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 12:13:50 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: cameroncrazy1984: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: likefunbutnot: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, science disagrees with your opinion

It certainly does not.


You can believe that if you like, but just know your opinion is not based on facts
 
2020-06-15 12:13:58 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The scotus didn't change any laws though. Discriminating based on sex has always been illegal under that law


Women had no rights whatsoever when the country was founded
 
2020-06-15 12:14:21 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: cameroncrazy1984: The scotus didn't change any laws though. Discriminating based on sex has always been illegal under that law

Women had no rights whatsoever when the country was founded


"under that law"
 
2020-06-15 12:14:27 PM  

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

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


An amendent written by Congress would make it clear and additional/more precise language that you cannot discriminate against people who are lgbtq for being as such because it's inherent to sexual discrimination protections.

Having Congress do that in the first place would possibly stop lawsuits from beginning in the first place as plantiffs possibly would have been  spared in the first place from being discriminated against and having to spend time and money with lawyers and the courts.

Basically, Kavanaugh is saying the courts shouldn't have to decide something Congress should have done in the first place and shouldn't interpret poorly written laws as SCOTUS shouldn't create laws, which in some ways they have.

Whether you agree or not is another matter but that's how I'm seeing their logic and it kinda makes sense.
 
2020-06-15 12:15:22 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

The more you look at the science of sexual biology, the more your perspective falls apart.


Stammering? Where? Go ahead and try making another human between two sperm producers. Objective reality is a biatch
 
2020-06-15 12:15:33 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.


At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.
 
2020-06-15 12:16:27 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.


They MAY produce sex cells, if physically equipped to do so. Some people don't have the generative bodies to do that. And a lot of those people are intersexed and already part of the edge case conditions.

But generally,  are you expecting the legal matter to begin relying on extensive genetic testing to demand findings for the binary? Surely it's easier to allow self determination in the matter than create the burden of scientific finding. Ultimately it just doesn't matter THAT much in contemporary society. We don't need to be concerned with what's in anyone else's pants unless we're sleeping with them or actively providing health care to them.
 
2020-06-15 12:16:30 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Hence sex isnt a spectrum. Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.

*RED BUZZER NOISE*

Incorrect.  And incredibly ignorant of the basics of biological science.


Mmmm... nope that's pretty accurate
 
2020-06-15 12:16:36 PM  

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

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

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

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

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

The more you look at the science of sexual biology, the more your perspective falls apart.

Stammering? Where? Go ahead and try making another human between two sperm producers. Objective reality is a biatch


What does that have to do with intersex people
 
2020-06-15 12:16:42 PM  
This is wayyyyyyyyyy more important than gays in the military or gay marriage. But for some reason those got all the push and publicity.
 
2020-06-15 12:17:00 PM  

flondrix: 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 image 660x926]
[Fark user image 660x926]
[Fark user image 660x926]

[Fark user image 660x926][Fark user image 660x926]
She doesn't appear to have included any of the simultaneous hermaphrodites in her examples, though.  Bummer.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 12:17:02 PM  

This text is now purple: 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.


If democrats win the presidency and take the senate back, maybe Congress will vote to amend the Civil Rights Act to include this provision to remove all ambiguity.
 
2020-06-15 12:17:04 PM  

Precious Roy's Horse Dividers: The freepers are handling with the expected class.

Won't paste anything they said here. But LOL they mad.


But if you want some chuckles
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-n​e​ws/3855734/posts
 
2020-06-15 12:17:04 PM  

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]


I can't definitively say the genetic makeup, since they could be xx or xy with an androgen insensitivity. So I will say that they seem to all be gendered female (since biological sex is not always binary).
 
2020-06-15 12:17:05 PM  

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

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

An amendent written by Congress would make it clear and additional/more precise language that you cannot discriminate against people who are lgbtq for being as such because it's inherent to sexual discrimination protections.

Having Congress do that in the first place would possibly stop lawsuits from beginning in the first place as plantiffs possibly would have been  spared in the first place from being discriminated against and having to spend time and money with lawyers and the courts.

