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?

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-06-15 10:17:56 AM  
231 votes:
Unexpected.
On the other hand, to three of the SCotUS: WTH?
 
2020-06-15 10:22:10 AM  
213 votes:
Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.
 
2020-06-15 10:22:03 AM  
161 votes:
This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.
 
2020-06-15 10:23:54 AM  
157 votes:
Justice I LIKE BEER is delivering as best he can, it appears.

Trump can't be given another chance to put someone else like him on the Supreme Court.
 
2020-06-15 10:24:47 AM  
115 votes:
Imagine being on the side that says, in 2020, of course you can be fired for being gay.

Republicans. Never even once
 
2020-06-15 10:24:18 AM  
107 votes:
"I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:24:40 AM  
104 votes:
It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.
 
2020-06-15 10:24:33 AM  
98 votes:
In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.
 
2020-06-15 10:23:13 AM  
85 votes:
So what will this do to Dump's EO that removed LBGTQ rights to healthcare under the ACA?
 
2020-06-15 10:24:48 AM  
81 votes:
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.
 
2020-06-15 10:23:32 AM  
81 votes:
Wowza. Pleased as punch about the results, slightly shocked at the 6-3 split.

Happy Pride Month, everyone!
 
2020-06-15 10:23:15 AM  
75 votes:
Hell yeah. GFY Kavanaugh
 
2020-06-15 10:27:30 AM  
59 votes:

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

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


I Like Beer was trying the "It's not our job" defense.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:09 AM  
58 votes:
This is cool. I wasn't expecting to wake up to a freer country at any point this year.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:00 AM  
54 votes:
Jesus wept.

Republican Jesus, anyway.

Biblical Jesus, who turned water into wine, hung out with hookers, and whipped moneychangers' asses, shrugged.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:16 AM  
45 votes:
"Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender," Gorsuch wrote. "The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids."


Damn
 
2020-06-15 10:30:40 AM  
42 votes:
Chalk me up as another "it should have been 9-0, but I was expecting 4-5, so I'll gladly take the 6-3."
 
2020-06-15 10:24:04 AM  
41 votes:

danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously


kavanaugh ends with:
"Notwithstanding my concern about the Court's transgression of the Constitution's separation of powers, it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans. Millions of gay and
lesbian Americans have worked hard for many decades to
achieve equal treatment in fact and in law. They have exhibited extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit-battling often steep odds in the legislative and judicial arenas, not to
mention in their daily lives. They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend
Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court's judgement"
 
2020-06-15 10:24:46 AM  
39 votes:
6-3.  Better than i thought it would be, and nowhere near where it should have been.

In any case, GOOD!
 
2020-06-15 10:25:34 AM  
38 votes:
The logic is unassailable.  The 3 dissenters are farking trash.
 
2020-06-15 10:29:49 AM  
32 votes:
Was expecting 4-5 or 5-4.  Gorsuch is clearly not what conservatives were expecting.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:16 AM  
31 votes:
I'm very happy for this ruling. Of course it doesn't mean I can't be fired for being gay. It just means, after lots of lawyers and effort fighting it, my boss can't get away with it now.
 
2020-06-15 10:26:49 AM  
31 votes:

eiger: This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.


Yes, this is huge and the bigots will be apoplectic about it. Good.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:17 AM  
29 votes:

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

/s/ obviously

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

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


No arguments there -- Conservatives hate "Judicial Activism" unless it's their side doing it.
 
2020-06-15 10:22:59 AM  
28 votes:

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


They wanted to Make America Great Again. Or something like that.
 
2020-06-15 10:27:18 AM  
27 votes:

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

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


Interesting.  One has to wonder if BEER! would have voted the other way if it had been a closer decision.  Being split like this would make it "safe" for him to dissent without changing the outcome.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:13 AM  
26 votes:

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

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


Someone needs to explain to Kavanaugh that, even when dissenting, he's still legislating from the bench.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:03 AM  
25 votes:
pbs.twimg.comView Full Size


Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:10 AM  
23 votes:

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

The SCOTUS case isn't directly on the same point as the EO, but it will be highly persuasive when the EO is challenged in court.


This.

It sets SCOTUS precedent that sex-based protections also apply to trans and gay people. This ruling may end up having even farther-reaching implications than the marriage equality ruling.

So the entire line of cases extending quasi-protected status to women on the 14th Amendment may now apply to LGBT folks. Something SCOTUS expressly declined to do in the marriage cases.
 
2020-06-15 10:32:49 AM  
22 votes:

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

/s/ obviously

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

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


He's not completely wrong, but it's obvious Congress wasn't going to do it.
 
2020-06-15 10:32:39 AM  
22 votes:
I was suspecting a 5-4. Roberts is conservative, but he is cognizant of how his role in history will play out and knows which way the wind is blowing. Gorsuch was a bit of a surprise.
 
2020-06-15 10:29:18 AM  
22 votes:
Thomas of course was no. The worst SCJ since the Dredd Scott idiots. They guy literally sleeps on the bench and has had to be woken up by his fellow justices. He's written perhaps two opinions, maybe, and one of them was likely a complaint about coffee. I wish we could fire these asshats. The Supreme Court is a very bad idea imho. America needs an overhaul.

/ Our system is way too old, imperious and subject to the whims of opinion.
 
2020-06-15 10:28:04 AM  
22 votes:

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


What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex
 
2020-06-15 10:32:21 AM  
21 votes:
GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

Fark user imageView Full Size


ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:29:01 AM  
21 votes:
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?
 
2020-06-15 10:28:45 AM  
21 votes:

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


The SCOTUS case isn't directly on the same point as the EO, but it will be highly persuasive when the EO is challenged in court.
 
2020-06-15 10:28:42 AM  
21 votes:

Eclectic: Waiting for this decision has filled me with so much dread for weeks now. I fully expected 5-4 against.

That it wasn't 9-0 "no you can't be bigots" is disgusting, but I'll take the victory.


Nah, I was fairly confident in Roberts at least and sorta expected Gorsuch to come down as he did. I LIKE BEER was my only real question mark (and now I see where he lies), but I also completed expected Alito and Thomas to be farksticks.
 
2020-06-15 11:37:52 AM  
20 votes:

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


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

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

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

It's wishful thinking to hope we could just ignore biological sex or gender in our legal system, but I suspect it would be easier to put forth an Equal Rights Law that does say that matters of gender, sex and sexuality should be taken as equal and equivalent for all people rather than having to review every single matter that relates to those things.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:59 AM  
19 votes:

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


We all know the reason Congress didn't pass such a bill even though those bills have been brought up in every Congressional session since 2007: Republicans want gay and trans Americans to be subject to workplace discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:31 AM  
19 votes:

Gubbo: Imagine being on the side that says, in 2020, of course you can be fired for being gay.

This is why the "both sides" argument really only circles back to entitled white [cis straight] people.  The Democratic base is a loose collection of people the Republicans have directly and deliberately hurt, and the sliver of unaffected Americans with empathy.

It's really kind of why the Democrats get away with so much maddening crap -- because they know to their voters, the choice is obvious.  One side is incompetent, complicit and corrupt; the other side is literally a fascist institution that stands against their very existence.  When entitled white jackasses say "both sides [are bad]" they're referring to petty grift and, when really stretching for it (like w BLM), Democratic inaction on problems the right wing caused, sustained, escalated, and gridlocked to prevent reform.  When liberals disagree, it's because they see one side clearly wanting to erase their existence.
 
2020-06-15 10:26:39 AM  
19 votes:

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


Probably that if you can't fire someone for being gay then you can't fire someone for running around naked and masturbating into the eggplants. They just can't imagine that a gay person could be 'normal'.
 
2020-06-15 10:23:05 AM  
19 votes:
*cheersloudly!*
 
2020-06-15 10:45:03 AM  
18 votes:
Trump's OWN COURT PICK wrote the majority decision!

media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:34:27 AM  
18 votes:
I will just stop here to that this is fantastic & thank God

I very well could have gone the other way.

Congratulations friend Farkers who can sigh with a (little) relief

I know quite a few of you are celebrating
 
2020-06-15 10:32:32 AM  
18 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:41 AM  
18 votes:

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


This is just me bullshiatting, so take it with a huge grain of salt and go read the decision when it comes out and expert analysis, but I suspect they made a lot of legislative intent since  those who originally passed the law did NOT intend to protect LGBTQ people.
 
2020-06-15 10:52:54 AM  
17 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:24 AM  
17 votes:

MythDragon: But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".


This has always been the Achilles' heel of anti-discrimination law; it can be very hard to prove that the intent for the firing is due to the fact that an employee is a member of a protected class.  Meanwhile, if your read the employee's handbook for your job, you'll find tons of petty rules that pretty much every employee routinely violates.  So all you have to do is assemble a dossier of those violations, fire the employee when you have enough, then present it if they do sue you.

I mean, that's what HR is for at any company of any size.  They sure as shiat aren't on your side.
 
2020-06-15 10:38:05 AM  
17 votes:
Don't worry bigots, they're going to make sure that a religious person can fire people over sincerely held beliefs in future rulings.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:09 AM  
17 votes:

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


If Democrats actually manage the long shot and flip the senate this election, they should have a running list of all the crap like this that needs to be cleared up so this doesn't happen again.

Court precedent is not a strong enough deterrent to stop this in the future.  All this does is grant a reprieve until the balance in the court shifts again.
 
2020-06-15 10:33:40 AM  
17 votes:

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.


