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  
•       •       •

6618 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 5:59:30 PM  

GregInIndy: 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.


The only dumb arguments I can recall from this thread are "This is bad because I find gay and transgendered people icky", "I don't like that they did this because anti-discrimination laws weren't meant to stop discrimination",  and "I never took biology outside of high school, ergo intersexed people don't count as real people."

All three of them have been quickly and thoroughly squelched.

/But thank you for the link to the opinion, Alito and Thomas raging out will make fun reading for me.
 
2020-06-15 6:01:25 PM  

Cornelis de Gyselaer: 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/demograp​hicTerms/dg2016060025.html


Quoting from that link,
" Outside of myth, there are no hermaphrodites. It is physiologically impossible to be both fully male and fully female."

That is what I have been saying.  "Hermaphrodite" is a biological term that applies to other species, not humans.
 
2020-06-15 6:03:55 PM  
The law says that sex discrimination is illegal.

Discrimination based on sexual preference or gender orientation is definitively discriminating on the basis of sex.

Therefore it's illegal.

This is not changing, reinterpreting, or expanding the existing law. It's merely affirming it.

You have to do convoluted mental gymnastics to see it any other way.
 
2020-06-15 6:13:16 PM  

Chuck87: dywed88: Chuck87: 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?


1) It's not following the original meaning of the law.

2) A lot of people are offended at seeing butch women or drag queens.

1) How is it not following the meaning of the law. Susie married Steve and there is no issue. Jim married George and gets fired. George is being discriminated against on the basis of his sex.

2) So? A lot of people are offending by seeing a lot of things.


1) He's not fired for being a man, he was fired for his actions while being a man.

And how in the world is that not sexual discrimination? That sounds like the very definition, if it is behavior (personal behavior no less) that would have been 100% acceptable from a woman in the workplace.  In that case, he's being fired simply for being a man.

2) You're right, just being "offensive" should not be reason enough to get a person fired.  It all depends on what it is.  We are living in a country where some people are posting "All Lives Matter" and some people want those people to lose their jobs.  That's wrong.  But, what you have to remember is that if you have a business such as a daycare and people see a drag queen or two working there, there is a good chance they will lose customers, especially in certain areas of the U.S

It is most unfortunate that some people wouldn't patron a business with a trans or gay employee.  But that is actually the crux of the problem.  If being gay or trans were viewed as being benign as being left-handed, then there wouldn't be any problem because nobody would ever be fired for it, and certainly nobody would ever lose business over it.

The business solution to the problem of some people not patronizing businesses with LGBT employees is to simply not have any known gay or trans employees.  But that is not an ethical solution nor good public policy, which is why protections like these are an unfortunate necessity.  I hope you can see that.
 
2020-06-15 6:16:21 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: That's nature in general. Very few things fall into nice neat categories. There are almost always exceptions and almost always variation. That doesnt mean sex is on a spectrum.

A, B, both, or neither

I guess you could say that isnt a binary. I see where you are coming from. Id say its a quaternary, meaning there are 4 discrete positions. This isn't a spectrum either.

Plus the causes for intersex are multiple. These are discrete as well. This seems to be incompatible with a spectrum.

I get wanting to be inclusive. But my whole point is that sex serves a function independant of packaging. As you and I both agree that gametes can have a variety of packaging. Reproduction is what it's all about, not packaging. There are two possible gametes. This is a binary.


Ok, we're making progress. So my next question is this: In what way does it matter at all if sex is a spectrum or a series of discrete points? It wouldn't matter to this SCOTUS case, which doesn't get into this topic *at all*. Similarly, what actual purpose does it serve to keep saying that there are two possible gametes? What ideological ground are you trying to defend if you are already willing to say that gender is a spectrum and sex is more than binary. Is it just that you need a sperm and an egg to make a baby? Because nobody here is questioning that.
 
2020-06-15 6:17:22 PM  

flondrix: Cornelis de Gyselaer: 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/demograp​hicTerms/dg2016060025.html

Quoting from that link,
" Outside of myth, there are no hermaphrodites. It is physiologically impossible to be both fully male and fully female."

