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  
•       •       •

6612 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 11:48:32 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.
 
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.