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 2:33:52 PM  

dywed88: 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.


Unfortunately, the courts are tasked with interpreting the law - the law is what they say it is.  You might disagree with what they say, but for practical purposes that doesn't really help anyone on the wrong side of the interpretation.  If the courts don't interpret the 14th to allow for interracial marriage, then even if you disagree it's still illegal for you to marry someone of another race.

The solution is to 1) wait for the courts to change their interpretation, or 2) let Congress pass new laws specifically overriding the courts' interpretation.  If the court rules the 14th doesn't allow interracial marriage, Congress can pass a law specifically allowing it, and problem solved (unless that law happens to be unconstitutional for whatever reason).  I personally believe that was the original intent of the Constitutional process - Congress should fix whatever is wrong with the country, not the courts.

For practical purposes, the CRA did not protect LGBT individuals until the Supreme Court started changing their interpretation over the past decade or so.  Whether that's just is a different issue.  Whether the original intent meant to cover LGBT issues doesn't really matter - the courts said it didn't, and Congress never passed an updated CRA specifying that LGBT issues are included.

Saying the courts interpreted it incorrectly for 50 years doesn't really help the people who didn't enjoy CRA protection for LGBT issues for those 50 years.  Even if they were always meant to have those protections, they didn't have them on an enforceable Federal basis - that's a simple, unfortunate historical truth.

I'm happy the Supreme Court is now updating their interpretations based on modern norms, and expanding the group of people who can enjoy CRA protections as enforced by the US court system.  I'd be happier if Congress passed new laws specifically including LGBT issues under the CRA, so that conservatives can't say it's judicial activism.

Legal precedent doesn't override legislation - if the Supreme Court says the CRA protects LGBT rights, Congress can pass an updated CRA specifically excluding LGBT issues from protection.  Since the CRA isn't part of the Constitution, such an amendment would probably be consider constitutional (it might be challenged under the Equal Protection clause - I'm not sure if that would work).

An updated CRA with specific inclusion of LGBT issues would be a lot more durable.  Sure, it could be repealed by a future Republican Congress, but practically speaking it's hard for lawmakers to remove rights already granted - there'd be a lot more backlash.  That's part of the reason the ACA has stuck around, despite every Republican ever promising to repeal it.
 
2020-06-15 2:33:55 PM  

Bermuda59: I'm sure Trump was tickled

Ivanka's pink when he heard this
 
2020-06-15 2:33:55 PM  

flondrix: 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.


IT's not all about you flondrix.
 
2020-06-15 2:34:17 PM  

vudukungfu: In 100 years, maybe.

Maaaayyybeeee we can have nice things.


I'm not sure about 100 years, but Trump and the GOP have done so much to set us back in these four years that it's going to take a long time to just get back to where to were and then move forward.  They haven't been conservative (big duh), they've been regressive as fark.
 
2020-06-15 2:36:03 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.


Really as a librarian I find this important
Every time I look up hermaphrodite or look at literature on the subject the alternative (preferred word) seems to be intersex but -- yes it's humans not other species

Thank you
 
2020-06-15 2:36:44 PM  

G. Tarrant: 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.


That analogy doesn't really apply in this case.  Lasers and smartphones didn't exist in the 18th century; LGBT issues did exist in the 1960s.  It's not a new thing in the 2010s that Courts needed to decide how to handle using existing laws - they had 50 years to decide the CRA applied to LGBT issues, but didn't until recently.
 
2020-06-15 2:39:00 PM  
People shouldn't be fired for being gay or trans, they(people) should be fired for being shiatty workers.
 
2020-06-15 2:41:45 PM  

Eclectic: To the posters who come into every trans-related thread to throw an absolute fit about chromosomes and what you learned in ninth grade biology, could you maybe just go smoke a giant bowl to distract yourself, and let ALL the LBGTQ+ people celebrate some positive news?