Basically, Kavanaugh is saying the courts shouldn't have to decide something Congress should have done in the first place and shouldn't interpret poorly written laws as SCOTUS shouldn't create laws, which in some ways they have.

Whether you agree or not is another matter but that's how I'm seeing their logic and it kinda makes sense.


It only makes sense if you interpret "on the basis of sex" to mean something more narrow than that
 
2020-06-15 12:17:23 PM  

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

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh.  Are you surprised?


I immediately knew that Alito and Thomas were dissenters, but wasn't sure who the third would be.
So, the minimum level of surprise I guess.
 
2020-06-15 12:18:43 PM  

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

/s/ obviously

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

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

No arguments there -- Conservatives hate "Judicial Activism" unless it's their side doing it.


There's an argument to be made, not that that's the one that WAS made..BUT, there IS an argument to be made that it would be better if there were a law, an explicit and of a purpose law, passed by congress to amend Title 7, that called out that it meant not just traditionally understood gender identity but ALL expressions of gender and/or sexual orientation.

That would be clearer, the law more easily enforced and MUCH less easily challenged. It would also put to a vote accessible in public record the positions of all congress-critters regarding this.

With this ruling, we're just going to see a consistent series of attempts to overrule it like the constant onslaught against abortion rights.
 
2020-06-15 12:19:33 PM  

emtwo: 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.


I can see that, because their job is to look at the law as it's written.  But they're making a decision on what's already written, and in a way, redefining it.  He had the opportunity to do so, whether or not he thought that was his job or Congress', and he f*cked it up.

I'm not a law-talkin' gal, so my opinion is that of a mere Fark GED lawyer, and a fierce LBGT ally :)
 
2020-06-15 12:19:43 PM  
Gorsuch and Roberts went against Trump. There is hope for the US yet.
 
2020-06-15 12:19:49 PM  

BMFPitt: 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.

???


Federal laws explicitly mentioned the rights of men and not people.
SCOTUS ruled that men = men + women even though that was not the original intent.
 
2020-06-15 12:20:27 PM  

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?


No, the law created by Congress didn't mention them and that it should have clearly in the first place. It's up to Congress to make amendments and vote on them in addition to laws.
 
2020-06-15 12:21:28 PM  

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

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


He claims he doesn't speak in the court because he has a longstanding insecurity about the way he speaks.  English is not his first language, he grew up speaking Gullah.  He says when he moved to a new place and went to high school where nobody spoke Gullah, he was mocked relentlessly.  So his excuse is that some high school bullies have scarred him.

But it is also BS.  I heard him speak at a private event.  He wasn't shy about talking plenty in front of a friendly crowd.  He has a unique accent, but I doubt RBG is going to use her allotted question time to take potshots at his verbiage and humiliate him.
 
2020-06-15 12:21:33 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Mmmm... nope that's pretty accurate


This is in line with what I remember of reproductive biology. Mammalian females provide an X gamete and males may provide an X or a Y. But if that's your test, you also have to deal with those incapable of providing either, which may be a reason that this is a poor test and a good basis for argument.
 
2020-06-15 12:21:50 PM  

flondrix: 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 image image 660x926]
[Fark user image image 660x926]
[Fark user image image 660x926]

[Fark user image image 660x926][Fark user image image 660x926]
She doesn't appear to have included any of the simultaneous hermaphrodites in her examples, though.  Bummer.


Cuttlefish and fungi are not even vertebrates, let alone mammals. Stop getting your science education tumblr cartoons
 
2020-06-15 12:22:02 PM  

lolmao500: Sidepipes: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.  'Nuff said.

These 3 farks should spend the rest of their lives in prison getting buttfarked.


For what crime?
 
2020-06-15 12:22:48 PM  

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.


Yeah, Thomas' past public comments on this issue were why I was so hopeful that QI might actually get pared down. I thought he might join 4 liberal justices in a decision. (And since, as you say, it only takes 4 to grant cert, It seems like at least *two* of the liberal justices wanted to punt on it.)
 
2020-06-15 12:23:26 PM  

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"


If the law stated 'biological gender' rather than 'sex' in the protected class list then he might have a point.  'Sex' as a protected class is a superset of sexual orientation, gender identity, biological gender, sex actions, and other aspects I am either not thinking of or ignorant of.