That is what I have been saying.  "Hermaphrodite" is a biological term that applies to other species, not humans.


It appears (and this is just a quick google) that the person was not correct:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_he​r​maphroditism

There have, at least, been documented cases of it, even if they are insanely uncommon.

Again - This was just a cursory look, and far from my area of expertise, so I welcome superior citations to https://isna.org/faq/frequency/, or a correction of Wiki's terminology.
 
2020-06-15 6:22:01 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]


Far as I know, nothing is completely binary. Love/hate, man/woman, yin/yang. People who think like that have a condition called "splitting" which can be a pretty serious mental disorder. Think of those who talk about "evil" and "good" like it's a concrete thing, about "good" and "bad" like there are always definite sides and it's easy to see. That one is good, and that one is bad, and that's all there is to it.

You may know of someone who thinks like that, or maybe some famous person. They're dumbasses, they have simple minds, and they're not worth wasting your time over. I don't have any use for people who don't think. Drugs are baddddd, mmmmmkkkkk?

emtwo: The law says that sex discrimination is illegal.
Discrimination based on sexual preference or gender orientation is definitively discriminating on the basis of sex.
Therefore it's illegal.
This is not changing, reinterpreting, or expanding the existing law. It's merely affirming it.
You have to do convoluted mental gymnastics to see it any other way.


Yeah. It was actually just that simple.
 
2020-06-15 6:23:58 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Animatronik: Wrong decision for good reasons.  Congress should have passed a law.

They did in 1964, that was the entire point of the case.


You're clueless as to what this debate was about, so this one time I'll help you out.

Congress in 1964 knew what homosexuality was and they did not include it in the law.  The Supreme Court just created a new law.  That's unconstitutional.

The argument that discriminating against homosexuals means discriminating by gender is spurious.  People of either gender can be homosexual, and sexuality and gender are not the same thing.

The decision was an unconstitutional assumption of legislative powers by the judicial branch.
 
2020-06-15 6:26:54 PM  
Why would anyone ever say that's why I firing you?
 
2020-06-15 6:29:09 PM  

brantgoose: Good. Maybe shiathead Republican employers will stop firing employees for being black or women or Democrats some day.


Employers fire people who dont make money for the company mostly. Very few care anymore who you have sex with or how you look. It's a good excuse to sue though.
 
2020-06-15 6:32:01 PM  

Vtimlin: Why would anyone ever say that's why I firing you?


Basically: Bigots gonna bigot. They tend to be proud of hating the people they hate.

I do think you're right, though, that this decision isn't going to make a difference as much as it should in at-will employment states, as it will basically only catch the low hanging fruit.

I think that the big difference here comes in cases where workplaces have documented patterns of discrimination, and firing along with that discrimination, and the employee keeps record of it.

That happens more often than you'd think. I'll just say it that way.
 
2020-06-15 6:33:51 PM  

Vtimlin: Why would anyone ever say that's why I firing you?


Because putting the screw in is what they do


these same guys gutted their own unions for spite
 
2020-06-15 6:37:20 PM  

Leishu: 2. If a "biological man" (I hate that term for a number of reasons, but will roll with it) can get fired for presenting as a woman, but not a woman, then that "biological man" is being discriminated against on the basis of sex.


Right, I think we can just say cis X and trans X to make the point.  It doesn't assume biology really, which we know is a mixed bag.
 
2020-06-15 6:38:19 PM  

emtwo: The law says that sex discrimination is illegal.

Discrimination based on sexual preference or gender orientation is definitively discriminating on the basis of sex.

Therefore it's illegal.

This is not changing, reinterpreting, or expanding the existing law. It's merely affirming it.

You have to do convoluted mental gymnastics to see it any other way.


But what if it hurts your deeply held fee-fees?
 
2020-06-15 6:39:31 PM  

Animatronik: HotWingConspiracy: Animatronik: Wrong decision for good reasons.  Congress should have passed a law.

They did in 1964, that was the entire point of the case.