Or at least read the room and maybe figure out that being "that person" isn't a good look right here and now.

Everybody under the rainbow can breathe a little easier today, but you're determined to not only be the turds in the punchbowl, but you're f*cking proud of your own asshattery.


I thought about mentioning you personally in another thread where i wanted to congratulate people
So here you are!

I'm really happy for you it's about goddamn time
 
2020-06-15 2:42:49 PM  

Electrify: 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.


Sex and sexual orientations re directly linked.

At first glance people look at this case as a man who farks women being treated differently than a man who farks men, a case of discrimination based on sexual orientation but not necessarily sex on the face of it. However there is a second way to look at the case.

If a woman who farks men is favoured over a man who farks men we are now much more comfortably into a case of discrimination based on sex because the man is being told he will be fired for doing something a similarly situated woman is allowed to do.
 
2020-06-15 2:44:15 PM  
flondrix:


Here is a thing, take a look

That goes for everyone here LC thinks it's important to index correctly and not be insulting in the process

http://id.loc.gov/authorities/demogra​p​hicTerms/dg2016060025.html
 
2020-06-15 2:44:17 PM  

Herbie555: Wowza. Pleased as punch about the results, slightly shocked at the 6-3 split.

Happy Pride Month, everyone!


I used to work at a gay club (a pooll out back).  I'm straight but no one cared. Looking back, it's probably the best gig I ever had. $300 a shift, and often more. Whenever there was a Pride event I'm not only having fun, but am making $600. Those were brutal shifts on my feet and cuts on my hands, bit it was so much fun. And yes, I was the token straight guy, lol.

The only reason they hired me is bc my resume included some of the busiest, ball-busting gigs in the city. You should've seen this club. At anytime I had 6 blenders running while trying to eat a sammiches on a 12hr shift. It was awesome.
 
2020-06-15 2:44:42 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.


In Judicial interpretation, Rule #1 is there IS no such thing as "the intent of the legislators"  because they are not a single person or of a single mind thus  it is a hypothetical and ultimately unknowable thing. Senator A who wrote the bill may have MEANT X, and said so in writing , but Senator B. May have VOTED for it because he read it as meaning Y....and so on an so forth for all 435 people who voted on it. Ergo, all you can interpret is the plain meaning of what they wrote. In this case they said you may not discriminate on account of sex (gender) Ergo, If you would not fire a female employee for dating or marrying a man you  may not fire a male employee for that. ipso facto.
 
2020-06-15 2:48:13 PM  

Electrify: The issue comes from interpretation of the word "sex" in the Civil Rights Act to extend to "orientation."


That's not what's happening.
 
2020-06-15 2:49:15 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 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


Still avoiding the avalanche of posts showing you that those specific cells don't come exclusively from one of two distinct sexed organisms, I see.
 
2020-06-15 2:50:01 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 2:50:29 PM  

flondrix: 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.


The genetic advantage of a rich gay uncle over the deadbeat dad is approximately the inverse of the infant mortality rate.

If nobody is starving to death, the deadbeat dad has a much higher fitness level, as described in the documentary Idiocracy.  Otherwise, a rich gay uncle (or, more specifically, having your 4th or 5th kid be rich and gay vs. an additional breeder) might have a slight edge.
 
2020-06-15 2:52:25 PM  

Geotpf: 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.


If I say "assault is illegal," and you then spend 60 years arguing "punching someone in the face isn't assault," it would not be reinterpreting or changing the law in any way for the SCOTUS to overturn you and declare, "yes, punching someone in the face is assault." There would be no need for a legislative act to change my law so it says, "assault and punching someone in the face are illegal."

That's what's happening here. Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is, definitively and unequivocally, discrimination based on sex. There is no reinterpretation required, nor is the definition of anything being expanded. They're just saying that you can no longer get away with violating the law that was already written.
 