Which is kicking the can down the road because they knew congress would never pass an ammendment.  Though now that Mitcheypoo has changed the rules to break a filibuster with 51 votes if democrats take enough seats it won't be a problem.

This "we go high and you go low" shiat or the obverse from republicans "we go low and you go high" shiat needs to stop.  They want to play dirty, we can just use the rules they changed to do the same thing.  fark em.
 
2020-06-15 10:27:45 AM  
17 votes:
There's our good ruling of the season.  Enjoy it.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:20 AM  
17 votes:

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

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.  'Nuff said.


The Three Stooges.
 
2020-06-15 11:26:02 AM  
16 votes:
skipping non-voting comment in contest thread:

I'll side with science.

Your understanding of the "science" of human sexuality and gender is about 30 years out of date.  Clinging to the belief that there are only 2 static sexes, because intersexed individuals don't count as real people, is like clinging to the steady-state theory of cosmology.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:51 AM  
16 votes:

jake_lex: MythDragon: But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".

This has always been the Achilles' heel of anti-discrimination law; it can be very hard to prove that the intent for the firing is due to the fact that an employee is a member of a protected class.  Meanwhile, if your read the employee's handbook for your job, you'll find tons of petty rules that pretty much every employee routinely violates.  So all you have to do is assemble a dossier of those violations, fire the employee when you have enough, then present it if they do sue you.

I mean, that's what HR is for at any company of any size.  They sure as shiat aren't on your side.


HR isn't there to help you. it's to minimize liability exposure for the company.

Never, ever assume HR is there to provide you with help.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:09 AM  
16 votes:

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

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


I think that federal judges should get appointed for one, non-renewable, 10 year term.  The exception would be that you can promote judges -- that is,a judge could serve a 10 year term as a district judge, then serve a term on the circuit, then on to the Supreme Court.

But  a disaster of a president like Trump should never be allowed to clog up the court system with judges who are, quite literally, incompetent (a lot of these judges Moscow Mitch is hand-picking for him are not considered qualified by the ABA) for decades after he's tossed out on his ass in shame.
 
2020-06-15 10:32:06 AM  
16 votes:
Jushtish Drinky McDrunkerton had a stupid? Was it a regular stupid or was he drunk at the time?

And Justice Ol' Dirty Bastich is still true to his homie Scalia. Every time Thomas works to remove rights he pours one out for his fascist opus dei home boy
 
2020-06-15 10:30:22 AM  
16 votes:
Happy Pride!
 
2020-06-15 10:28:36 AM  
16 votes:
Good. Maybe shiathead Republican employers will stop firing employees for being black or women or Democrats some day.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:31 AM  
16 votes:

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
 
2020-06-15 10:21:58 AM  
16 votes:
Nifty.
 
2020-06-15 11:17:08 AM  
15 votes:
skipping non-voting comment in contest thread:

Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

Let me introduce you to some basic information on how wrong you are:

Read, educate yourself, then go find more in depth information if you care cure your grade school understanding of humanity.
 
2020-06-15 10:50:54 AM  
15 votes:

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.


So the idea is that if you would fire me (a guy) for being married to a guy, but you wouldn't fire a woman for being married to a guy, then my sex enters into your decision-making impermissibly.

So sex and sexual orientation aren't the same thing, but they're interrelated.

/Not the argument I'd make, but I'll take it.
//This seems to make lgbt a quasi-protected class
///Three for traditions' sake
 
2020-06-15 10:33:15 AM  
15 votes:
...they say - that America's small heart grew three sizes that day.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:33 AM  
15 votes:

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

/s/ obviously

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

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


It's a lifetime appointment. Why would he have to worry about playing it "safe"?
 
2020-06-15 1:50:58 PM  
14 votes:

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

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you


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

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.
 
2020-06-15 11:38:36 AM  
14 votes:

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 imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:39:06 AM  
14 votes:

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


Gorsuch is by no means, 'not a conservative' but he seems to be a wildcard on a strange set of particulars.
 
2020-06-15 12:26:12 PM  
13 votes:

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


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

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

Objective reality IS a biatch.
 
2020-06-15 10:43:15 AM  
13 votes:

The Bestest: Eclectic: Waiting for this decision has filled me with so much dread for weeks now. I fully expected 5-4 against.

That it wasn't 9-0 "no you can't be bigots" is disgusting, but I'll take the victory.

Nah, I was fairly confident in Roberts at least and sorta expected Gorsuch to come down as he did. I LIKE BEER was my only real question mark (and now I see where he lies), but I also completed expected Alito and Thomas to be farksticks.


My take on Roberts is that if the case doesn't deal with corporate or voting rights, he's more likely to side with the liberals.
 
2020-06-15 10:27:03 AM  
13 votes:
Yay. A sliver of good news finally.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:09 AM  
13 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 11:47:15 AM  
12 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Sorry, science disagrees with your opinion
 
2020-06-15 11:04:04 AM  
12 votes:

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

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


I always thought this.

"I am romantically attracted to men."
"That is not OK."
"Would it be OK if I were a woman?"
"Of course. That would be fine"
"So it is not OK because I am a man?"
"That's the long and short of it, yes."

Clear cut case of discrimination on the basis of gender.
How is this not already being enforced?
 
2020-06-15 10:37:18 AM  
12 votes:

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

/s/ obviously

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

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

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


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

Of course, he's still a rapey drunken bastard that shouldn't be representing himself in small claims let alone the supreme court.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:47 AM  
12 votes:
I'm beginning to think the Supreme Court can see the "wrong side of history" a little more clearly now.
 
2020-06-15 11:47:11 AM  
11 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:48 AM  
11 votes:
Every major advance of society in human history has been opposed by conservatives.  From voting rights for blacks, for women, for anti-slavery legislation, to emancipation, to the American experiment itself.  Conservatives oppose, and have opposed progress of every society at all turn in all eras throughout history.

Conservatives stand for war, hatred, violence, and oppression, period. They stand against learning, education, knowledge, progress, and personal freedom.  "Conservative" is a bad word, and should not be uttered without shame and personal depression.  It is an insult, to call someone a conservative, not a point of pride. There is nothing good to be had by claiming to be a 'conservative'.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:38 AM  
11 votes:

GhostOfSavageHenry: And by 'Judicial Activism' they basically mean "not ruling how I want". That's the only way I can take it when the people throwing that line around are the same ones who supported making corporations equivalent to people (minus the negatives of course) which was never a thing until they made it one. It's a bad faith argument from the get go.


Yep.  I had an acquaintance that was conservative that would rail on any ruling that he didn't like as the liberals "legislating from the bench!"  but any ruling he liked, regardless of how out of whack it was in regards to the law or common sense was just undoing all of the "judicial activism"

I don't talk to him anymore because while he's a smart guy in his field and generally a good person, he had the conservative kool aid injected directly into his veins.   Also it was funny how quick his views on women who got pregnant out of wedlock changed when his daughter got pregnant in college...
 
2020-06-15 10:49:27 AM  
11 votes:

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

/s/ obviously

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

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

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

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

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


And by 'Judicial Activism' they basically mean "not ruling how I want". That's the only way I can take it when the people throwing that line around are the same ones who supported making corporations equivalent to people (minus the negatives of course) which was never a thing until they made it one. It's a bad faith argument from the get go.
 
2020-06-15 10:43:09 AM  
11 votes:
A joyous day. After Trump's LGBT "regulations" last week, this is welcome news.

I find it fascinating that Kavanaugh refused to join Thomas and Alito and instead wrote his own dissent that, while similar in reasoning, actually quite vocally supports the goal, just not the method. He ends with such a positive endorsement of LGBT rights that I can easily see Republicans being pissed at him for it, only slightly less than Freepers are right now at Gorsuch and Roberts.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:43 AM  
11 votes:
So, Goresuch is the wild card these days? Interesting.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:50 AM  
11 votes:

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?


not the Constitution, just the law itself that sets special groups.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:07 AM  
11 votes:

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


The three are who you thought they were.  Their reasoning is "who the fark knows?".
 
2020-06-15 10:23:32 AM  
11 votes:

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


Thomas felt icky.
 
2020-06-15 10:23:08 AM  
11 votes:
Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?
 
2020-06-15 12:01:36 PM  
10 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:28 AM  
10 votes:

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

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


Not true. Thomas speaks extremely infrequently (but more often in recent years) but he does write opinions. Well, I assume he writes them. He has all of the trademarks of an impostor in trying to avoid being exposed.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:32 AM  
10 votes:
Faith No More - A Small Victory (Official Music Video)
Youtube i9_hCjcFNO0
positive baby steps

fark you, justice rapey.
 
2020-06-15 7:00:32 PM  
9 votes:
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 5:11:26 PM  
9 votes:

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Yes. And that is irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant to your comments, then maybe consider that your comments, which are in a thread about a Supreme Court decision on employment, which for most people has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, are irrelevant to the thread.

Maybe. Then why are you responding?


Because you're clogging up a thread about people getting equal rights with stupid obfuscations, and you deserve to get called on it.
 
2020-06-15 2:56:48 PM  
9 votes:

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 12:36:27 PM  
9 votes:

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


No.  Because XX can result in a person who physically develops as male, and fathers children.  XY can produce a person who physically develops as a female, and can mother children.  You're basing your views on the statistically dominant ideas taught to you in 4th grade, and your knowledge stops there.  There's something fascinating that in today's world - where one has access to entire libraries of information on human biology, anatomy, physiology, and organic chemistry - there are still people that can be this wrong.