You're clueless as to what this debate was about, so this one time I'll help you out.

Congress in 1964 knew what homosexuality was and they did not include it in the law.  The Supreme Court just created a new law.  That's unconstitutional.

The argument that discriminating against homosexuals means discriminating by gender is spurious.  People of either gender can be homosexual, and sexuality and gender are not the same thing.

The decision was an unconstitutional assumption of legislative powers by the judicial branch.



Do you want to know how I can tell you're not a lawyer?


Hint:  It's your entire post.
 
2020-06-15 7:00:32 PM  
Animatronik:

Congress in 1964 knew what homosexuality was and they did not include it in the law.The Supreme Court just created a new law.  That's unconstitutional.

Area man passionate defender of what he imagines the constitution to be.
 
2020-06-15 7:14:26 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: There are two possible gametes. This is a binary.


People aren't gametes.
 
2020-06-15 7:15:14 PM  
Next up: Equal Housing.
Wasn't it 5 years ago today SCOTUS made Equal Marriage Law of the Land?
Happy Stonewall, y'all!
 
2020-06-15 7:16:15 PM  

Animatronik: The Supreme Court just created a new law.



They interpreted a law that already existed. They didn't create a new law.
 
2020-06-15 7:20:43 PM  
YAY
 
2020-06-15 7:22:28 PM  

life of the sausage party: trappedspirit: At issue: the text of a 1964 civil rights law barring employment discrimination based on sex, and whether that term should be understood to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

"The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed," Alito said. "The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."

In case anyone wondered how you could not vote for this.  Apparently it said you cannot discriminate based on sex.  So now it has been decided that that also means the sexual intercourse that you have.  Which is...well...whatever.

Let's see, only a subset of people are ok to fark men/women? How do you select that subset? Seems pretty straightforward to me.


I'm not following what you mean.  I was just pointing out that the idea that "discrimination based on sex" was not written in the original law as having anything to do with having sex, isn't a crazy idea.
 
2020-06-15 7:30:51 PM  

chipaku: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: There are two possible gametes. This is a binary.

People aren't gametes.


Paging James Triptree, Jr...
 
2020-06-15 7:33:33 PM  

Murkanen: Animatronik:

Congress in 1964 knew what homosexuality was and they did not include it in the law.The Supreme Court just created a new law.  That's unconstitutional.

Area man passionate defender of what he imagines the constitution to be.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 7:38:49 PM  

trappedspirit: life of the sausage party: trappedspirit: At issue: the text of a 1964 civil rights law barring employment discrimination based on sex, and whether that term should be understood to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

"The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed," Alito said. "The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."

In case anyone wondered how you could not vote for this.  Apparently it said you cannot discriminate based on sex.  So now it has been decided that that also means the sexual intercourse that you have.  Which is...well...whatever.

Let's see, only a subset of people are ok to fark men/women? How do you select that subset? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I'm not following what you mean.  I was just pointing out that the idea that "discrimination based on sex" was not written in the original law as having anything to do with having sex, isn't a crazy idea.


A married same sex couple that has just adopted or surrogated a newborn is not having any sexual intercourse.  So, any discrimination against them is based on the sex organs in their pants, not the sexual practices they aren't participating in.
 
2020-06-15 7:59:10 PM  

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


Seems to me a bit of irony.

Read the dissenting opinions which seem to argue that sex doesn't cover gender identity, which is in line with LGBT arguments along the same lines. And they seem to base this on the attempts to add gender identity specifications.

So now we're seeing that gender identity is linked back in with sex, and I'm afraid to read the comments to see the response to this rationale because I've seen it deemed transphobic.

And thus the irony: the argument that sex and gender identity are completely separate must be ignored to allow sex to cover gender identity as a protection from discrimination.

And the further irony is the argument that the anti-lgbt people are using is being used against them to protect the people they want to harm.

It's quite beautiful, really.
 
2020-06-15 8:07:59 PM  
Gorusch wrote the opinion? And he found in favor of gay rights?

I will stand with him but I still want to know wtf he was thinking.
 