2020-06-15 2:52:25 PM  

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


Im guessing its in the dissenting opinion if you wanted to go read it.  I mean, I know that's harder than just assuming bigotry, but its an option.
 
2020-06-15 2:53:18 PM  
"Even idiosyncratic criteria are permitted; if an employer thinks that Scorpios make bad employees, the employer can refuse to hire Scorpios," Alito wrote.
If  astrology is at least a quasi-religious belief system, wouldn't firing somebody for your own religious beliefs also be a violation of Title VII?
 
2020-06-15 2:54:03 PM  

dickfreckle: I used to work at a gay club (a pooll out back).  I'm straight but no one cared. Looking back, it's probably the best gig I ever had. $300 a shift, and often more. Whenever there was a Pride event I'm not only having fun, but am making $600. Those were brutal shifts on my feet and cuts on my hands, bit it was so much fun. And yes, I was the token straight guy, lol.

The only reason they hired me is bc my resume included some of the busiest, ball-busting gigs in the city. You should've seen this club. At anytime I had 6 blenders running while trying to eat a sammiches on a 12hr shift. It was awesome.


Dude.  Stop putting your hands in the blender.
 
2020-06-15 2:54:10 PM  

flondrix: 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?


1964, by the Civil RIghts act of 1964. Sec 5 of the 14th : "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. "

CRA '64 was said "appropriate legislation".   An IF we are going by Original intent, the language "on account of sex"  was added as a "poison pill" intended to kill the legislation by those opposed to it, as they were SURE that NOBODY would be crazy enough to vote for THAT.

They did however, and the bill becae law.   This si why arguing "original intent" is a fool's exercise and intellectually dishonest when approaching a law.
 
2020-06-15 2:55:57 PM  
This was the wrong decision.  With this kind of logic, it could make having different dress codes for men and women illegal.
 
2020-06-15 2:56:48 PM  

Chuck87: This was the wrong decision.  With this kind of logic, it could make having different dress codes for men and women illegal.


As it should be.
 
2020-06-15 3:00:07 PM  

shut_it_down: 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.


You are confusing morphology with function.
 
2020-06-15 3:00:19 PM  

GregInIndy: 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.


Beer bro only said that, because he didn't want to piss Trump off. Plus, he is stupid, years of drinking shiatty beer will do that to you.
 
2020-06-15 3:02:46 PM  

Magorn: 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.

In Judicial interpretation, Rule #1 is there IS no such thing as "the intent of the legislators"  because they are not a single person or of a single mind thus  it is a hypothetical and ultimately unknowable thing. Senator A who wrote the bill may have MEANT X, and said so in writing , but Senator B. May have VOTED for it because he read it as meaning Y....and so on an so forth for all 435 people who voted on it. Ergo, all you can interpret is the plain meaning of what they wrote. In this case they said you may not discriminate on account of sex (gender) Ergo, If you would not fire a female employee for dating or marrying a man you  may not fire a male employee for that. ipso facto.


Expressed legislative intent gets considered and has merit, but it is always always ALWAYS subordinate to the literal meaning of the text.

The majority opinion addresses that directly.
 
2020-06-15 3:03:29 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 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

Still avoiding the avalanche of posts showing you that those specific cells don't come exclusively from one of two distinct sexed organisms, I see.


If you have something to add, I'll respond
 
2020-06-15 3:10:33 PM  

Chuck87: This was the wrong decision.  With this kind of logic, it could make having different dress codes for men and women illegal.


1) What is wrong with the decision?

2) What is wrong with uniform dress codes for all employees?
 
2020-06-15 3:15:33 PM  

dywed88: Chuck87: This was the wrong decision.  With this kind of logic, it could make having different dress codes for men and women illegal.

1) What is wrong with the decision?

2) What is wrong with uniform dress codes for all employees?


It makes him sad
 
2020-06-15 3:21:14 PM  

Serious Black: NotThatGuyAgain: Destructor: Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?