What this means is banging in the office is a protected class and you cannot fire someone for 'sex'.
 
2020-06-15 12:23:32 PM  
 
2020-06-15 12:23:45 PM  

flondrix: 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 image 660x926]
[Fark user image 660x926]
[Fark user image 660x926]

[Fark user image 660x926][Fark user image 660x926]
She doesn't appear to have included any of the simultaneous hermaphrodites in her examples, though.  Bummer.


That is wonderful *yoink*

suggest it! (hermaphrodites) although the new cool word is intersex
 
2020-06-15 12:23:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: cameroncrazy1984: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: likefunbutnot: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, science disagrees with your opinion

It certainly does not.

You can believe that if you like, but just know your opinion is not based on facts


It is as a matter of fact
 
2020-06-15 12:23:58 PM  

HumanSVD: 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?

No, the law created by Congress didn't mention them and that it should have clearly in the first place. It's up to Congress to make amendments and vote on them in addition to laws.


Um, discrimination based on sex is the same regardless of the sex. The law would have needed to specifically disinclude certain groups for your assertion to have merits. It did not, therefore that's why scotus ruled the way it did
 
2020-06-15 12:24:01 PM  

KitchenBacon: 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.


Thomas literally believes that blacks were better off under Jim Crow. That's not my claim--that's the conclusion of his biographer, who spent years studying Thomas's life, opinions, family relations, and judicial decisions.

He literally believes that black men descend into laziness and unlawfulness if they aren't oppressed by a firm hand keeping them in line.

He also believes that black women are inherently prone to sexual "looseness," without a dominating black man keeping them in line.

This is what he actually believes. And is what informs both his worldview, and his judicial opinions.
 
2020-06-15 12:24:04 PM  

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

They are not enumerated protected classes.  Legally, it's a lot more of a leap of logic for the 6.


Except they are enumerated protected classes.

It says you cannot be discriminated on grounds of sex.

The Act didn't define sex.

Thus, the question was, for legal purposes when the act itself doesn't specify, do sexual orientation and gender identity count as "sex" for purposes of discrimination.

The answer was yes.

That's not a huge leap of logic.
 
2020-06-15 12:24:22 PM  

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

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

Someone needs to explain to Kavanaugh that, even when dissenting, he's still legislating from the bench.


As are the others?

His ruling is basically saying Congress needs to legislate better.
 
2020-06-15 12:24:48 PM  

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

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


About as clear as the Second Amendment....
 
2020-06-15 12:25:22 PM  

fat_free: No offense, but I can't farking believe you could fire someone for being gay or transgender. "Yo dude, we don't like tailgunners 'round here so GTFO. Sorry, not sorry."

farking really? Really?


Take a cursory look at companies like Hobby Lobby - firing a person for being LGBTQ is precisely something they would do.
 
2020-06-15 12:25:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Straight Outta Hate: cameroncrazy1984: The scotus didn't change any laws though. Discriminating based on sex has always been illegal under that law

Women had no rights whatsoever when the country was founded

"under that law"


I was not referring to that law.
I was referring to precedence from rulings on other laws.
I see this ruling as doing the same thing.
It will arguably give rights to LBTQ people with other laws that have "on the basis of sex".
 
2020-06-15 12:25:44 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: cameroncrazy1984: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: cameroncrazy1984: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: likefunbutnot: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, science disagrees with your opinion

It certainly does not.

You can believe that if you like, but just know your opinion is not based on facts

It is as a matter of fact


No, it's not, but good luck continuing with the attempt because it's hilarious to watch dinosaurs attack the meteor
 
2020-06-15 12:26:10 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: Federal laws explicitly mentioned the rights of men and not people.
SCOTUS ruled that men = men + women even though that was not the original intent.


Do you not know that the 14th Amendment exists?
 