Gender and sex are separate.  And BOTH are demonstrably not binary.  Among a sizable portion of the population, there is a significant disconnect between the bits between their legs, the chromosomes they carry, and the juices flowing in their bodies, and their ability to contribute to reproduction.  There are many people with a penis who have XX chromosomes, or XY with a vagina.  There are some that have both.  There are some with XXY (Klinfelters and non-Klinefelters), XYY, XXXY, XXYY, XO, and other combinations as well.  And they have varying levels of fertility.

Many have completely disparate sexual or genital development from their general physical appearance, looking completely one sex, but their genitals identify them as oppositely - and they can participate in having children.  Then you have to add in issues like Turner's syndrome, the wide varieties of hermaphroditism - which have about 5 variations in humans with dozens of defined subtypes with different physical consequences - and fertility.  Then we move to developmental abnormalities that create different hormonal profiles that are as different from typically male and female as those are from each other.

We can then move onto non-hormonal developmental disorders that alter genitalia, gender expression, and physical development.  More of those than can be reasonably listed here.  After all of this, we can begin to talk about what gender you feel you are, and how you think of yourself.  And this is just about how one views themselves.  We haven't even begun talking about how you relate to others - sex drives, what you're attracted to, etc.  That's an entirely new layer of extra complication.

It's incredibly easy to make it a binary classification when you're part of the majority where things "line up" between sex and gender and the statistical populations.  But you're closed-minded and uneducated if you think that's how it is for everyone.  You see what you see on a clothed person, but have no clue about what's going on between their legs or in their bodies.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:56 AM  
9 votes:
Three of nine people in the highest court of our nation think the US Constitution doesn't apply to people that don't love like they do. Funny how that 33% keeps popping up. Basically it seems our country is populated by one-third bigots, racists, and assholes.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:59 AM  
9 votes:

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?


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.  The proper remedy: It is the job of Congress to be clear, and not SCOTUS to find a way to make it clear.  

In another timeline, where Congress isn't run by howler monkeys benefiting from gerrymandering, I'm actually in agreement with that reasoning.  But we don't live in that kind of rational and fair timeline, so I'm happy for whatever little bits of justice arise from wherever they do arise.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:42 AM  
9 votes:

NoahFenze: Why is this still up for debate?


Because freedom to discriminate is one of the most American and fundamental freedoms. Duh.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:38 AM  
9 votes:
Why is this still up for debate?
 
2020-06-15 10:34:28 AM  
9 votes:

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


Unexpected?  Try surprising, but also awesome.  Great news for a Monday morning.  And shocking that Not Garland did the right thing.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:51 AM  
9 votes:

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

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.  'Nuff said.


These 3 farks should spend the rest of their lives in prison getting buttfarked.
 
2020-06-15 12:15:33 PM  
8 votes:

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


At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.
 
2020-06-15 11:50:32 AM  
8 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 11:31:57 AM  
8 votes:
And of course this is cross-linked to main page, which is why we have someone in here arguing that intersexed individuals are genetic monstrosities that should be ignored, or have their identity destroyed, in order to protect something that hasn't been considered true by scientists since the late 90's when they realised that maybe erasing the identity of millions of people through involuntary surgery without their consent is a touch unethical.

farking hell, this site sometimes.
 
2020-06-15 11:22:15 AM  
8 votes:
And while everyone's celebrating this, no one is talking about how they declined to review the "qualified immunity" doctrine shielding police officers from accountability, which is a farking HUGE disappointment, especially at this particular moment.
 
2020-06-15 11:17:16 AM  
8 votes:

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 imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:02:18 AM  
8 votes:

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

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


"Congress should be stepping up to do this instead of relying on us to do their job" is a valid point. The same was true of ending DOMA and the reversal of same-sex marriage bans.

However, valid or not, the argument is coming from a man that has had no issue overriding these protections in the past so any assumption of good faith is lost before its ever considered.

In short; fark off and get your shine box, Kavanaugh, you disingenuous twunt.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:28 AM  
8 votes:

sprag: GhostOfSavageHenry: And by 'Judicial Activism' they basically mean "not ruling how I want". That's the only way I can take it when the people throwing that line around are the same ones who supported making corporations equivalent to people (minus the negatives of course) which was never a thing until they made it one. It's a bad faith argument from the get go.

Yep.  I had an acquaintance that was conservative that would rail on any ruling that he didn't like as the liberals "legislating from the bench!"  but any ruling he liked, regardless of how out of whack it was in regards to the law or common sense was just undoing all of the "judicial activism"

I don't talk to him anymore because while he's a smart guy in his field and generally a good person, he had the conservative kool aid injected directly into his veins.   Also it was funny how quick his views on women who got pregnant out of wedlock changed when his daughter got pregnant in college...


Hypocrisy is a Conservative value.
 
2020-06-15 10:54:15 AM  
8 votes:

Krashash: 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?

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.  The proper remedy: It is the job of Congress to be clear, and not SCOTUS to find a way to make it clear.

In another timeline, where Congress isn't run by howler monkeys benefiting from gerrymandering, I'm actually in agreement with that reasoning.  But we don't live in that kind of rational and fair timeline, so I'm happy for whatever little bits of justice arise from wherever they do arise.


It's absolutely clear that discriminating against people based on who they fark is in fact sex discrimination.   Because if they were farking the 'right' sex, they'd still be working.

Let's be very clear, the dissent is a perversion of logic and totally bankrupt as a rationale.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:13 AM  
8 votes:

Sir Paul: Don't worry bigots, they're going to make sure that a religious person can fire people over sincerely held beliefs in future rulings.


This ruling makes that extremely difficult.  While this was in limbo, the sincerely held religious belief argument can be used.  But with this ruling in place, the immediate counter argument is "can you fire someone for being black because of your sincerely held religious belief?"

The bigots haven't been able to climb that hill.  And if they can't, the legal equivalency created by this ruling takes all of the air out of that one.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:03 AM  
8 votes:

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


Nothing.  But Joe can shred it after he's sworn in.
 
2020-06-15 4:42:00 PM  
7 votes:

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Yes. And that is irrelevant.


If it is irrelevant to your comments, then maybe consider that your comments, which are in a thread about a Supreme Court decision on employment, which for most people has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, are irrelevant to the thread.
 
2020-06-15 3:58:24 PM  
7 votes:
The ruling is pretty simple:

1. If a woman can get fired for marrying another woman, but a man cannot, then that woman is being discriminated against on the basis of sex.
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.
I think one of the parts that is interesting to me is this gives an opening for those who are non-gender conforming, but not trans:
3. If a man can get fired for wearing a dress, but not a woman, then that man is being discriminated about on sex.

The gist here is that if someone is denied privileges or rights based on their sex, that is sex discrimination, which makes sense unless you're being willfully obtuse.
 
2020-06-15 12:43:06 PM  
7 votes:

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


You're skipping several posts where I explain exactly how you're factually incorrect, and you're just arguing by assertion saying "no, you".
 
2020-06-15 12:12:48 PM  
7 votes:

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 imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size

Fark user imageView Full Size


Fark user imageView Full Size
Fark user imageView Full Size

She doesn't appear to have included any of the simultaneous hermaphrodites in her examples, though.  Bummer.
 
2020-06-15 11:42:15 AM  
7 votes:

This text is now purple: flondrix: This text is now purple: thaylin: What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex

Sex != gender.

Ayup.  Until now, they could say, "We're not firing you because you are a [man|woman], we're firing you because you are a [woman|man] fraudulently claiming to be a [man|woman]"

I'll throw out a counter-hypothetical.

If sex and gender are the same, then under Title IX, gay women must compete against men, and vice-versa.

Figure skating will never be the same.


i.imgflip.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:44:50 AM  
7 votes:

John the Magnificent: The dissenting judges

.[ocregister.com image 482x599]


In their judicial robes...

daily.jstor.orgView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:42:19 AM  
7 votes:

NeoCortex42: They have advanced powerful
policy arguments and can take pride in today's result. Under the Constitution's separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress's role, not this Court's, to amend


I mean, that's a legitimate view, but that also fundamentally calls to question the role of the Supreme Court. Their whole job is to decide the implications of laws as written. If he feels that way about things like Brown v. Board of Education or Obergefell v. Hodges, cases where law was transformed overnight because of the opinion of learned justices, what is it he thinks the justices are supposed to be doing?
 
2020-06-15 10:41:22 AM  
7 votes:

jake_lex: Justice I LIKE BEER is delivering as best he can, it appears.

Trump can't be given another chance to put someone else like him on the Supreme Court.


Agreed, since he put someone like Gorsuch on the Court.  THAT may have just cost Il Douche reelection.  The base is not going to be pleased about that.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:22 AM  
7 votes:

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

So, Thomas, Alito, and who else?


Kavanaugh.

Thomas and Alito on the three thousand page angry scream into the darkness.

Kavanaugh on the "I'm voting dissent because this really isn't our job, but good on you guys for winning" so you know marginally not as bad.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:28 AM  
7 votes:

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


This is a satire account, right? I just can't tell any more.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:22 AM  
7 votes:

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

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch


Gorsuch was on our side 0.o wut?
Also fark you Kavenaugh, you should know better.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:43 AM  
7 votes:

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


Since 1776, 'equal protection' doesn't actually  apply to anyone but white men.


It's the same argument over and over.  They just keep adding qualifiers like "straight," and other bullshiat they pull out of their ass to get around the plain motherfarking text.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:32 AM  
7 votes:
But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".
 
2020-06-15 10:32:11 AM  
7 votes:

Demetrius: In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.


