Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC) NewsFlash SCOTUS rules 6-3 that workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender   (cnbc.com) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, Homosexuality, Sexual orientation, Gender, Supreme Court, Transgender, sexual orientation, Donald Zarda, LGBT  
•       •       •

6612 clicks; posted to Main » and Politics » on 15 Jun 2020 at 10:20 AM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

728 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-06-16 12:20:34 AM  

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

I don't think you know what the word evidence means.

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?

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.


You might want to check the most recent updates to the scoreboard sparky.
 
2020-06-16 12:33:00 AM  

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.


You said I was being discriminated against by society, and that you doubted "libs" would stand to see it stop, so I asked you to describe how I was being discriminated against.

I'm still waiting for you to answer.
 
2020-06-16 12:56:39 AM  

eiger: CrazyCurt: The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots.

Dredd Scott actually makes a fair bit of sense in the context of the time and is in keeping with a lot of American legal tradition up to 1857. The problem was that northern opinion on the matter had shifted dramatically over the previous several years.

People who say it's a "bad decision" are typically either not treating it historically but instead in the context of modern constitutional interpretation or focusing on its effects (one of the crucial triggers of northern disaffection and the Civil War), which were unpredictable and unforeseen at the time.

So, yeah, it's probably unfair to the Dred Scott justices to compare them to Thomas, who is utterly useless.


Dred Scott is brought up as a dog-whistle for those who seek to ban abortion - see https://www.latimes.com/archives/​la-xp​m-2004-oct-13-na-dred13-story.html
 
2020-06-16 1:28:13 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: 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.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-16 1:32:13 AM  

Enigmamf: eiger: CrazyCurt: The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots.

Dredd Scott actually makes a fair bit of sense in the context of the time and is in keeping with a lot of American legal tradition up to 1857. The problem was that northern opinion on the matter had shifted dramatically over the previous several years.

People who say it's a "bad decision" are typically either not treating it historically but instead in the context of modern constitutional interpretation or focusing on its effects (one of the crucial triggers of northern disaffection and the Civil War), which were unpredictable and unforeseen at the time.

So, yeah, it's probably unfair to the Dred Scott justices to compare them to Thomas, who is utterly useless.

Dred Scott is brought up as a dog-whistle for those who seek to ban abortion - see https://www.latimes.com/archives/l​a-xpm-2004-oct-13-na-dred13-story.html​


The view of Dred Scott as a terrible decision isn't exactly "modern". In 1896 justice Harlan used it as the example of a bad decision in his dissent to Plessy.
 
2020-06-16 1:52:09 AM  

Electrify: Fark_Guy_Rob: 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.

[Fark user image 292x219]


His problem was that he wanted to pick another age, and get dirty with that age, not pick another race.
 
2020-06-16 5:20:43 AM  

dinglenugget: 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.


*raises hand* Bonus if they do it just before covid so all the lawyers are off work or working from home and can't take your case 'cause "staff are overwhelmed right now." 

/told not to come in 24 hours after requesting time off for my appointment to go to the DMV to get my driver's license changed to an X
//justice only exists for those who can afford it
 
2020-06-16 6:47:43 AM  

rebelyell2006: 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?


We aren't talking about cultural appropriation in many of these cases. It involves people who don't adopt the culture in question at all.

Look, if you want to say transexuals are only real if they are tested and found to have mismatch between their brain and body, then cool. Legal protection then should only apply to people who have been tested and confirmed to have a medical condition.

You can no longer self identify as trans, like you can't self identify as having cancer.... Then I'm willing to accept you cannot self identify as a race.

But until then, both are equally valid preferences that should be respected equally.
 
2020-06-16 10:00:25 AM  
This should have been done a long time ago.
 
2020-06-16 12:47:50 PM  
Unexpected. Congratulations to the American Farkers who could use that protection.
 
2020-06-16 12:59:07 PM  
About time.
 
2020-06-16 1:03:41 PM  
Only a court ruling that shouldn't have to be said in the first place.  Or happened a hundred years ago.  This country is pretty bad on handling the obvious.
 
2020-06-16 1:11:42 PM  

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

The only thing I find unexpected is that it wasn't already federal law.

/My company would never can someone over their sexuality


Well, turns out, it already was, according to SCOTUS.
 
2020-06-16 1:31:00 PM  

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: "They argued that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which says that employers may not discriminate based on "sex," also applies to sexual orientation and gender identity."

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.

In the same sentence they relate sex and sexual orientation - two exceptionally different ideas.  The point is that the flipping of one switch doesn't invalidate your rights to basic protections under the law.

Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.


Here's how it relates.  If a woman is in a sexual relationship with a man, that's fine, right?  OK, then it also needs to be fine for a man to be in a sexual relationship with a man.  Because otherwise, you're firing a man for a reason that you intrinsically wouldn't fire a woman for.
 
2020-06-16 1:35:49 PM  

trappedspirit: 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.


You are looking at it the wrong way. The man fired for being gay wasn't (in a legal sense) discriminated against because he was having sex with men, he was discriminated against because he was a man having sex with men.