2020-06-15 8:15:23 PM  

dywed88: 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.


That is a very good way to look at it, and a manner which I did not think of. Like what Pierre Trudeau said, "The government has no place in the bedroom." Whatever gender someone finds sexually attractive should not eliminate sex protections of the Civil Rights Act.

/unfortunate that 50 years later, there is still a sizable number of politicians who would want to remove "sex" as part of its protections, than to add "orientation" to it to prevent any reversal technicality
 
2020-06-15 8:21:02 PM  
I'm a big fan of consistency.

If we are saying that I, someone who was born with a penis, can declare myself a woman and present myself as such... Wearing clothing and hair styles typically associated with women, or change my voice to sound how I'd like to sound... And that I can do those things at work, without being fired for it.....

I'm okay with that. For real. As long as it is genuine, go for it.

But I hate how logically inconsistent we are about other things.

Like race

I was born 'white'. And white is kind of a meaningless thing, far less meaningful than being male.... But if I decide that I want to self identify as black and present myself as a black woman, instead of just a woman... We would all lose our minds.

In fact, there are lots of examples of people don't exactly that. We don't call them brave or encourage them, like we do transexual. We don't pass laws to ensure they can't be fired.

We call them liars and frauds. We humilate them.

Some white lady with a tiny fraction of native american dna gets called out for not really being native american. And we all agree, she isn't really native american. There are white people who presented as black, who fought for black rights, who adopted black culture.... And we basically hate them for it.

You can't claim another race. You can't say, "I'm a white man in a black man's body". Our society rejects this concept.

But we are super cool with picking another gender. And I really, honestly, don't see the difference. If anything, race is far less concrete... We should let people self identify their race long before we do it with sex/gender. There are far more, and far more meaningful differences between men and women.
 
2020-06-15 8:21:23 PM  

grumpfuff: Gorusch wrote the opinion? And he found in favor of gay rights?

I will stand with him but I still want to know wtf he was thinking.


He was, regardless of what all the currently whinging Republican talking heads / evangelicals are on about, thinking textualistly.  (Honestly, not sure that's a a word, but go with it.)

The text of the law said "sex", and he took the position that if you wouldn't fire a member of an opposite sex couple for something, but would fire a member of a same-sex couple for the same activity, then that's prohibited under Title VII.
 
2020-06-15 8:22:28 PM  

Im_Gumby: cyberspacedout: johnphantom: Walker: "I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
[Fark user image 840x560]

"BUT IF A GAY MAN OFFERS ME A BEER, IT'S NOT GAY TO DRINK IT!"

[iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/hCOSejS1​SSY?autoplay=1&widget_referrer=https%3​A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&start=0&enablejsap​i=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fark.com&​widgetid=1]

Still miss the original with Van Halen's "Beautiful Girls"


Sounds like they got a guitarist to imitate the style, but VH probably sued to make sure SNL didn't post it on YouTube.

The original's on Vimeo.

https://vimeo.com/169759649
 
2020-06-15 8:33:21 PM  

grumpfuff: Gorusch wrote the opinion? And he found in favor of gay rights?

I will stand with him but I still want to know wtf he was thinking.


Gorsuch isn't a Trump toadie, he was appointed when Trump still thought he had to cater to the establishment and not do whatever the Fark he wanted (like the appointment of Sessions).
 
2020-06-15 8:36:13 PM  

shut_it_down: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: That's nature in general. Very few things fall into nice neat categories. There are almost always exceptions and almost always variation. That doesnt mean sex is on a spectrum.

A, B, both, or neither

I guess you could say that isnt a binary. I see where you are coming from. Id say its a quaternary, meaning there are 4 discrete positions. This isn't a spectrum either.

Plus the causes for intersex are multiple. These are discrete as well. This seems to be incompatible with a spectrum.

I get wanting to be inclusive. But my whole point is that sex serves a function independant of packaging. As you and I both agree that gametes can have a variety of packaging. Reproduction is what it's all about, not packaging. There are two possible gametes. This is a binary.

Ok, we're making progress. So my next question is this: In what way does it matter at all if sex is a spectrum or a series of discrete points?