2020-06-15 12:26:12 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Stammering? Where? Go ahead and try making another human between two sperm producers. Objective reality is a biatch


Which wasn't relevant to the post at all.  The conversation was about sexual classification of individuals with varying morphology.  What they can produce through sexual reproduction is separate issue.  If I were to suddenly stop producing sperm, I wouldn't cease to be a straight man.  It wouldn't change my sex, my gender, nor my sexuality.  Nor would finding out I was actually XX.

But if you're switching topics, as of 2010, there have been at least 11 cases of child-producing fertility in true hermaphroditic humans cited in scientific literature.  So yeah, two sperm producing people can product a human.  And have.

Objective reality IS a biatch.
 
2020-06-15 12:26:13 PM  

HumanSVD: Chagrin: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

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

Someone needs to explain to Kavanaugh that, even when dissenting, he's still legislating from the bench.

As are the others?

His ruling is basically saying Congress needs to legislate better.


And he's still wrong
 
2020-06-15 12:26:17 PM  

johnny queso: [YouTube video: Faith No More - A Small Victory (Official Music Video)]positive baby steps

fark you, justice rapey.


There's no substantial evidence he's raped anyone. Ford's testimony was a partisan attempt to just prevent Trump from getting a justice appointed.
 
2020-06-15 12:26:40 PM  

Straight Outta Hate: cameroncrazy1984: Straight Outta Hate: cameroncrazy1984: The scotus didn't change any laws though. Discriminating based on sex has always been illegal under that law

Women had no rights whatsoever when the country was founded

"under that law"

I was not referring to that law.
I was referring to precedence from rulings on other laws.
I see this ruling as doing the same thing.
It will arguably give rights to LBTQ people with other laws that have "on the basis of sex".


Ok but I was and you responded as if I hadn't said "under that law
 
2020-06-15 12:26:40 PM  

kasmel: There's an argument to be made, not that that's the one that WAS made..BUT, there IS an argument to be made that it would be better if there were a law, an explicit and of a purpose law, passed by congress to amend Title 7, that called out that it meant not just traditionally understood gender identity but ALL expressions of gender and/or sexual orientation.

That would be clearer, the law more easily enforced and MUCH less easily challenged. It would also put to a vote accessible in public record the positions of all congress-critters regarding this.

With this ruling, we're just going to see a consistent series of attempts to overrule it like the constant onslaught against abortion rights.



I disagree.  You *don't* want a list of specific things you can't discriminate against.  That invites a legal morass.

I don't think we'd be the same nation if Thomas Jefferson had wrote "All men are created equal. . .except Negros and women at this time"

It's important to make statements about equality. . . and then let society catch up to it.  We don't need or want an exhaustive list of everything we can't discriminate on updated on our whims at the time.   Stating all classes of people have to follow the same rules is far better, clearer, and consistent with our values.  And it's why laws are written the way they are.
 
2020-06-15 12:27:12 PM  

BMFPitt: Straight Outta Hate: Federal laws explicitly mentioned the rights of men and not people.
SCOTUS ruled that men = men + women even though that was not the original intent.

Do you not know that the 14th Amendment exists?


He has reading comprehension issues
 
2020-06-15 12:27:46 PM  

HumanSVD: johnny queso: [YouTube video: Faith No More - A Small Victory (Official Music Video)]positive baby steps

fark you, justice rapey.

There's no substantial evidence he's raped anyone. Ford's testimony was a partisan attempt to just prevent Trump from getting a justice appointed.


Interesting that you used "substantial"
 
2020-06-15 12:28:24 PM  

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


Roberts is a bushiate liberal.
 
2020-06-15 12:30:57 PM  

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 agree on the intent of the law. They probably could very think very well LGTBQ peopke are freaks and deviants for all we know.  But it's obvious what Congress intended to do and they ruled as such.
 
2020-06-15 12:31:02 PM  

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

/s/ obviously

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

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

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

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

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


I found it interesting that Gorsuck's opinion stated something to the effect of, "of course nobody intended this when it was written". I wonder if that is laying any groundwork. Seems unnecessary.
 
2020-06-15 12:31:40 PM  

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


Thomas still relies on that sweet sweet lobbying money from his wife, Kavanaugh has blackmail material that keeps him in line and Alito doesn't give a fark about the constitution.
 
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.