I've actually seen it happen, although of course it wasn't the 'official' reason for termination.  The reality of it is that if management wants you gone, no matter how valid or invalid the reason, they'll find a way.

Pick two demographics and I've seen people from demographic A unfairly fire people from demographic B.

Pick one demographic and I've seen people from that demographic unfairly protect people from that demographic.

/Life isn't fair.

A white teacher in KC won a lawsuit alleging a black principal racially discriminated against her. She won $4.3 million in her lawsuit.


I'm not surprised at all and I'm glad she won.

Here's a local case where I can't WAIT to see this black woman kick the ever lovin' shiat out of the Buford, Ga school system.  https://www.ajc.com/news/loc​al/judge-s​ays-discrimation-case-against-buford-s​chools-should-trial/F5payhQa63rTgyXUCB​j2qI/

The person identified as Hamby in Ingram's lawsuit can be heard saying, "(Expletive) that (n-word). I'll kill these (expletive) - shoot that (expletive) if they'd let me. All right. Well, check out what's going on with all these (n-word) out here."

During the conversations, the person identified as Hamby used a racial epithet eight times, at one time describing African Americans as "deadbeat (n-word)." <-
In fairness to the truth, that part isn't quite accurate.  He said deadbeat ******s but he never said all African-Amercans are.

Surprisingly, the incident barely made national news.  They had a recording of the freakin Superintendent of Schools saying those things, the head of the city confirmed it was him, and it barely garnered any attention outside of the ATL Metro area.  A cut and dry example of racism, no two ways about it, nothing anyone can argue, and it went...nowhere.

/Must have been squelched by the conservatives running the media
//Wait, what?
 
2020-06-15 3:21:48 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 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.


Your binary construction does not appear to take this in to account. You've put forth no argument to deal with the many cases outside the binary. I'm glad you've finally made the concession that intermediate expression is possible, but now you need to explain how your binary construction of biological sex is still possible in spite of many examples to the contrary, both as a matter of law and of genetics.
 
2020-06-15 3:22:56 PM  

GregInIndy: Magorn: 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.

In Judicial interpretation, Rule #1 is there IS no such thing as "the intent of the legislators"  because they are not a single person or of a single mind thus  it is a hypothetical and ultimately unknowable thing. Senator A who wrote the bill may have MEANT X, and said so in writing , but Senator B. May have VOTED for it because he read it as meaning Y....and so on an so forth for all 435 people who voted on it. Ergo, all you can interpret is the plain meaning of what they wrote. In this case they said you may not discriminate on account of sex (gender) Ergo, If you would not fire a female employee for dating or marrying a man you  may not fire a male employee for that. ipso facto.

Expressed legislative intent gets considered and has merit, but it is always always ALWAYS subordinate to the literal meaning of the text.

The majority opinion addresses that directly.


Right. and Expressed Legislative Intent is generally in the preamble of the Public law itself, so it's an actually part of the law.
 
2020-06-15 3:23:33 PM  

flondrix: there are no genetic advantages to being a rich gay uncle


Eusocial insects like ants, bees, and termites have non-progeny-producing family members in ASTONISHING numbers, and this was the key to their success.
 
2020-06-15 3:24:44 PM  

Invisible Obama: thaylin: Myrdinn: Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?

According to the dissent they though congress needed to amend the law to add sub classes of sexes to not be discriminated against apparently.

Yup, the dissent was that they felt it's unconstitutional to rule that the part of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits discrimination in the workplace on account of "sex" should be ruled to include sexual orientation and gender identity. . .that Congress in 1964 only meant conventional physical sex and that to deviate from that definition would take a new Act of Congress (meaning approval of Moscow Mitch and the GOP)

What I felt was really a shocker was that Gorsuch of all people joined in the majority.  Trump's handpicked replacement for Scalia wouldn't do as he was told.


It's one of those weird things about SCOTUS that I find fascinating. For example Thomas has been very much against qualified immunity for the police.
 