Correspondence theory? Because reality matters especially if you want to be successful in it. For example, you wont be very successful fixing a computer if your diagnosis is wrong. You obviously think it matters. Why? 

Similarly, what actual purpose does it serve to keep saying that there are two possible gametes?

Because the fundamental theory of biology is evolution. Reproduction is a profoundly integral part of evolution. Reproduction is what biological life is about. Reproduction in humans depends on 2 specific types of cells. I'm sure you've heard of the biological imperative. What purpose does it serve to ignore such a fundamental aspect of reality? 

What ideological ground are you trying to defend if you are already willing to say that gender is a spectrum and sex is more than binary.

Gender seems to be a spectrum because there is continuous distribution. But it is strongly bimodal. The existence of trans people show it to more than a social construct. This means it has biological roots; its innate. The overwhelming majority of people have corresponding gender identity and biological sex. This combined with a strong bimodal distribution of gender suggest that gender and sex are related. That is, gender seems to be a psychological aspect of biological sex. Plus we have ample evidence of different behaviors between sexes of the same species. However this may occur, we have already agreed that nature is messy so deviations from the norm can and will occur. This is also at least consistent with variation and reproduction within evolution. I'm not sure what ideological ground you would call a naturalistic interpretation. What ideological grounds are you willing to say that something is a spectrum when it isnt? Is this just semantics?
 
2020-06-15 8:38:49 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: But we are super cool with picking another gender. And I really, honestly, don't see the difference. If anything, race is far less concrete... We should let people self identify their race long before we do it with sex/gender. There are far more, and far more meaningful differences between men and women.


Race is made up, when some people are a complete mix, but how is that a problem? They're a mix. Same species, in other words--they interbred. Trans people don't get to pick anything. They were born that way, like Lady Gaga says. They pick a side because other members of the species can't be nice.

Trans people presenting as a man or woman is only their attempt to appeal to people who can't understand that they got somewhere in the middle. How about they just pick "person?" Is that OK? Because person is actually pretty descriptive. Same species, who cares about who they have sex with?

Why can't people just farking drop it? It's not their problem. Treat them like People.
I don't like religion either, but I just leave it alone.
 
2020-06-15 8:39:36 PM  

chipaku: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: There are two possible gametes. This is a binary.

People aren't gametes.


Obviously.
 
2020-06-15 9:15:36 PM  

cryinoutloud: Trans people presenting as a man or woman is only their attempt to appeal to people who can't understand that they got somewhere in the middle.


I am sure that your intent is nice, but this is not correct, at least on my part.

I present as a woman because I am a woman, not somewhere between.
 
2020-06-15 9:27:38 PM  

cryinoutloud: Trans people presenting as a man or woman is only their attempt to appeal to people who can't understand that they got somewhere in the middle. How about they just pick "person?" Is that OK? Because person is actually pretty descriptive. Same species, who cares about who they have sex with?


I think you are conflating a whole lot of different things in this paragraph.

Either that or you're so spectacularly wrong that this makes your normal posts look sensible in comparison.
 
2020-06-15 9:43:52 PM  

BMFPitt: cryinoutloud: Trans people presenting as a man or woman is only their attempt to appeal to people who can't understand that they got somewhere in the middle. How about they just pick "person?" Is that OK? Because person is actually pretty descriptive. Same species, who cares about who they have sex with?

I think you are conflating a whole lot of different things in this paragraph.

Either that or you're so spectacularly wrong that this makes your normal posts look sensible in comparison.


Let's go with the second one.
 
2020-06-15 9:49:31 PM  

cryinoutloud: Fark_Guy_Rob: But we are super cool with picking another gender. And I really, honestly, don't see the difference. If anything, race is far less concrete... We should let people self identify their race long before we do it with sex/gender. There are far more, and far more meaningful differences between men and women.

Race is made up, when some people are a complete mix, but how is that a problem? They're a mix. Same species, in other words--they interbred. Trans people don't get to pick anything. They were born that way, like Lady Gaga says. They pick a side because other members of the species can't be nice.