Actually, as per the quote above yours, BeerDude doesn't think it's okay.  He just thinks Congress needs to do their job, first.
 
2020-06-15 10:28:49 AM  
7 votes:
Gerald Bostock?  Came for the Jethro Tull references, leaving disappointed, Farkers.  Disappointed!


/6-3?
//wtf is wrong with those 3?
///three slashies so bite me.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:48 AM  
7 votes:
Great! But what if the business owner uses the excuse of religion?
 
2020-06-15 10:24:33 AM  
7 votes:
Good
 
2020-06-15 7:16:15 PM  
6 votes:

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 5:45:19 PM  
6 votes:

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Leishu: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Yes. And that is irrelevant.

If it is irrelevant to your comments, then maybe consider that your comments, which are in a thread about a Supreme Court decision on employment, which for most people has nothing to do with sexual reproduction, are irrelevant to the thread.

Maybe. Then why are you responding?

Because you're clogging up a thread about people getting equal rights with stupid obfuscations, and you deserve to get called on it.

You sure showed me.

/you must be new here
//welcome to fark.jpg


You: 2014-11-03 23:36:12 (5 years ago)
Me:2005-12-07 04:46:40 (14 years ago)

I just don't let bigots run wild in threads, because stupidity/bigotry is a far more harmful disease than COVID will ever be.
 
2020-06-15 12:26:10 PM  
6 votes:

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


Do you not know that the 14th Amendment exists?
 
2020-06-15 12:25:44 PM  
6 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, science disagrees with your opinion

It certainly does not.

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

It is as a matter of fact


No, it's not, but good luck continuing with the attempt because it's hilarious to watch dinosaurs attack the meteor
 
2020-06-15 11:29:46 AM  
6 votes:

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 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]

Depends on their gametes


And how would you know what someone's gametes were if not through a DNA test that reveals their 23rd pair of chromosomes?
 
2020-06-15 11:12:09 AM  
6 votes:
"Transgender brains are more like their desired gender from an early age" - European Society of Endocrinology

https://www.ese-hormones.org/media/15​0​6/transgender-brains-are-more-like-the​ir-desired-gender-from-an-early-age.pd​f
 
2020-06-15 11:02:40 AM  
6 votes:

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


They did in 1964, that was the entire point of the case.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:02 AM  
6 votes:

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

Happy Pride Month, everyone!


You know, say what you will about Gorsuch, but I really would have thought he'd rule in favor of a business of doing whatever it wanted with its chattel, I'm sorry, employees.

He's surprised me on a few of these decisions. Still a corpo-fascist, but not as bad as I thought.
 
2020-06-15 10:50:52 AM  
6 votes:

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

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

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

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Gorsuch was on our side 0.o wut?
Also fark you Kavenaugh, you should know better.

Aye.
I was expecting a 5-4 split, with Roberts realizing what this meant for his legacy.
Gorsuch being on the right side... I am wondering a bit.
I *know* there are Republicans throwing crap right now.


Gorsuch has broken off a few times already. Do a quick search for gorsuch deciding vote and I think you'll be surprised.
I haven't quite figured out what his angle is, but it seems to be he has some level of bullshiat detector that supercedes ideology.
A lot of the Supreme Court cases really are made up of legal details that define the decision, and I think it takes a little bit of bullshiat sniffing to say "hmm, even with all the details, there is still a right and wrong answer here."
 
2020-06-15 10:48:46 AM  
6 votes:

Another Government Employee: So, Goresuch is the wild card these days? Interesting.


Not really a wildcard. He's generally predictable, but not necessarily along a party line paradigm. He's consistently good on civil rights issues and consistently errs on the side of businesses with chevron deference issues. He appears to be reliable in applying a consistent philosophy and reasoning, and coming to the logical conclusion of that process rather than starting with a desired outcome and backfilling a justification for it. There will be results you like and results you don't, but it at least appears to be an intellectually honest approach.
 
2020-06-15 10:47:02 AM  
6 votes:

Wave Of Anal Fury: Great news, but sad that we needed a Supreme Court ruling on this.


It's great to see that bigotry is still unacceptable, despite a bigoted demagogue President.
 
2020-06-15 10:44:55 AM  
6 votes:

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

/s/ obviously

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

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

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


The House could pass the appropriate law, but Moscow Mitch would not let it go to a vote in the Senate.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:08 AM  
6 votes:
People ITT Grouching About Trump:lol suck it MAGAts and conservatives, etc. etc.

You guys are going to be real mad when you notice who authored the opinion.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:19 AM  
6 votes:
Blackout Brett likes beer but not gay people.  Wow, that's shocking.
 
2020-06-15 11:29:07 PM  
5 votes:

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 9:15:36 PM  
5 votes:

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 7:14:26 PM  
5 votes:

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


People aren't gametes.
 
2020-06-15 6:39:31 PM  
5 votes:

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 4:15:17 PM  
5 votes:

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 1 sperm, 1 egg. How is that not binary?


A sperm isn't human.  It doesn't have a sex.  An egg isn't a human.  It doesn't have a sex. An egg can come from someone with all of the biological definitional markers of being male, and vice versa.  The existence of true hermaphrodism in reproducing humans demonstrates that there are people who can generate both.  There are also those that can produce neither, and do not have the tissues to produce either, and therefore cannot be typed.

How are you not understanding this?
 
2020-06-15 3:40:19 PM  
5 votes:

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 3:25:52 PM  
5 votes:

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 1:28:07 PM  
5 votes:

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


For the same reason it took decades for blacks to get protection of laws that were supposed to cover everyone from as far back as the 1870s.  If you can't get the courts to stand on how laws apply equally to everyone, it often takes a lot of fighting to get there.
 
2020-06-15 1:24:29 PM  
5 votes:

rebelyell2006: So what is the red hatter's goal by arguing over definitions of sex or gender, other than to piss off people?


Basically they want to claim this decision is illegitimate because it somehow adds to Title VII when it doesn't
 
2020-06-15 1:03:28 PM  
5 votes:

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

Please elaborate.

it's pretty obvious, right? Title VII in no way covers sexual preference or LARPing preference. See Kavanagh's magisterial dissent.

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

This is a satire account, right? I just can't tell any more.

What if the account is honest, but reality is a sad satire? <galaxy brain>

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

Goresuch knows that Trump will not be president forever, or even for very much longer.

More's the pity. If Trump had handled Covid-19 better, this 'social justice' nonsense would never have taken root, and he'd be romping to a win. As it is he's a coin toss. Although in a better world, he'd be down in the polls against "Iron" mike Bloomberg...

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

You could always pray for their swift deaths

That seems unreasonable. They could just resign, take Kagan, Ginsburg, and Solomeyer with them, so Trump/Pence/McConnell can appoint their replacements with true, constitutional jurisprudence.


This guy spent two months posing as a centrist democrat who wanted Bloomberg to win the primary as the best chance of defeating Trump.

Imagine being this guy.  Being so incredibly stupid as to not even make another account to play his edgelord games after the first one flamed out.  Being so empty that somehow this is how you decided to spend your spare time.  Waking up, logging onto the vastness of the internet and using those incredible resources to do... this.
 
2020-06-15 12:23:32 PM  
5 votes:
 
2020-06-15 12:13:50 PM  
5 votes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, science disagrees with your opinion

It certainly does not.


You can believe that if you like, but just know your opinion is not based on facts
 
2020-06-15 11:44:37 AM  
5 votes:

SamFlagg: Gorsuch is by no means, 'not a conservative' but he seems to be a wildcard on a strange set of particulars.


Gorsuch gave us some insight into his originalism thought process last year(via his book):

Originalism teaches only that the Constitution's original meaning is fixed; meanwhile, of course, new applications of that meaning will arise with new developments and new technologies. Consider a few examples. As originally understood, the term "cruel" in the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause referred (at least) to methods of execution deliberately designed to inflict pain. That never changes. But that meaning doesn't just encompass those particular forms of torture known at the founding. It also applies to deliberate efforts to inflict a slow and painful death by laser. Take another example. As originally understood, the First Amendment protected speech. That guarantee doesn't just apply to speech on street corners or in newspapers; it applies equally to speech on the Internet. Or consider the Fourth Amendment. As originally understood, it usually required the government to get a warrant to search a home. And that meaning applies equally whether the government seeks to conduct a search the old-fashioned way by rummaging through the place or in a more modern way by using a thermal imaging device to see inside. Whether it's the Constitution's prohibition on torture, its protection of speech, or its restrictions on searches, the meaning remains constant even as new applications arise.

This is a very different view than the way people like Thomas think, despite theoretically having the same method of interpretation.  Thomas would say the internet didn't exist, so it was never intended to cover the internet.  Gorsuch's view is agnostic and based on the ideas(spirit of the law, you might say).  Here, he's saying the intent of the Civil Rights Act was to protect these people, and that's very consistent with his stated method of interpretation.  Gorsuch, if anything, seems fairly consistent in that his decisions are based on his stated judicial philosophy rather than political philosophy or reactions to current events, but is what I'd expect for someone who was specifically chosen to replace Scalia in what seemed like a "like for like" replacement
 
2020-06-15 11:39:13 AM  
5 votes:
QQ: Does this thereby make Trump's TG military ban illegal?
 
2020-06-15 11:13:50 AM  
5 votes:

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.


Your worldview is so narrow and provincial that you sound like a right-wing asshat.
 