2020-06-15 3:25:52 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


A person's value is not determined by the gametes they produce. Love transcends biology.
 
2020-06-15 3:26:38 PM  
From the majority opinion:

Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren't thinking about many of the Act's consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it's no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

Yep. The legislators that wrote and passed Title VII likely did NOT mean for it to apply to LGBT people.

And yet, they wrote what they wrote. And passed it into law. They knew of LGBT people, and did not carve out any exclusion making it okay to discriminate against them. The law as written is not invalidated by any argument that they didn't mean what they wrote and voted for.
 
2020-06-15 3:26:51 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 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


Some of us don't produce gametes.
 
2020-06-15 3:27:35 PM  

dodecahedron: 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.


Equality act already passed in the house
 
2020-06-15 3:27:38 PM  

Bloomin Bloomberg: Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>


Yeah, it's a real tragedy that they didn't stand with all the bigoted people in this country.

Old straight white guy here -- the made the right call. Intolerance has no place in the workplace. If you do your job and aren't a troublemaking asshole, I don't care who you love.
 
2020-06-15 3:28:10 PM  

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

You are confusing morphology with function.


What?
 
2020-06-15 3:28:27 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size

I needed some good news today.
 
2020-06-15 3:31:04 PM  
Gorsuch is consistent in his judicial philosophy and not driven by ideological result.  Who knew?
 
2020-06-15 3:31:14 PM  
So in 200 years are we going to keep reinterpreting this singular law to cover everything under the sun?  Will there never be any new civil rights legislation passed?  After all, what need is there if we can use this hammer from 1968 to hammer any shaped peg into any shaped hole?
 
2020-06-15 3:31:48 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.


Nope, that's not what the ruling says. I suggest you practice radical acceptance so you don't continue to hold a false belief.
 
2020-06-15 3:37:24 PM  
Whole lotta people here really ought to just go read the opinion & dissents before commenting, or commenting further. It's all well-written in clear language, on both sides.

Can also keep you/us from making a variety of dumb arguments that get really nicely disposed of and focus on the actual issues of the ruling.
 
2020-06-15 3:40:19 PM  

RussianPotato: So in 200 years are we going to keep reinterpreting this singular law to cover everything under the sun?  Will there never be any new civil rights legislation passed?  After all, what need is there if we can use this hammer from 1968 to hammer any shaped peg into any shaped hole?


Shouldn't have to. Come up with new laws to protect against discrimination that is.
We shouldn't have to spell it out for every single difference in existence. It shouldn't matter the color of your skin, your religion, sex, gender, the clothes you wear, the length of your nails. Whatever petty differences people come up with. One blanket law should suffice. Don't discriminate. Period.
 
2020-06-15 3:42:14 PM  

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

Your binary construction does not appear to take this in to account. You've put forth no argument to deal with the many cases outside the binary. I'm glad you've finally made the concession that intermediate expression is possible, but now you need to explain how your binary construction of biological sex is still possible in spite of many examples to the contrary, both as a matter of law and of genetics.


I never denied their existence. Intersex are not intermediate states. They are a group of conditions with different causes. AIS is a spectrum in itself. But all intersex conditions are not a result of androgen insensitivity.

You still need a sperm and an egg to make another human. You still have to deal with this very basic fact. 1 sperm and 1 egg is binary. There is not a 3rd type of sex cell and there isnt a cell that's an intermediate of the 2.

I get you want to be inclusive. But you  are confusing morphology with function.
 
2020-06-15 3:43:09 PM  

codergirl42: 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

A person's value is not determined by the gametes they produce. Love transcends biology.


Non sequitur is non sequitur
 
2020-06-15 3:43:31 PM  

codergirl42: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 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

Some of us don't produce gametes.


And?
 
2020-06-15 3:44:05 PM  

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

You are confusing morphology with function.

What?


Use a dictionary for the big words
 
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.