Trans people presenting as a man or woman is only their attempt to appeal to people who can't understand that they got somewhere in the middle. How about they just pick "person?" Is that OK? Because person is actually pretty descriptive. Same species, who cares about who they have sex with?

Why can't people just farking drop it? It's not their problem. Treat them like People.
I don't like religion either, but I just leave it alone.


You say that race is made up, but that's not entirely true...our society absolutely does not accept that.

People have had their careers ruined when they were outed as not being their stated race, biologically.

I also disagree with your assertion that trans people at all 'somewhere in the middle'.

My point is only that, if we want to provide legal protections for people who are transgender, we should do the same thing for people who are transracial. At a minimum.

How would we react to an article published by the NY Times calling trans gender people liars? Not well. But nobody batted an eye when a women who spent years identifying, living, and passing as a black woman who outted as white by her white parents.

She was a liar and a fraud.

Why do we treat it differently? Why can't we let people choose to live as whatever they want and respect their choices?
 
2020-06-15 10:03:19 PM  

Cthulhu Theory: And thus the irony: the argument that sex and gender identity are completely separate must be ignored to allow sex to cover gender identity as a protection from discrimination.


You just made that up, it has no basis in reason or logic, and it's 100% wrong.
 
2020-06-15 10:08:42 PM  
As has surely been said many a time in this thread: Good luck proving you were terminated for that reason, and not some other bullshiat excuse, especially in "right to work" states where they don't even legally have to supply a motivation for firing your ass.

Any employer devious enough to premeditate firing you because of gender discrimination is going to have their ass covered in case you decide to waste money taking them to court.
 
2020-06-15 10:23:36 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Why do we treat it differently?


Because cultural appropriation is not the same thing as a [gender A] brain inside of a [gender B] body?
 
2020-06-15 11:06:11 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: 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"


Because Ford's testimony isn't credible and without other evidence, there really is no reason to believe he's done such a thing.

You're all still pissed off Trump got another appointment to the bench and pissed off about Garland and scared to death RBG will die before Trump leaves the white house.

And it's all because you guys know all the far left crap you want pushed won't ever fly in Congress if it was pushed into a vote. shiat, the comments more or less show that.
 
2020-06-15 11:12:50 PM  

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Because the fundamental theory of biology is evolution. Reproduction is a profoundly integral part of evolution. Reproduction is what biological life is about. Reproduction in humans depends on 2 specific types of cells. I'm sure you've heard of the biological imperative. What purpose does it serve to ignore such a fundamental aspect of reality?


I'm ignoring evolutionary biology and "biological imperative" for the same reason I'm ignoring tidal forces and the land speed of white tailed deer. Because it's completely irrelevant to a conversation about sex discrimination.
 
2020-06-15 11:16:12 PM  

Murkanen: HumanSVD:

I mean, I'd love to see these Libby libs actually stick by their words and defend the straight white cis male being discriminated against

How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?


If you get fired based purely on that basis alone, then you'd be discriminated against.  This law is meant to add as a protection against such

Another faker asked that question and I merely said the protections apply to all. There's nothing in the law that says, "Illegal to discriminate against unless it's a straight white cis male."

I then added I'll be surprised If fark leftists actually stand by their position. Considering your comment, others and the Funny votes, it's obvious you don't stand against discrimination against all.
 
2020-06-15 11:17:13 PM  

johnny queso: HumanSVD: Destructor: Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?

No, the protections apply for all. You simply cannot be discriminated on the basis of sex or gender identity or sexual orientation.

I mean, I'd love to see these Libby libs actually stick by their words and defend the straight white cis male being discriminated against. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

you poor dear.


You can't articulate a valid response, shocker.
 
2020-06-15 11:19:44 PM  

HumanSVD: Murkanen: HumanSVD:

I mean, I'd love to see these Libby libs actually stick by their words and defend the straight white cis male being discriminated against

How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

If you get fired based purely on that basis alone, then you'd be discriminated against.  This law is meant to add as a protection against such

Another faker asked that question and I merely said the protections apply to all. There's nothing in the law that says, "Illegal to discriminate against unless it's a straight white cis male."

