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 1:25:34 PM  
Republicans lose again. Good. Maybe you guys should start your own country on an island somewhere. Or another planet.
 
2020-06-15 1:25:50 PM  

tyyreaunn: DarnoKonrad: 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.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to explain to anyone here that the CRA's original interpretation didn't include LGBT rights, as interpreted by the courts and the public at large.

But, if you're convinced your interpretation is correct, then explain this: the CRA passed in 1964.  If it always included LGBT rights, then how come it took 50 years for lawsuits claiming violations of the CRA due to LGBT issues to start winning in courts?


Just because it was interpreted wrong doesn't mean it wasn't always there. "on the basis of sex" is pretty broad
 
2020-06-15 1:28:07 PM  

tyyreaunn: But, if you're convinced your interpretation is correct, then explain this: the CRA passed in 1964. If it always included LGBT rights, then how come it took 50 years for lawsuits claiming violations of the CRA due to LGBT issues to start winning in courts?


For the same reason it took decades for blacks to get protection of laws that were supposed to cover everyone from as far back as the 1870s.  If you can't get the courts to stand on how laws apply equally to everyone, it often takes a lot of fighting to get there.
 
2020-06-15 1:29:23 PM  

ViolentEastCoastCity: 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 :)


In this case, I disagree that it is being "redefined." Nothing is being redefined; they simply took the plain written text that was already there and followed it to the only inevitable logical conclusion.
 
2020-06-15 1:31:16 PM  

RussianPotato: I have to read the opinion, but I don't see how this fits in with the intent of the legislators who passed Title VII back decades ago.  Legislative intent is the polestar that guides all cases interpreting a statute.  If you had asked the legislators way back when if they were voting to protect gay and transgender people I doubt you would've gotten more than 1 "yes."


Yup, you pretty much have to actively ignore what Congress meant the law to mean to support this ruling.

IMHO, it's the right thing to do, on a moral level, and also a bad ruling, on a legal level.  The proper way to do this, on a legal basis, is to pass a new law.  Of course, given the current make up of the Senate, that's impossible currently.
 
2020-06-15 1:32:08 PM  
I am grateful to see this ruling, and it is my hope that it is used as precedent for interpreting Title IX and the 14th Amendment.
 
2020-06-15 1:32:57 PM  

Rwa2play: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: 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.

So are you

[Fark user image 512x288]



Why are so many people responding to the Nazi apologist in this thread?
 
2020-06-15 1:36:25 PM  

mithras_angel: Rwa2play: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: 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.

So are you

[Fark user image 512x288]


Why are so many people responding to the Nazi apologist in this thread?


Know what any social media site can become

Because we have lurkers
Because we have casual viewers
Because (metaphorically) punching a Nazi is what we do
 
2020-06-15 1:38:16 PM  

tyyreaunn: DarnoKonrad: 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.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to explain to anyone here that the CRA's original interpretation didn't include LGBT rights, as interpreted by the courts and the public at large.

But, if you're convinced your interpretation is correct, then explain this: the CRA passed in 1964.  If it always included LGBT rights, then how come it took 50 years for lawsuits claiming violations of the CRA due to LGBT issues to start winning in courts?


The courts are generally pretty slow. The fourteenth amendment was adopted in 1868 and it took:

99 years for courts to recognize that it protected interracial couples from anti miscegenation laws.

135 years for courts to recognize that it guaranteed the rights people to not be arrested for engaging in homosexual activities.

148 years for courts to recognize that it protected the rights of gay people to marry.
 
2020-06-15 1:38:42 PM  

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


It reverses it, because the Obama Administration was reading the law like the court just ruled.
 
2020-06-15 1:40:11 PM  
Just finished reading through the rulings.

The only thing better than Gorsuch's crystal-clear majority opinion is the absolutely tortured, psychotic, "ends justify any means necessary" Alito/Thomas dissent that just plain abandons any attempt at cohesive legal reasoning in favor of the legal equivalent of a "@&#%NOYOU!!!" Temper tantrum of rage at the modern world itself. Strict constructionism? Plain-text reading? Bwah. They just pull the masks away from their own faces to show the monster underneath. The dry rot at the foundations of conservative legal theory where they find the need to insist that a law does not mean what it clearly says and instead means the absolute of that.
 