2020-06-15 11:13:19 AM  
5 votes:
 
2020-06-15 10:51:36 AM  
5 votes:
The reality is people will probably still be fired because of their sexual orientation.  The difference now is, your employer can't say it is because of sexual orientation.  Or something like that.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:08 AM  
5 votes:
"An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids," Gorsuch wrote.

I like that.

I now wish for all of Trump's staff to present as the opposite sex.
 
2020-06-15 10:50:53 AM  
5 votes:

danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously


I'm actually fairly impressed by Gorsuch. He's been a fairly consistent socially moderate/liberal swing vote in these cases.

Same goes for Roberts
 
2020-06-15 10:47:52 AM  
5 votes:

jake_lex: Justice I LIKE BEER is delivering as best he can, it appears.


And yet he was the deciding vote in the case where Georgia can no longer copyright the law.

That was a strange bedfellows case.
 
2020-06-15 10:44:35 AM  
5 votes:
Great news, but sad that we needed a Supreme Court ruling on this.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:51 AM  
5 votes:

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


Goresuch knows that Trump will not be president forever, or even for very much longer.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:57 AM  
5 votes:

Grungehamster: [Fark user image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)


Eric Erickson is a joke.

I met him at a hotel bar in Austin.  I was in town at the same time as one of his Red State events and they had it in the Sheraton I was staying in.  It was funny, I was chatting with "the dude next to me at the bar" and after a spell introduced my self.  "Hey, I'm me, what's your name?"  He seemed a little put off that I didn't know who he was.

Since he's on the local news radio here I can say one thing:  He doesn't like Trump.

/Seems his show comes on when I'm gloved up and putting a finish on a woodworking project and can't change the station
//If Rush comes on I'll happily waste 80 cents of gloves to change the station
///The Mark Arum show is good stuff.  Funny as all hell.
 
2020-06-15 10:34:54 AM  
5 votes:

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


Considering the Senate right now...

I had a thought about optics, but I realized that Moscow Mitch doesn't give a shiat about anything but his own power and stacking the courts with partisan hacks.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:16 AM  
5 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size


(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)
 
2020-06-15 10:27:09 AM  
5 votes:
media.giphy.comView Full Size


I thought we were better than this.  Clearly not.  This should not have gone all the way to the SCOTUS.

How about any "Chief" corporate person gets $0 and no bonuses if they are fired or commit a crime.
 
2020-06-15 10:26:07 AM  
5 votes:

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


Nothing.  Although they might start making campaign T-shirts reading "Fark your Rulings."
 
2020-06-15 11:12:50 PM  
4 votes:

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 6:03:55 PM  
4 votes:
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 5:43:26 PM  
4 votes:
This is a HUGE victory for personal freedom and totally unexpected during this sh[tshow presidency
 
2020-06-15 5:34:34 PM  
4 votes:
The fact is that...

"Sex A can exhibit Gender Role A, but Sex B cannot"

Is sex discrimination. 100 percent of the time. Legislative intent can DIAF.
 
2020-06-15 5:22:58 PM  
4 votes:

shut_it_down: RussianPotato: That's how it works.  Congress MAKES law.  The president executes the laws.  The court interprets them.

Which is exactly what happened here. Glad we had this talk.


Yup - As shown above, repeatedly, this was a 100 percent logical interpretation.
 
2020-06-15 4:56:23 PM  
4 votes:

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

Honey, it's not the definitions of the words that don't make sense. I'm confused by whatever the hell point you think you're making.

The function of sex is reproduction, sweetums. 1 sperm, 1 egg is binary. There arent any intermediate sex cells or a third discrete type. You position seems to be that the packaging the gametes comes in matters (morphology). There are intersex conditions, true. But you still need 1 sperm and 1 egg.


My position is that human biology is complex and prone to high degrees of variation, and people can't always be accurately distinguished into one of two absolute, binary sexes with some hard biological factor. I gave examples for why the sex chromosomes don't serve this purpose. You seem obsessed with gametes for some reason, but that doesn't work either. As other people pointed out, there are intersex people with sperm, eggs, both, or neither. Those people might also have some mixture of male and female sex organs or tissues. The fact that there are two kinds of gametes does not mean that sex itself is binary.
 
2020-06-15 4:13:55 PM  
4 votes:

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.


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.


Discrimination based on sex isn't just doing something because the person is a male or
Female, it is also punishing a male (or
female) for something that a female (or male) would not be punished for. In the example, he was fired for doing something as a man that a woman would not be fired for doing. That is discrimination based on sex.
 
2020-06-15 4:01:53 PM  
4 votes:

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 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


Honey, it's not the definitions of the words that don't make sense. I'm confused by whatever the hell point you think you're making.
 
2020-06-15 3:53:59 PM  
4 votes:

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?


He's confusing third-grade level biology with facts. Just ignore him.
 
2020-06-15 2:49:15 PM  
4 votes:

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 2:32:13 PM  
4 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 2:29:32 PM  
4 votes:
The Alito/Thomas dissent's just rage. Pure anger. I love it. They have nothing to stand on. Their own principles of plain-text "what does the law say" legal interpretation are used against them and they're cornered like rats.

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

And what's he want? Invalidate Title VII entirely and ask Congress to eventually replace it with something clearer for him? Bullpucky. They've passed laws. Interpret them already, bud.
 
2020-06-15 2:22:35 PM  
4 votes:

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


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

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

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

You try and pull that "I have no reason, you're just fired." Crap with that kind of chronology and you will get totally screwed in court by any canned employee with a halfway decent attorney. They've dealt with this before for decades with people finding out an employee's Jewish, or Muslim, etc. It's old hat.
 
2020-06-15 2:01:36 PM  
4 votes:

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


Never underestimate the genetic advantage of a rich gay uncle.
 
2020-06-15 1:48:12 PM  
4 votes:

mithras_angel: Rwa2play: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

[Fark user image 512x288]


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


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

He's argued over and over for a binary view of sex, and it's been smashed hard enough that he really doesn't have anywhere else to go besides "no, I'm right" while avoiding responding to any of the very specific facts that completely dismantle his argument.
 
2020-06-15 1:25:15 PM  
4 votes:

rebelyell2006: So what is the red hatter's goal by arguing over definitions of sex or gender, other than to piss off people?


Prop up their own worldview in their heads, and if they can muddy the waters for people who either haven't made up their mind or don't know the biological science, even better for them.
 
2020-06-15 12:36:59 PM  
4 votes:
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?
 
2020-06-15 12:16:27 PM  
4 votes:

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


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

But generally,  are you expecting the legal matter to begin relying on extensive genetic testing to demand findings for the binary? Surely it's easier to allow self determination in the matter than create the burden of scientific finding. Ultimately it just doesn't matter THAT much in contemporary society. We don't need to be concerned with what's in anyone else's pants unless we're sleeping with them or actively providing health care to them.
 
2020-06-15 11:48:33 AM  
4 votes:

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


Alito, Thomas, and BeerBro.  Because they're pieces of sh*t.
 
2020-06-15 11:28:58 AM  
4 votes:

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

No, they got it right.  Article I, Section 9 of the U.S Constitution is both concise and specific regarding using the law (or lack thereof) to punish people for merely existing:

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed."

That's it.  This was so cut-and-dry to them that they assumed the definition of a bill of attainder was self-explanatory.  Note, also, that they hated these things so much that they made sure to include an explicit ban in the first go-round, unlike anything in the Bill of Rights.
In this case, a disingenuously narrow interpretation of the CRA would mean it was specifically worded to exclude certain groups.  Now, that by itself doesn't make a law unconstitutional (sorry, wingnuts, you can't throw out the CRA by suggesting it wasn't liberal enough), but the CRA clearly intends to be inclusive, so it's in fact any nit-picking that would be unconstitutional -- you're trying to twist the wording until you materialize a bill of attainder out of thin air.  That is in fact the very "legislating from the bench" the right is supposedly so preoccupied with.  It's oddly specific to interpret the CRA to say certain groups are excluded so we need another law to close this loophole created by this conveniently narrow interpretation that's essentially banned (and at the very least, frowned upon) by the Constitution.
This isn't an issue of complex legalese; this is basic civics -- when it comes to protecting rights, legislation defining [groups of] people should be interpreted with the broadest possible context.  That's not just due to the Constitution; the principle is written into the Declaration of Independence as well.  In fact, any attempt to make these things complex should be eyed with suspicion -- neither the Constitution nor the CRA were written to be persnickety.
P.S. I would even go so far as to define a bill of attainder as one that rewards a special interest, which would throw out about 90% of the tax code, but that would be a bridge too far for this country.
 
2020-06-15 11:24:36 AM  
4 votes:
I gotta wonder what evangelic voters are thinking.

Trump's Supreme Court picks justified everything. Now what do they have to show for supporting Trump?
 
2020-06-15 11:05:23 AM  
4 votes:

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.


Think about how up their own asses they are.  A woman talks about her marriage to a man, doesn't get fired.  A man talks about being married to a man, gets fired.  That's sexual discrimination, only women are fee to speak openly about their marriage to a man. And vise versa for lesbians and men.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:36 AM  
4 votes:

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


That Congress should have changed the law explicitly and the Court should not rewrite law for Congress.  They did not think that the 1964 law as written included sexual orientation and gender, which I think it not unreasonable given the culture and law of the U.S. in the 1960's.  I like the outcome, and think we all should, but I do think Congress should have dealt with this long before now.  Part of the reason the Supreme Court has become such a hot button politically is because people now expect them to do things Congress should be doing but won't.  So, good for equality, but definitely gives Congress more of an excuse to not act on things, which is not good. The law of unintended consequences and all that.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:38 AM  
4 votes:

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

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


If it was that obvious, we wouldn't have needed this case to tell us so.  You can look around the country and find a number of states and cities that have updated their anti-discrimination laws to have a bigger list of protected classes.
 