I then added I'll be surprised If fark leftists actually stand by their position. Considering your comment, others and the Funny votes, it's obvious you don't stand against discrimination against all.


I dunno. What is this theoretical straight white cis male wearing? Maybe he isn't dressing sexy enough.
 
2020-06-15 11:27:50 PM  

Leishu: HumanSVD: Murkanen: HumanSVD:

I mean, I'd love to see these Libby libs actually stick by their words and defend the straight white cis male being discriminated against

How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

If you get fired based purely on that basis alone, then you'd be discriminated against.  This law is meant to add as a protection against such

Another faker asked that question and I merely said the protections apply to all. There's nothing in the law that says, "Illegal to discriminate against unless it's a straight white cis male."

I then added I'll be surprised If fark leftists actually stand by their position. Considering your comment, others and the Funny votes, it's obvious you don't stand against discrimination against all.

I dunno. What is this theoretical straight white cis male wearing? Maybe he isn't dressing sexy enough.


And that's why I can't take you leftist's clamor about discrimination seriously.
 
2020-06-15 11:29:07 PM  

HumanSVD: Leishu: HumanSVD: Murkanen: HumanSVD:

I mean, I'd love to see these Libby libs actually stick by their words and defend the straight white cis male being discriminated against

How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

If you get fired based purely on that basis alone, then you'd be discriminated against.  This law is meant to add as a protection against such

Another faker asked that question and I merely said the protections apply to all. There's nothing in the law that says, "Illegal to discriminate against unless it's a straight white cis male."

I then added I'll be surprised If fark leftists actually stand by their position. Considering your comment, others and the Funny votes, it's obvious you don't stand against discrimination against all.

I dunno. What is this theoretical straight white cis male wearing? Maybe he isn't dressing sexy enough.

And that's why I can't take you leftist's clamor about discrimination seriously.


Because I make fun of the right wing's tendency to base their ethics on situational things that shouldn't affect them? Well okay, but that's pretty petty.
 
2020-06-15 11:56:38 PM  

flondrix: trappedspirit: life of the sausage party: trappedspirit: At issue: the text of a 1964 civil rights law barring employment discrimination based on sex, and whether that term should be understood to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

"The question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed," Alito said. "The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."

In case anyone wondered how you could not vote for this.  Apparently it said you cannot discriminate based on sex.  So now it has been decided that that also means the sexual intercourse that you have.  Which is...well...whatever.

Let's see, only a subset of people are ok to fark men/women? How do you select that subset? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I'm not following what you mean.  I was just pointing out that the idea that "discrimination based on sex" was not written in the original law as having anything to do with having sex, isn't a crazy idea.

A married same sex couple that has just adopted or surrogated a newborn is not having any sexual intercourse.  So, any discrimination against them is based on the sex organs in their pants, not the sexual practices they aren't participating in.


Uh, it doesn't matter if they are having sex.  The 1964 civil rights law was about the sex organs in their pants.  What does it matter if they are having sex?  That law's sex part was about establishing legislated freedoms for women.  Regardless of who they were having sex with.
 
2020-06-16 12:10:12 AM  

HumanSVD: Leishu: HumanSVD: Murkanen: HumanSVD:

I mean, I'd love to see these Libby libs actually stick by their words and defend the straight white cis male being discriminated against

How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

If you get fired based purely on that basis alone, then you'd be discriminated against.  This law is meant to add as a protection against such

Another faker asked that question and I merely said the protections apply to all. There's nothing in the law that says, "Illegal to discriminate against unless it's a straight white cis male."

I then added I'll be surprised If fark leftists actually stand by their position. Considering your comment, others and the Funny votes, it's obvious you don't stand against discrimination against all.

I dunno. What is this theoretical straight white cis male wearing? Maybe he isn't dressing sexy enough.

And that's why I can't take you leftist's clamor about discrimination seriously.


You can whine all you want. It's clear you issue is "leftists".
 
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.