say what one more time, motherfarker!
- What?
- you're fired.


They don't even need to give a reason.  They can just fire you at any time.
 
2020-06-15 12:06:20 PM  

Magnus: cameroncrazy1984: Magnus: Demetrius: In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.

That's not what they said in their dissent.  You should read more than headlines, maybe like original source material or something.

They think it's not okay but legal, which is still wrong

No.  That's not what they said in the dissent.

They were very straightforward when they said sex and sexual orientation are not the same and the legislation does not cover it and it is up to the legislature to do their job and change the law not the court.

Read the dissent.


We may be splitting hairs here.
 
2020-06-15 12:06:53 PM  

This text is now purple: thaylin: What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex

Sex != gender.


It does now to the law implied by this verdict.
 
2020-06-15 12:07:10 PM  

Magnus: cameroncrazy1984: Magnus: Demetrius: In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.

That's not what they said in their dissent.  You should read more than headlines, maybe like original source material or something.

They think it's not okay but legal, which is still wrong

No.  That's not what they said in the dissent.

They were very straightforward when they said sex and sexual orientation are not the same and the legislation does not cover it and it is up to the legislature to do their job and change the law not the court.

Read the dissent.


I did read what they said and firing someone based on their sex or the sex of their partner is already illegal.
 
2020-06-15 12:10:30 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: It is not much different from when they extended men's rights to women.
They knew it was not the original intent of the law, but it should have been.


???
 
2020-06-15 12:12:48 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.


If sex is binary, fungi must have allocated at least 15 bits to the definition:
Why This Fungus Has Over 20,000 Sexes

Granted, animals don't get quite as weird as fungi...
Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size
Fark user imageView Full Size

She doesn't appear to have included any of the simultaneous hermaphrodites in her examples, though.  Bummer.
 
2020-06-15 12:12:53 PM  

markie_farkie: So what will this do to Dump's EO that removed LBGTQ rights to healthcare under the ACA?


It's not looking good...for..Trump
 
2020-06-15 12:13:03 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: likefunbutnot: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

Hi. I'm an abnormality. I have to round to one side of the binary.
I always knew there were things wrong with me, but a few years ago I finally found out that when I was born, doctors wanted to make me a girl due to some pretty obvious misfortune.

The condition I have is called Klinefelter's Syndrome. I have it worse than some, but it turns out that about 1 in 1000 people is born with an extra X chromosome. That's not incredibly common, but nor is it so rare that we can pretend it doesn't happen. Trans and intersexed people are all edge cases, but intersexed folks are often in the same boat, even if they don't have some of the doubts or dysmorphia. Intersexed people of all sorts can have missing or malformed internal or external anatomy, such that "Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina"-type thinking actually winds up being particularly unhelpful in the ultimate choice of which way to round to.

The truth is, if you're writing laws that codify a binary when you know as a matter of fact that some people exist outside the binary for whatever reason, you're writing bad or dumb laws. Eventually you'll have to deal with the exceptions. They don't just go away because they're difficult.

It's wishful thinking to hope we could just ignore biological sex or gender in our legal system, but I suspect it would be easier to put forth an Equal Rights Law that does say that matters of gender, sex and sexuality should be taken as equal and equivalent for all people rather than having to review every single matter that relates to those things.

Legality is not the same as morality is not the same as objective reality. No one should be discriminated against. Biology functions on reproduction. Sexual reproduction functions with 2 different types of cells. Hence sex isnt a spectrum. Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.

Sorry, science disagrees with your opinion


It certainly does not.
 
2020-06-15 12:13:04 PM  

Flab: flondrix: Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?

Yes.

Even the "at will" states can't fire you for your race or religion or sex.  They can invent other non-protected reasons, though... or even no reason at all.

- What's your favorite MLP character?
- What?
- Did I stutter?
- What?
- Say what one more time, motherfarker!
- What?
- you're fired.


This is something not often understood.  The number of reasons you can be fired for in at-will states is literally infinite.  In most cases, the only way you can make the legal argument that it's discriminatory is through open admission of the offender, or a statistical argument after many, many terminations that go against a protected class.
 
2020-06-15 12:13:50 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: cameroncrazy1984: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: likefunbutnot: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

Hi. I'm an abnormality. I have to round to one side of the binary.
I always knew there were things wrong with me, but a few years ago I finally found out that when I was born, doctors wanted to make me a girl due to some pretty obvious misfortune.

The condition I have is called Klinefelter's Syndrome. I have it worse than some, but it turns out that about 1 in 1000 people is born with an extra X chromosome. That's not incredibly common, but nor is it so rare that we can pretend it doesn't happen. Trans and intersexed people are all edge cases, but intersexed folks are often in the same boat, even if they don't have some of the doubts or dysmorphia. Intersexed people of all sorts can have missing or malformed internal or external anatomy, such that "Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina"-type thinking actually winds up being particularly unhelpful in the ultimate choice of which way to round to.