2020-06-15 1:41:31 PM  

RussianPotato: I have to read the opinion, but I don't see how this fits in with the intent of the legislators who passed Title VII back decades ago.  Legislative intent is the polestar that guides all cases interpreting a statute.  If you had asked the legislators way back when if they were voting to protect gay and transgender people I doubt you would've gotten more than 1 "yes."


The legislative intent was to stop legal discrimination against vulnerable populations. That protecting vulnerable populations included groups that weren't on the political radar of the time isn't really relevant to the spirit and intent of the law itself.
 
2020-06-15 1:42:50 PM  

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.


Well I think they still should pass the Equality Act as a secondary measure.
 
2020-06-15 1:43:33 PM  

GregInIndy: Just finished reading through the rulings.

The only thing better than Gorsuch's crystal-clear majority opinion is the absolutely tortured, psychotic, "ends justify any means necessary" Alito/Thomas dissent that just plain abandons any attempt at cohesive legal reasoning in favor of the legal equivalent of a "@&#%NOYOU!!!" Temper tantrum of rage at the modern world itself. Strict constructionism? Plain-text reading? Bwah. They just pull the masks away from their own faces to show the monster underneath. The dry rot at the foundations of conservative legal theory where they find the need to insist that a law does not mean what it clearly says and instead means the absolute of that.


YES

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_in_​N​azi_Germany#Legal_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_​F​reisler
 
2020-06-15 1:44:49 PM  

Geotpf: RussianPotato: I have to read the opinion, but I don't see how this fits in with the intent of the legislators who passed Title VII back decades ago.  Legislative intent is the polestar that guides all cases interpreting a statute.  If you had asked the legislators way back when if they were voting to protect gay and transgender people I doubt you would've gotten more than 1 "yes."

Yup, you pretty much have to actively ignore what Congress meant the law to mean to support this ruling.

IMHO, it's the right thing to do, on a moral level, and also a bad ruling, on a legal level.  The proper way to do this, on a legal basis, is to pass a new law.  Of course, given the current make up of the Senate, that's impossible currently.


It's a logical conclusion from the plain text of what Congress passed. If their intent differed significantly from the wording of the law they passed, they should've worded it better.
 
2020-06-15 1:46:55 PM  

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.


And he's right.  The nine SCJ's interpret, not make, laws. It's a meaningless decision anyway.  If I want to fire someone, I just fire them.  I just don't tell them it's because they wear high heels and a boa to a construction site.
 
2020-06-15 1:47:30 PM  

Cornelis de Gyselaer: That is wonderful *yoink*

suggest it! (hermaphrodites) although the new cool word is intersex


Intersex is the word for humans with ambiguous sexual characteristics.  Hermaphrodite is the biological term for living things that function reproductively as both male and female, whether at the same time like snails, a month apart like clams, or changing sex only once in their life and not changing back like some fish.  There are no human hermaphrodites.
 
2020-06-15 1:47:31 PM  
As long as I can still fire vegans, who the hell cares?
 
2020-06-15 1:48:01 PM  

tyyreaunn: CRA's original interpretation didn't include LGBT rights



The original intent was to stop employers from holding male and female employees to unequal standards.  It still does even if you don't like the full implication of what that means.


This is as air tight as any thing ever adjudicated, and the dissenting opinions are as cowardly and dishonest as Dred Scott was in ignoring the plain letter of the law.
 
2020-06-15 1:48:10 PM  

eagles95: Roberts was with the 6? Is it because it's Monday and his asshole meter isn't totally filled up yet?


I think he is looking at his legacy right now. They screwed up on Campaign Finance, made companies people with the Hobby Lobby decision and screwed up some other parts of the law.

The only real progress they have made is on LGBTQ rights, so maybe he wanted to keep that streak going...
 
2020-06-15 1:48:12 PM  

mithras_angel: Rwa2play: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: 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.

So are you

[Fark user image 512x288]


Why are so many people responding to the Nazi apologist in this thread?


Because occasionally you can get to this point, where you've so thoroughly discredited a perspective (shared by many millions) with actual science.  Doesn't happen often, because typically the arguments are based on general theories of governance and ethics, not science.

He's argued over and over for a binary view of sex, and it's been smashed hard enough that he really doesn't have anywhere else to go besides "no, I'm right" while avoiding responding to any of the very specific facts that completely dismantle his argument.
 
2020-06-15 1:50:48 PM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: it's pretty obvious, right? Title VII in no way covers sexual preference or LARPing preference.