2020-06-15 10:59:28 AM  
4 votes:
The 6-3 holding, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, a conservative appointed by President Donald Trump

That was a nice middle finger to Donnie*.
 
2020-06-15 10:54:36 AM  
4 votes:

Grungehamster: [pbs.twimg.com image 601x559]

Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.


It must be ulcer inducing to have to keep swinging from one opinion to the other like that. I'm sure that guy has been confidently boasting about the conservative lock of the SC for months, then one decision comes down and it's straight back to Johnny Reb levels of violent ass hurt.
 
2020-06-15 10:52:12 AM  
4 votes:
No offense, but I can't farking believe you could fire someone for being gay or transgender. "Yo dude, we don't like tailgunners 'round here so GTFO. Sorry, not sorry."

farking really? Really?
 
2020-06-15 10:49:55 AM  
4 votes:

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


Sex != gender.
 
2020-06-15 10:49:03 AM  
4 votes:

Grungehamster: [pbs.twimg.com image 601x559]

Welp, they are all-in on "actually, the Supreme Court has no authority anymore, Trump can rule as he wishes."

I wonder if they believe that is still the case if a Democrat wins the presidency.


media.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:47:04 AM  
4 votes:
It's about time
Do equal rights, and protect black people, POC, and affordable housing for the millions of people who are struggling. That's more than half the country, total.
Oh, and health care be a required basic need and right?
 
2020-06-15 10:45:41 AM  
4 votes:
I hope I get to keep reposting this today.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:44:59 AM  
4 votes:

thaylin: Troy McClure: It's sad this had to come from the Supreme Court only because Congress has yet to bother amending the list of protected classes in the Civil Rights Act to include other groups who are known victims of discrimination.
What needs to be changed? the law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, being gay/transgender is a matter of sex


Trumpy decided that having "sex" include people of in-between sex was too complicated, so he removed them from existence.

It was something like that.  I was listening to NPR.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:50 AM  
4 votes:

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

/s/ obviously

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

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

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


They are all playing a dumb political game with the other 8 justices.  It might be a lifetime appointment, but if the other 8 justices don't respect you in the least, you're basically just a benchwarmer.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:09 AM  
4 votes:

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

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch


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

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Gorsuch was on our side 0.o wut?
Also fark you Kavenaugh, you should know better.


Aye.
I was expecting a 5-4 split, with Roberts realizing what this meant for his legacy.
Gorsuch being on the right side... I am wondering a bit.
I *know* there are Republicans throwing crap right now.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:06 AM  
4 votes:
Sounds like...
Hey, we all know this is going to pass, right? Right!
OK, new guy, take one for the team. Vote against, and use it as an opportunity to biatch at Congress for yet again forcing us to do their jobs for them. What is it they do over there again?!
 
2020-06-15 10:38:09 AM  
4 votes:
The dissenters didn't say it should be ok to fire someone because they are gay.  They answered the question, does Title 9 protect them?  The answer is no because it doesn't.  They furthermore said it should be re-written to include that language and protect them.

SCOTUS answers specific questions.  If you ask it the wrong way you can get an answer you don't like.
 
2020-06-15 10:36:07 AM  
4 votes:

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

Even SCOTUS realizes gender and sex are related.


They've recognized that since deciding Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins back in 1989.
 
2020-06-15 10:26:11 AM  
4 votes:

jake_lex: Justice I LIKE BEER is delivering as best he can, it appears.

Trump can't be given another chance to put someone else like him on the Supreme Court.


Hey, the Nationals have a great chance at making the pennant race next year and those tickets don't pay for themselves.
 
2020-06-15 10:22:30 AM  
4 votes:
Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously
 
2020-06-16 12:10:12 AM  
3 votes:

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".
 
2020-06-15 7:38:49 PM  
3 votes:

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 5:59:30 PM  
3 votes:

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 5:48:18 PM  
3 votes:
Congratulations to all my 'murcan farker friends who are affected by this decision. You deserve this, it is long overdue.
 
2020-06-15 5:23:49 PM  
3 votes:

RussianPotato: Leishu: RussianPotato: Leishu: And so what happens to those people who live in areas which do no respect their right to not be discriminated against? Are they just an acceptable loss?

Congress.  Could.  Pass.  A.  Law.  Protecting.  Them.

That's how it works.  Congress MAKES law.  The president executes the laws.  The court interprets them.

When a court reinterprets a 50 year old law that had never provided such protections, to now provide such protections, it has rewritten the law and has usurped a power that belongs solely to congress.  No matter how laudable the goals may be.

I want you to calm down a second and think this through.  Realize that you do not want the court to have the power to write law.  They are unelected.  They are unaccountable.  Do you really want to give all of the powers of congress to the courts.  How about if Trump wins re election and gets another two judges on there?

I'm pretty calm. I'm actually overjoyed at the moment.

You need to think though: Whose responsibility is it when Congress fails to uphold equal rights, and gerrymanders things in such a way that they cannot be voted out by the same minorities that they oppress?

The people.

Your entire argument is "The ends justify the means."


And yours is that the means justify the ends.

If the minority exists freely only at the whims of the majority, the system is irrevocably broken.
 
2020-06-15 5:21:30 PM  
3 votes:

RussianPotato: That's how it works.  Congress MAKES law.  The president executes the laws.  The court interprets them.


Which is exactly what happened here. Glad we had this talk.
 
2020-06-15 4:28:03 PM  
3 votes:

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

Honey, it's not the definitions of the words that don't make sense. I'm confused by whatever the hell point you think you're making.

The function of sex is reproduction, sweetums. 1 sperm, 1 egg is binary. There arent any intermediate sex cells or a third discrete type. You position seems to be that the packaging the gametes comes in matters (morphology). There are intersex conditions, true. But you still need 1 sperm and 1 egg.


Are you aware that people have purpose and lives beyond sexual reproduction?
 
2020-06-15 3:53:48 PM  
3 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 3:52:28 PM  
3 votes:
It's so incredibly refreshing, after the utter shiatstorm that was last week, to see that at least one branch of the government still recognizes us as valid human beings, deserving of rights.
 
2020-06-15 3:27:38 PM  
3 votes:

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 3:26:51 PM  
3 votes:

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 3:21:48 PM  
3 votes:

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 3:15:33 PM  
3 votes:

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 2:44:42 PM  
3 votes:

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 2:41:45 PM  
3 votes:

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 1:52:47 PM  
3 votes:

This text is now purple: Krashash: In short, the 3 side of the Court put forward a separation of powers reasoning.  They argue that the Civil Rights Act, as written, is not specific enough to be interpreted as including sexual orientation or trans people.  By deciding that the Civil Rights Act includes sexual orientation, they are legislating from the bench.

Collapsing sex and gender into a single category may have some interesting downstream effects. I'm curious how general they will make that ruling.


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

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

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

Then the category being discriminated against is sex, not gender.
 
2020-06-15 1:38:16 PM  
3 votes:

tyyreaunn: DarnoKonrad: tyyreaunn: He technically isn't wrong -

No he is technically wrong for fark's sake.  Can you create different rules for the sexes when it comes to employment?  The answer is farking NO.  Which means you can't fire women for farking a woman unless you're also firing men for farking women.  That's what *technically* means.


The logic is clear and concise.

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

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


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

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

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

148 years for courts to recognize that it protected the rights of gay people to marry.
 
2020-06-15 1:36:25 PM  
3 votes:

mithras_angel: Rwa2play: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

[Fark user image 512x288]


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


Know what any social media site can become

Because we have lurkers
Because we have casual viewers
Because (metaphorically) punching a Nazi is what we do
 
2020-06-15 1:10:30 PM  
3 votes:

radiosteele: Supreme Court Wrecking Ball - June 15th

Takedown #1 - Sanctuary City Appeal DENIED

Takedown #2 - Current TFA

Takedown #3 - Blue Lives Don't Matter As Much

Takedown #4 - We're Gonna Get The Guns

Takedown #5 - Let's Keep Helping Puerto Rico

Jesus, Donald is getting his ass handed to him today.....


I'm not sure #3 hurts Donald. It's about qualified immunity, and we want that changed, so a denial of cert is status quo.

Also, #4 is only 1 of 10 cases they're considering. Don't start sucking each others' dicks yet.
 
2020-06-15 12:50:45 PM  
3 votes:

Christian Bale: This is wayyyyyyyyyy more important than gays in the military or gay marriage. But for some reason those got all the push and publicity.


Considering all the legal ramifications of marriage, I am going to call that out as BS. From financial (pensions, medical insurance, taxes, inheritance) to personal (medical decisions), to legal (spousal privilege) the implications of marriage are massive.

Yeah, a lot of these can be contractually obtained (a medical power of attorney, for example) but many can't (if your employer doesn't want to cover your "partner" because they aren't a "spouse" you can't force them to and there is no way to obtain spousal privilege without a spouse) that can be quite expensive and they are individually far easier to contest than a marriage.
 
2020-06-15 12:48:12 PM  
3 votes:

This text is now purple: Murkanen: How am I, as a straight cisgendered male, discriminated against by society?

https://www.sss.gov/register/


No they take gay cis men too
 
2020-06-15 12:35:09 PM  
3 votes:

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.