Yeah Congress should explicitly add these things to prevent anyone from trying to find and exploit loopholes, but if you fire a man for doing something you are fine with women doing (ie having sex with men) you are discriminating based on sex.
 
2020-06-16 1:50:51 PM  

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

Happy Pride Month, everyone!

I think Proud To Be An American should be rerecorded as a gay anthem
It would only need to be like 6-9% more gay than it already is


Reported


Actually I'm not sure re-recording it with a gay choir would do anything to it except make it less gay.  The only thing anybody could do to that song is tone it down.
 
2020-06-16 1:56:50 PM  

hotrod2001: Gorsuch is going to give Trump an anyeurism.


Assuming someone doesn't convince Trump that intravenously injecting air prevents the 'rona.
 
2020-06-16 2:50:19 PM  

zippyZRX: flondrix: Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?

"At will" states do not require any reason for termination of employment.
Much like how all 50 states allow you to quit any time you want for no reason at all.

Which in the end seems fair until you get into bigots then protections are needed.


Seems fair until you realize who's a person and what a corporation is but the courts farked right off on that one.
 
2020-06-16 2:57:03 PM  

deadromanoff: Buttknuckle: Finally, us gays can talk about our marriages at work that we have been having for the past 5 years without fear of repercussions from bigoted bosses.

As good as that is, if it's a right to work state they can just come up with anything or nothing to remove you from the workforce.


Which, all but 3 or 4 are at this point.  And I'd love for that shiat to get thrown out.
 
2020-06-16 3:04:55 PM  

Cornelis de Gyselaer: Myrdinn: Serious Black: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.No, science does

No, it really doesn't.  Sex and gender are different, and neither is binary.  And yes, they have a high statistical correlation that makes them related in many cases, but any examination of the variety of sex and gender - even just in humans - makes your argument laughable.  Biological sciences specifically and easily invalidates your claim.

But what biology says isn't really relevant to you.  Just your twisted interpretation that serves the narrative you want.

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

What biological sex would you say these people are?

[Fark user image 850x475]

Who cares?  The one with the (lime) green shirt and pink earrings is cute.

anyone post this yet?

Here is a cute happy couple (in a nerdy kinda way)

[Fark user image 598x386]


Is the guy on the right Edward R. Norton?
 
2020-06-16 3:15:35 PM  

roddikinsathome: WTF? That should be all pride flags!


It is, if your operating system properly displays current Unicode.  Otherwise it'll be a flag with a rainbow after it.
 
2020-06-16 3:27:30 PM  

Baloo Uriza: Here's how it relates. If a woman is in a sexual relationship with a man, that's fine, right? OK, then it also needs to be fine for a man to be in a sexual relationship with a man. Because otherwise, you're firing a man for a reason that you intrinsically wouldn't fire a woman for.


Yes, that was exactly my point.  Thanks for trying to correct me to say exactly what I was saying a day later.
 
2020-06-16 4:55:25 PM  

winedrinkingman: And like that, Liberty University, Bob Jones Universirty, BYU, and nearly every bible college in America is sued out of existence.  Probably not, but it would be great if they were.


ORU would certainly be more useful as a park.
 
2020-06-16 5:11:31 PM  

Khellendros: Baloo Uriza: Here's how it relates. If a woman is in a sexual relationship with a man, that's fine, right? OK, then it also needs to be fine for a man to be in a sexual relationship with a man. Because otherwise, you're firing a man for a reason that you intrinsically wouldn't fire a woman for.

Yes, that was exactly my point.  Thanks for trying to correct me to say exactly what I was saying a day later.


I may have been replying to the same person you were and got tripped up by the quoting.
 
2020-06-16 5:56:25 PM  

Baloo Uriza: Only a court ruling that shouldn't have to be said in the first place.  Or happened a hundred years ago.  This country is pretty bad on handling the obvious.


It would certainly be unprecedented for the Court to make a ruling on a law 45 years before it was written.
 
2020-06-16 6:42:25 PM  

Baloo Uriza: Actually I'm not sure re-recording it with a gay choir would do anything to it except make it less gay. The only thing anybody could do to that song is tone it down.


whorange.netView Full Size


I demand a holographic Liberace chorus line!
 
2020-06-16 7:13:44 PM  

AgentKGB: Baloo Uriza: Actually I'm not sure re-recording it with a gay choir would do anything to it except make it less gay. The only thing anybody could do to that song is tone it down.

[whorange.net image 468x650]

I demand a holographic Liberace chorus line!


OK, I stand corrected.  You made it gayer.
 
2020-06-16 7:28:39 PM  

AgentKGB: Baloo Uriza: Actually I'm not sure re-recording it with a gay choir would do anything to it except make it less gay. The only thing anybody could do to that song is tone it down.

[whorange.net image 468x650]

I demand a holographic Liberace chorus line!


Honestly, is there anything a holographic Liberace chorus line doesn't make better?
 
Displayed 28 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.