Wrong. If a LARP group was hiring a secretary. It would certainly apply if it was a employee situation. However Title VII also exempts theater companies etc from hiring/not hiring based on sex and other jobs that are based on the face of it on sex, for example an all girls baseball team, or strippers, or hooters waitress (tho private club rules apply there).
 
2020-06-15 1:50:58 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: 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.

So are you


As a lawyer who studied molecular genetics and developmental biology in undergrad... you need to stop. Human biology is incredibly complex and prone to weirdness, and that extends to sex determination. If you tell any biologist that a human with XY sex chromosomes identifies as a female, they won't bat an eye. There are several known ways in which that is known to occur, including damage to the Y chromosome or an unlikely crossover event where the genes responsible for triggering maleness are just not there anymore. That's not even getting into issues with epigenetic effects on the fetus or genetic, hormonal, or other conditions present in the mother that may have an effect on a person's development. None of those things takes a way the humanity of the child, but might very well have effects on the sexual identity or expression or identity of the child later on.

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.
 
2020-06-15 1:51:45 PM  

mithras_angel: Rwa2play: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: 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.

So are you

[Fark user image 512x288]


Why are so many people responding to the Nazi apologist in this thread?


Because there are a frightening number of people who believe the same out of date, childishly simplistic nonsense that individual was posting, and often its because they never took the relevant science courses to understand why that belief is wrong.

Correcting that with new information won't fix a bigot like the person we were responding to, but the genuinely curious might take it upon themselves to look into it after being presented with the new data.
 
2020-06-15 1:52:47 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.


But the point is it doesn't require collapsing sex and gender into a single category at all. The point is sex and gender are two different categories, and you can't discriminate with regards to how those two categories intersect:

If sex=female and gender=woman, then OK
But
If sex=male or sex=intersex and gender=woman, then not OK

And if sex=male and gender=man, then OK,
But if sex=female or sex=intersex and gender=male, then not OK,

Then the category being discriminated against is sex, not gender.
 
2020-06-15 1:54:02 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 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


By citing "100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction" you broadened the field quite a bit.
 
2020-06-15 1:56:11 PM  

Persnickety: Gorsuch is clearly not what conservatives were expecting.


This was the case that would prove if he really was a "Textualist" or just using that as cover for the standard conservative reactionary opinions. It would appear he actually is textualist.

This means he would almost undoubtedly vote to overturn Roe, however, which is the big prize the right wing wants.
 
2020-06-15 1:58:11 PM  

flondrix: Cornelis de Gyselaer: That is wonderful *yoink*

suggest it! (hermaphrodites) although the new cool word is intersex

Intersex is the word for humans with ambiguous sexual characteristics.  Hermaphrodite is the biological term for living things that function reproductively as both male and female, whether at the same time like snails, a month apart like clams, or changing sex only once in their life and not changing back like some fish.  There are no human hermaphrodites.


It's rare, but the development of active/fertile ovotestes (the sexual organs of hermaphrodites) in humans has been documented.
 
2020-06-15 2:00:14 PM  

likefunbutnot: 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.


Because people can be infertile (though birth, accident or disease, etc) does not invalidate the fact that sexual reproduction is a specific function and you need 2 specific cells to function. Infertility and intersex conditions do not mean they arent people.
 
2020-06-15 2:01:02 PM  

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

/s/ obviously

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

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

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


If Democrats took both Chambers and Biden won it was on his first 100 days list.
 
2020-06-15 2:01:36 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Intersex conditions dont invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. To procreate, you need 2 sexes with 2 very specific gametes


Never underestimate the genetic advantage of a rich gay uncle.
 
2020-06-15 2:03:20 PM  
How long before Trump tweets his disappointment?

I still say folks wanting to be called "they"
will have a hard time in the workplace, if its not at a college
 
2020-06-15 2:03:20 PM  

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


They already do. Airport men's room, waiting lounge level, third stall over.
 
2020-06-15 2:05:38 PM  

mithras_angel: Ben Shapiro is having a tiny little shiat fit.


BEN SHAPIRO DESTROYS his undies with a huge load.
 
2020-06-15 2:07:04 PM  
Not firing people for their orientation or gender?
media.tenor.comView Full Size


/Fundies: stop trying to penalize and persecute anyone who doesn't hold with what you do.
//Treat each other with kindness and respect
///that's the no brainer
 
2020-06-15 2:07:47 PM  

tyyreaunn: DarnoKonrad: 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.