As Gorsuch says, the law did already cover them, because it says not to discriminate on the basis of sex. The plain text of the law makes it illegal to discriminate on these matters.

Your judicial activism is trying to claim that it didn't. Thankfully, 6 of the justices saw through that.
 
2020-06-15 12:35:07 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

Objective reality IS a biatch.


He's relying on children's literature from the 70's for his position on intersexed people.  I don't think scientific journals on reproductive biology are his speed.
 
2020-06-15 12:32:00 PM  
3 votes:

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: 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]

Depends on their gametes


So you will require them to use the men's bathroom?  Because every one of those people is male.  Ok, they have breasts, vaginas and the like, but they're XY

Feel free to inform them of that.  I'm sure you'll be very popular.
 
2020-06-15 12:27:46 PM  
3 votes:

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

fark you, justice rapey.

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


Interesting that you used "substantial"
 
2020-06-15 12:26:13 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

As are the others?

His ruling is basically saying Congress needs to legislate better.


And he's still wrong
 
2020-06-15 12:13:04 PM  
3 votes:

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

Yes.

Even the "at will" states can't fire you for your race or religion or sex.  They can invent other non-protected reasons, though... or even no reason at all.

- What's your favorite MLP character?
- What?
- Did I stutter?
- What?
- Say what one more time, motherfarker!
- What?
- you're fired.


This is something not often understood.  The number of reasons you can be fired for in at-will states is literally infinite.  In most cases, the only way you can make the legal argument that it's discriminatory is through open admission of the offender, or a statistical argument after many, many terminations that go against a protected class.
 
2020-06-15 12:05:06 PM  
3 votes:

dankaiser: I'm very happy for this ruling. Of course it doesn't mean I can't be fired for being gay. It just means, after lots of lawyers and effort fighting it, my boss can't get away with it now.


Nah, it just means he'll have to find something else to fire you for first.  He can still get away with it if he's willing to put in the work.

In "employment at will" states he doesn't even have to have a reason.  He may end up paying you unemployment but he can let you go for basically no reason at all if he chooses to.
 
2020-06-15 11:54:53 AM  
3 votes:
Article would be much better with the dissenting opinion.

I'm pretty sure that if you can fire people for being gay, you can fire them for being straight, which would be a pretty bizarre opinion to support.
 
2020-06-15 11:54:33 AM  
3 votes:

WilderKWight: Only the absolute DUMBEST employers would fire someone and say it's "because you're gay" or "because you're a transwoman" or anything like that.


Yet, it still happened.

Shows you how dumb some employers are.  Including Uncle Sam.
 
2020-06-15 11:54:18 AM  
3 votes:

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

/s/ obviously

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

I mean, fine, you don't like the methodology, and you don't like having to do someone else's job.  But you have the opportunity to right a wrong, and you don't take it?  This isn't a matter of principle or procedure!  These are people's lives.  Go f*ck yourself, "Justice" BeerWhore.


That's a bad takeaway. The SCOTUS should not be overstepping their bounds and legislating from the bench. The reality is that Kavanaugh is just straight-up wrong, and legislating from the bench is not what happened with this majority decision. Title VII exactly as it was written should have always protected against this kind of discrimination.
 
2020-06-15 11:51:53 AM  
3 votes:

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

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


I mean, fine, you don't like the methodology, and you don't like having to do someone else's job.  But you have the opportunity to right a wrong, and you don't take it?  This isn't a matter of principle or procedure!  These are people's lives.  Go f*ck yourself, "Justice" BeerWhore.
 
2020-06-15 11:42:44 AM  
3 votes:

Excelsior: 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.

"sorry dude, you were 5 minutes late last Wednesday and you left early this one day last February, so I'm afraid we're going to have to fire you for your ongoing absences"


Sadly yeah, that's still going to happen. But at least now that fired worker gets their day in court to try and prove it was pretextual, just like thousands of women and minority employees do each year after they're fired on made-up grounds.  If this decision had gone the other way, they wouldn't have had to even try and make up a reason and the worker would have been SOL.

This decision won't fix bigotry and hate, but it's sure as hell going to make bigotry and hate open their pocket books in civil litigation in the years ahead.
 
2020-06-15 11:41:48 AM  
3 votes:

roddikinsathome: eiger: This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.

Considering who's ON the bench? It SHOULD have gone the other way. This is, however, a pleasant surprise gift I will happily accept.
🏳🌈🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈

/Waves flag for my Fam.
//Waves flag for them that can't [yet]
///Queered slashies!


One of the happiest days of my life was walking back to my colleagues office to tell her  about Obergefell & that her MN marriage would now be recognized elsewhere (she had been afraid to look)
 
2020-06-15 11:39:19 AM  
3 votes:

eiger: This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.


Considering who's ON the bench? It SHOULD have gone the other way. This is, however, a pleasant surprise gift I will happily accept.
🏳🌈🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈 🏳🌈

/Waves flag for my Fam.
//Waves flag for them that can't [yet]
///Queered slashies!
 
2020-06-15 11:37:07 AM  
3 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 11:27:10 AM  
3 votes:

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

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

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

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Gorsuch was on our side 0.o wut?
Also fark you Kavenaugh, you should know better.

Aye.
I was expecting a 5-4 split, with Roberts realizing what this meant for his legacy.
Gorsuch being on the right side... I am wondering a bit.
I *know* there are Republicans throwing crap right now.



Ben Shapiro is having a tiny little shiat fit.
 
2020-06-15 11:26:02 AM  
3 votes:

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

Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas. Their reasoning is that because the people who wrote the laws only meant to prohibit discrimination on the bases of biological sex by itself, it would be the court creating new laws to extend that protection to LGBT folks and that Congress needs to get off their ass and pass an equal rights law.

I personally find the majority's opinion to be much more persuasive - Gorsuch put it very accurately when he wrote that you can't discriminate against someone for being trans or gay without it also being discrimination on the bases of sex.


I said this back when gay marriage was decided. You can't ban gay marriage because that's discriminating based on the sex of the participants.
 
2020-06-15 11:25:25 AM  
3 votes:
In other Supreme Court news, Thomas wrote a dissent to denying cert on a qualified immunity case, expressing a desire to revisit and tone down QI. Since it takes 4 Justices to grant cert, that means at least one of the liberal Justices is fine with leaving QI as stupidly overbroad as it's currently used.
 
2020-06-15 11:18:52 AM  
3 votes:

Hey Nurse!: Three of nine people in the highest court of our nation think the US Constitution doesn't apply to people that don't love like they do. Funny how that 33% keeps popping up. Basically it seems our country is populated by one-third bigots, racists, and assholes.


I've noticed that 33% of whackjob racist rightwingers isn't confined to America. Across near every other country, that percentage seems to be a constant.
 
2020-06-15 11:18:09 AM  
3 votes:

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


Kavanaugh, Alito, Thomas. Their reasoning is that because the people who wrote the laws only meant to prohibit discrimination on the bases of biological sex by itself, it would be the court creating new laws to extend that protection to LGBT folks and that Congress needs to get off their ass and pass an equal rights law.

I personally find the majority's opinion to be much more persuasive - Gorsuch put it very accurately when he wrote that you can't discriminate against someone for being trans or gay without it also being discrimination on the bases of sex.
 
2020-06-15 11:09:02 AM  
3 votes:

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.


Whoa.  Pretty sweet promotion to God you got there.
 
2020-06-15 11:08:09 AM  
3 votes:
I consider myself a conservative. I'm pretty old school. And I agree with this. The only thing that should be used to keep you from employment is lack of required skills or someone else has more experience etc. Not what color you are. Not whether you're gay or straight. Not whether you're fat or thin etc.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:47 AM  
3 votes:
Oh wow, Alito is just completely melting down.
 
2020-06-15 11:04:24 AM  
3 votes:
It's interesting how many people would rather make up what they think the rationales for both the decision and the dissent were, instead of, y'know, downloading the PDF and reading it. It's not paywalled or restricted. The big words can be looked up in a dictionary. You don't score points for opining quickly; you don't lose anything by taking a half-hour or so to at least skim the relevant portions to grasp the essence of what's said.

The decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions​/​19pdf/17-1618_hfci.pdf
 
2020-06-15 11:01:06 AM  
3 votes:
Once in a while, Roberts doesn't want to be remembered as a bigot for the rest of history.
It's nice.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:19 AM  
3 votes:
Please understand that this does not mean one cannot be fired for being toxic, disruptive, what have you.  Divas and drama queens, be they straight/gay/transgender, can always be shown the door.
 
2020-06-15 10:56:06 AM  
3 votes:
Does this apply to military service?
 
2020-06-15 10:54:46 AM  
3 votes:

Khellendros: Sir Paul: Don't worry bigots, they're going to make sure that a religious person can fire people over sincerely held beliefs in future rulings.

This ruling makes that extremely difficult.  While this was in limbo, the sincerely held religious belief argument can be used.  But with this ruling in place, the immediate counter argument is "can you fire someone for being black because of your sincerely held religious belief?"

The bigots haven't been able to climb that hill.  And if they can't, the legal equivalency created by this ruling takes all of the air out of that one.


The whole idea that deep-rooted delusions exempt a person from civil rights laws is very American, and very insane.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:21 AM  
3 votes:

NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

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


Kavanaugh's excuse is analogous to Southerners' claim that "the Civil War was about States Rights, not slavery!"

He's (of course) claiming that he totally, totally supports gay rights, b-b-but Congress should be the one to change it, not me!!!
 