The truth is, if you're writing laws that codify a binary when you know as a matter of fact that some people exist outside the binary for whatever reason, you're writing bad or dumb laws. Eventually you'll have to deal with the exceptions. They don't just go away because they're difficult.

It's wishful thinking to hope we could just ignore biological sex or gender in our legal system, but I suspect it would be easier to put forth an Equal Rights Law that does say that matters of gender, sex and sexuality should be taken as equal and equivalent for all people rather than having to review every single matter that relates to those things.

Legality is not the same as morality is not the same as objective reality. No one should be discriminated against. Biology functions on reproduction. Sexual reproduction functions with 2 different types of cells. Hence sex isnt a spectrum. Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.

Sorry, science disagrees with your opinion

It certainly does not.


You can believe that if you like, but just know your opinion is not based on facts
 
2020-06-15 12:13:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The scotus didn't change any laws though. Discriminating based on sex has always been illegal under that law


Women had no rights whatsoever when the country was founded
 
2020-06-15 12:14:21 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: cameroncrazy1984: The scotus didn't change any laws though. Discriminating based on sex has always been illegal under that law

Women had no rights whatsoever when the country was founded


"under that law"
 
2020-06-15 12:14:27 PM  

thaylin: Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.

What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex


An amendent written by Congress would make it clear and additional/more precise language that you cannot discriminate against people who are lgbtq for being as such because it's inherent to sexual discrimination protections.

Having Congress do that in the first place would possibly stop lawsuits from beginning in the first place as plantiffs possibly would have been  spared in the first place from being discriminated against and having to spend time and money with lawyers and the courts.

Basically, Kavanaugh is saying the courts shouldn't have to decide something Congress should have done in the first place and shouldn't interpret poorly written laws as SCOTUS shouldn't create laws, which in some ways they have.

Whether you agree or not is another matter but that's how I'm seeing their logic and it kinda makes sense.
 
2020-06-15 12:15:22 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

"Plenty", like there are "plenty" of climatologist that think man affecting climate change is a myth.  It's easy to find quacks that support your pet zoological theories.  The overwhelming number of biologists and psychologists would laugh at what you wrote.  Especially your incredibly simplistic (and quite wrong) assertion about the history of sexual reproduction.

Behavioral biology would categorize what you wrote in the same place physicists put geocentrism and steady state cosmology.  You're crowing two hundred year old social theory that got destroyed by evidence before any of us were born.

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Depends on their gametes

What's amusing is that you'd start stammering the first time you were presented a population of people with XY chromosomes that physically would be identified as female in every way.  Or vice versa.  There's not a single unified relationship between chromosomes, sex organs, physical morphology, and gender psychology.  What you see in the world around you is what people socially present.  What you don't know is how that relates to the genes they carry, the hormones in their system, their mental construct, nor the dangly bits between their legs.

The more you look at the science of sexual biology, the more your perspective falls apart.


Stammering? Where? Go ahead and try making another human between two sperm producers. Objective reality is a biatch
 
2020-06-15 12:15:33 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.


At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.
 
2020-06-15 12:16:27 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.


They MAY produce sex cells, if physically equipped to do so. Some people don't have the generative bodies to do that. And a lot of those people are intersexed and already part of the edge case conditions.

But generally,  are you expecting the legal matter to begin relying on extensive genetic testing to demand findings for the binary? Surely it's easier to allow self determination in the matter than create the burden of scientific finding. Ultimately it just doesn't matter THAT much in contemporary society. We don't need to be concerned with what's in anyone else's pants unless we're sleeping with them or actively providing health care to them.
 
2020-06-15 12:16:30 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Hence sex isnt a spectrum. Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.

*RED BUZZER NOISE*

Incorrect.  And incredibly ignorant of the basics of biological science.


Mmmm... nope that's pretty accurate
 
2020-06-15 12:16:36 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

"Plenty", like there are "plenty" of climatologist that think man affecting climate change is a myth.  It's easy to find quacks that support your pet zoological theories.  The overwhelming number of biologists and psychologists would laugh at what you wrote.  Especially your incredibly simplistic (and quite wrong) assertion about the history of sexual reproduction.

Behavioral biology would categorize what you wrote in the same place physicists put geocentrism and steady state cosmology.  You're crowing two hundred year old social theory that got destroyed by evidence before any of us were born.

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Depends on their gametes

What's amusing is that you'd start stammering the first time you were presented a population of people with XY chromosomes that physically would be identified as female in every way.  Or vice versa.  There's not a single unified relationship between chromosomes, sex organs, physical morphology, and gender psychology.  What you see in the world around you is what people socially present.  What you don't know is how that relates to the genes they carry, the hormones in their system, their mental construct, nor the dangly bits between their legs.

The more you look at the science of sexual biology, the more your perspective falls apart.

Stammering? Where? Go ahead and try making another human between two sperm producers. Objective reality is a biatch


What does that have to do with intersex people
 
2020-06-15 12:16:42 PM  
This is wayyyyyyyyyy more important than gays in the military or gay marriage. But for some reason those got all the push and publicity.