Yeah, I'm not going to bother trying to explain to anyone here that the CRA's original interpretation didn't include LGBT rights, as interpreted by the courts and the public at large.

But, if you're convinced your interpretation is correct, then explain this: the CRA passed in 1964.  If it always included LGBT rights, then how come it took 50 years for lawsuits claiming violations of the CRA due to LGBT issues to start winning in courts?


As Gorsuch has pointed out before when talking about his jurisprudence, the Constitution's restriction of cruel and unusual punishment doesn't apply only to those punishments that existed at the time of ratification and can apply to things that weren't even considered at the time. Just because lasers didn't exist then doesn't mean you can cause horrendous pain and suffering to a suspect using a laser and say "We can do it! Originalism!" Likewise courts have noted that despite smartphones not existing in the late 18th century, police still need a warrant to search yours under the 4th Amendment.

His argument is quite simple. If someone fires a man for marrying a man and would not fire a woman for marrying a man, the only thing that changes in that scenario is the sex of one of the people involved.
 
2020-06-15 2:09:46 PM  

Murkanen: flondrix: Cornelis de Gyselaer: That is wonderful *yoink*

suggest it! (hermaphrodites) although the new cool word is intersex

Intersex is the word for humans with ambiguous sexual characteristics.  Hermaphrodite is the biological term for living things that function reproductively as both male and female, whether at the same time like snails, a month apart like clams, or changing sex only once in their life and not changing back like some fish.  There are no human hermaphrodites.

It's rare, but the development of active/fertile ovotestes (the sexual organs of hermaphrodites) in humans has been documented.


Producing both ova and spermatozoa?  I don't suppose anyone has tested them for viability?

That would be incredible, if true.  The next hurdle would be a functioning uterus.
Throw in some sailor-themed school uniforms and whole genre of Japanese porn could become reality.
 
2020-06-15 2:09:48 PM  

Geotpf: RussianPotato: I have to read the opinion, but I don't see how this fits in with the intent of the legislators who passed Title VII back decades ago.  Legislative intent is the polestar that guides all cases interpreting a statute.  If you had asked the legislators way back when if they were voting to protect gay and transgender people I doubt you would've gotten more than 1 "yes."

Yup, you pretty much have to actively ignore what Congress meant the law to mean to support this ruling.

IMHO, it's the right thing to do, on a moral level, and also a bad ruling, on a legal level.  The proper way to do this, on a legal basis, is to pass a new law.  Of course, given the current make up of the Senate, that's impossible currently.


100% wrong.
 
2020-06-15 2:13:48 PM  
Trump tweeted LAW & ORDER! again. Good to see he supports SCOTUS.
 
2020-06-15 2:17:02 PM  

optikeye: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Intersex conditions dont invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. To procreate, you need 2 sexes with 2 very specific gametes

Never underestimate the genetic advantage of a rich gay uncle.


The problem is that while there are genetic advantages to having a rich gay uncle, there are no genetic advantages to being a rich gay uncle instead of, say, a formerly rich dirty old straight guy with crippling child support payments.

There is a theory that epigenetics may cause families to spit out a gay uncle late in the birth order, but I don't know how solid that claim is.
 
2020-06-15 2:17:55 PM  

dywed88: The courts are generally pretty slow. The fourteenth amendment was adopted in 1868 and it took:

99 years for courts to recognize that it protected interracial couples from anti miscegenation laws.

135 years for courts to recognize that it guaranteed the rights people to not be arrested for engaging in homosexual activities.

148 years for courts to recognize that it protected the rights of gay people to marry.


142 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonal​d​_v._City_of_Chicago
 
2020-06-15 2:18:29 PM  
I read much of the article, and though I am thrilled with the outcome, I do understand where the dissent is coming from. It's not simply from homophobia, but due to the interpretation of the law itself. The issue comes from interpretation of the word "sex" in the Civil Rights Act to extend to "orientation." While without question this should mean that protections extend to trans individuals, as written, I'm not too sure if this could extend to LGB individuals.

That said, if the Civil Rights Act is taken in tandem with the Fourteenth Amendment, then by default it should definitely extend to LGB individuals as well. If that is what founded the majority's decision, then the article appears to have left it out. At the very least, this case does highlight a possible blind spot of the Civil Rights Act, and "and/or orientation" should be added to the law to ensure that another Supreme Court cannot overturn this decision.
 
