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 11:33:01 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.
 
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.