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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 728 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.