2020-06-15 2:19:08 PM  

flondrix: Hermaphrodite is the biological term for living things that function reproductively as both male and female, whether at the same time like snails, a month apart like clams, or changing sex only once in their life and not changing back like some fish.  There are no human hermaphrodites.


Theoretically possible if combined with mosaicism.
 
2020-06-15 2:19:22 PM  

This text is now purple: dywed88: The courts are generally pretty slow. The fourteenth amendment was adopted in 1868 and it took:

99 years for courts to recognize that it protected interracial couples from anti miscegenation laws.

135 years for courts to recognize that it guaranteed the rights people to not be arrested for engaging in homosexual activities.

148 years for courts to recognize that it protected the rights of gay people to marry.

142 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald​_v._City_of_Chicago


When was the 14th amendment officially applied to sex discrimination?
 
2020-06-15 2:22:35 PM  

BigGrnEggGriller: And he's right.  The nine SCJ's interpret, not make, laws. It's a meaningless decision anyway.  If I want to fire someone, I just fire them.  I just don't tell them it's because they wear high heels and a boa to a construction site.


No, no, it's quite meaningful. You should read the opinion because the specific cases at play highlight exactly how such firings for being gay happen.

The lead plaintiff was well-documented as a fantastic employee for years & years only to clearly have that flipped on its head to create a paper cause to fire him after his employer found out he was on a gay softball league.

He's great, his boss finds out he's gay, he's fired.

You try and pull that "I have no reason, you're just fired." Crap with that kind of chronology and you will get totally screwed in court by any canned employee with a halfway decent attorney. They've dealt with this before for decades with people finding out an employee's Jewish, or Muslim, etc. It's old hat.
 
2020-06-15 2:24:15 PM  

carkiller: But the point is it doesn't require collapsing sex and gender into a single category at all. The point is sex and gender are two different categories, and you can't discriminate with regards to how those two categories intersect:


Soule et al v. Connecticut Association of Schools, Inc. et al
Sometimes the suit is about the intersection of those two categories.

Both are citing Title IX for their protection. Both cannot be right.
 
2020-06-15 2:29:32 PM  
The Alito/Thomas dissent's just rage. Pure anger. I love it. They have nothing to stand on. Their own principles of plain-text "what does the law say" legal interpretation are used against them and they're cornered like rats.

Kavanaugh's is dumb. And wrong. The court's entirely correct to rule here. Lower courts were all over the place and there was a body of law that needed authoritative interpretation. He's 8 to 1 on that score. Such a cop-out.

And what's he want? Invalidate Title VII entirely and ask Congress to eventually replace it with something clearer for him? Bullpucky. They've passed laws. Interpret them already, bud.
 
2020-06-15 2:29:35 PM  
Farkin' excellent!  So nice to hear some really good news these days.

Now, how do we get rid of these farks?

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
 
2020-06-15 2:31:49 PM  
In 100 years, maybe.

Maaaayyybeeee we can have nice things.
 
2020-06-15 2:32:13 PM  

Error 482: Geotpf: RussianPotato: I have to read the opinion, but I don't see how this fits in with the intent of the legislators who passed Title VII back decades ago.  Legislative intent is the polestar that guides all cases interpreting a statute.  If you had asked the legislators way back when if they were voting to protect gay and transgender people I doubt you would've gotten more than 1 "yes."

Yup, you pretty much have to actively ignore what Congress meant the law to mean to support this ruling.

IMHO, it's the right thing to do, on a moral level, and also a bad ruling, on a legal level.  The proper way to do this, on a legal basis, is to pass a new law.  Of course, given the current make up of the Senate, that's impossible currently.

It's a logical conclusion from the plain text of what Congress passed. If their intent differed significantly from the wording of the law they passed, they should've worded it better.


The plain text meaning in 1964when it was passed?  There is zero chance that Congress meant to protect the rights of gays or transgender people in 1964, nor did they imagine that their wording would be found to mean that more than 50 years later.

The Supremes do this all the time, of course.  The most famous "making stuff up out of thin air" is Roe v. Wade.  Of course, on the pure evil side of this, is "Qualified Immunity", which prevents victims of police violence from suing the officers personally, even if they blatantly violated rights and are found guilty of such.  Again, they made up "Qualified Immunity" pretty much out of thin air-and refused to overturn it in a case in this very huge case dump today.
 
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.