2020-06-15 10:49:41 AM  
3 votes:
Does this apply to "at will" states, where you can be fired for the color of your aura?
 
2020-06-15 10:49:25 AM  
3 votes:

johnny queso: [Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/i9_hCjcF​NO0] positive baby steps

fark you, justice rapey.


He still won't hear.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:32 AM  
3 votes:

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?


I started trying to correct all the things that are wrong in your post, but then I figured you wouldn't want to read and comprehend any of it, anyway.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:45 AM  
3 votes:

NotThatGuyAgain: Grungehamster: [Fark user image 425x338]

(To anyone who isn't wasting brain space remembering this, Erickson called David Souter a "goat farking child molester.)

Eric Erickson is a joke.

I met him at a hotel bar in Austin.  I was in town at the same time as one of his Red State events and they had it in the Sheraton I was staying in.  It was funny, I was chatting with "the dude next to me at the bar" and after a spell introduced my self.  "Hey, I'm me, what's your name?"  He seemed a little put off that I didn't know who he was.

Since he's on the local news radio here I can say one thing:  He doesn't like Trump.

/Seems his show comes on when I'm gloved up and putting a finish on a woodworking project and can't change the station
//If Rush comes on I'll happily waste 80 cents of gloves to change the station
///The Mark Arum show is good stuff.  Funny as all hell.


Erik Son of Erik was briefly a never-Trumper until Fox News stopped calling him, and he got back on board.
 
2020-06-15 10:40:51 AM  
3 votes:
The freepers are handling with the expected class.

Won't paste anything they said here. But LOL they mad.
 
2020-06-15 10:37:55 AM  
3 votes:
Phew. Dodged a bullet.

Of course, there are a bunch more chambers in the gun...
 
2020-06-15 10:37:53 AM  
3 votes:

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

Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch


Thomas (duh) Alito (another duh) Kavanaugh. Thinks its congresses role to determine who should be afforded protection from discriminatory employment practices.

Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. 172 pages.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:50 AM  
3 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:24 AM  
3 votes:

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


Let me guess before I look: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch
 
2020-06-15 10:34:50 AM  
3 votes:

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


Well, he cannot rape (male) gay people.  So, that explains his point of view.
Now, if he can get that cute lesbian over there to deliver a beer and taste his roofie, well...
 
2020-06-15 10:34:44 AM  
3 votes:
Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?
 
2020-06-15 10:31:29 AM  
3 votes:

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


Please elaborate.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:37 AM  
3 votes:
Would the reason for dissent be one of those religious liberty bits?

Honest question.

Having said that - yay!!!
 
2020-06-15 10:26:18 AM  
3 votes:
Roberts was with the 6? Is it because it's Monday and his asshole meter isn't totally filled up yet?
 
2020-06-15 10:24:55 AM  
3 votes:
Good.
 
2020-06-16 2:57:03 PM  
2 votes:

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 1:35:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 1:31:00 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:47:50 PM  
2 votes:
Unexpected. Congratulations to the American Farkers who could use that protection.
 
2020-06-16 10:00:25 AM  
2 votes:
This should have been done a long time ago.
 
2020-06-15 10:23:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 8:15:23 PM  
2 votes:

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 6:37:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 5:12:32 PM  
2 votes:

RussianPotato: Leishu: And so what happens to those people who live in areas which do no respect their right to not be discriminated against? Are they just an acceptable loss?

Congress.  Could.  Pass.  A.  Law.  Protecting.  Them.

That's how it works.  Congress MAKES law.  The president executes the laws.  The court interprets them.

When a court reinterprets a 50 year old law that had never provided such protections, to now provide such protections, it has rewritten the law and has usurped a power that belongs solely to congress.  No matter how laudable the goals may be.

I want you to calm down a second and think this through.  Realize that you do not want the court to have the power to write law.  They are unelected.  They are unaccountable.  Do you really want to give all of the powers of congress to the courts.  How about if Trump wins re election and gets another two judges on there?


I'm pretty calm. I'm actually overjoyed at the moment.

You need to think though: Whose responsibility is it when Congress fails to uphold equal rights, and gerrymanders things in such a way that they cannot be voted out by the same minorities that they oppress?
 
2020-06-15 4:42:17 PM  
2 votes:

rebelyell2006: So what is the red hatter's goal by arguing over definitions of sex or gender, other than to piss off people?


Because they need wedge issues, or they will cease to exist.
 
2020-06-15 4:41:54 PM  
2 votes:

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.


You're saying the right things, but in the wrong way.

Statements of people who vote for the legislation are almost completely worthless.  Statements made by anyone after the bill has passed are completely worthless.  Statements made by the sponsor of the bill in committee are mostly worthless, but can still be considered for legislative intent.  After all, as you correctly pointed out even if the sponsor said "We're passing this law for X" that doesn't mean that everyone voted for it with that intent in mind.

However, the legislative history, which combines the statements of sponsors and how the bill is changed as it proceeds to committee, as well as statements made in debate, and definitely using the stated legislative intent that is often contained in most bills, the intent can all be cobbled together.

And let's all be completely honest here.  I doubt there was a single politician back in the 60s who passed this law with the understanding or intent that it would apply to these people.
 
2020-06-15 3:31:04 PM  
2 votes:
Gorsuch is consistent in his judicial philosophy and not driven by ideological result.  Who knew?
 
2020-06-15 3:26:38 PM  
2 votes:
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 3:10:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 2:54:10 PM  
2 votes:

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 2:52:25 PM  
2 votes:

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 2:42:49 PM  
2 votes:

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 2:36:44 PM  
2 votes:

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 2:13:48 PM  
2 votes:
Trump tweeted LAW & ORDER! again. Good to see he supports SCOTUS.
 
2020-06-15 1:54:02 PM  
2 votes:

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

If sex is binary, fungi must have allocated at least 15 bits to the definition:
Why This Fungus Has Over 20,000 Sexes

Granted, animals don't get quite as weird as fungi...
[Fark user image image 660x926]
[Fark user image image 660x926]
[Fark user image image 660x926]

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

Cuttlefish and fungi are not even vertebrates, let alone mammals. Stop getting your science education tumblr cartoons


By citing "100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction" you broadened the field quite a bit.
 
2020-06-15 1:51:45 PM  
2 votes:

mithras_angel: Rwa2play: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: It certainly does not.

At this point, you're just making argument through assertion.  This - "They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells" is factually, demonstrably wrong.

So are you

[Fark user image 512x288]


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


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

Correcting that with new information won't fix a bigot like the person we were responding to, but the genuinely curious might take it upon themselves to look into it after being presented with the new data.
 
2020-06-15 1:48:01 PM  
2 votes:

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



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


This is as air tight as any thing ever adjudicated, and the dissenting opinions are as cowardly and dishonest as Dred Scott was in ignoring the plain letter of the law.
 
2020-06-15 1:42:50 PM  
2 votes:

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


Well I think they still should pass the Equality Act as a secondary measure.
 
2020-06-15 1:32:08 PM  
2 votes:
I am grateful to see this ruling, and it is my hope that it is used as precedent for interpreting Title IX and the 14th Amendment.
 
2020-06-15 1:29:23 PM  
2 votes:

ViolentEastCoastCity: emtwo: ViolentEastCoastCity: NeoCortex42: danvon: Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously

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

I mean, fine, you don't like the methodology, and you don't like having to do someone else's job.  But you have the opportunity to right a wrong, and you don't take it?  This isn't a matter of principle or procedure!  These are people's lives.  Go f*ck yourself, "Justice" BeerWhore.

That's a bad takeaway. The SCOTUS should not be overstepping their bounds and legislating from the bench. The reality is that Kavanaugh is just straight-up wrong, and legislating from the bench is not what happened with this majority decision. Title VII exactly as it was written should have always protected against this kind of discrimination.

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

I'm not a law-talkin' gal, so my opinion is that of a mere Fark GED lawyer, and a fierce LBGT ally :)


In this case, I disagree that it is being "redefined." Nothing is being redefined; they simply took the plain written text that was already there and followed it to the only inevitable logical conclusion.
 
2020-06-15 1:23:39 PM  
2 votes:
So what is the red hatter's goal by arguing over definitions of sex or gender, other than to piss off people?
 
2020-06-15 1:15:39 PM  
2 votes:

vygramul: radiosteele: Supreme Court Wrecking Ball - June 15th

Takedown #1 - Sanctuary City Appeal DENIED

Takedown #2 - Current TFA

Takedown #3 - Blue Lives Don't Matter As Much

Takedown #4 - We're Gonna Get The Guns

Takedown #5 - Let's Keep Helping Puerto Rico

Jesus, Donald is getting his ass handed to him today.....

I'm not sure #3 hurts Donald. It's about qualified immunity, and we want that changed, so a denial of cert is status quo.

Also, #4 is only 1 of 10 cases they're considering. Don't start sucking each others' dicks yet.


My guess is the LGT decision was in exchange for kicking the guns down the road

#3 is a punt too they may want things to calm down some so they don't look like administering cop-style jusice
 
2020-06-15 1:13:42 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

But if you want some chuckles
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-ne​ws/3855734/posts


Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww, the little brats at Free Republic are pissed because their opinion of the LGBTQ+ community has been sent to the gallows.

Fark that lot.
 
2020-06-15 12:44:10 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Show us the case where a straight white cis male is being discriminated against and not defended?
 
2020-06-15 12:33:51 PM  
2 votes:
Cheers to good news for once!
 
2020-06-15 12:31:40 PM  
2 votes:

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


Thomas still relies on that sweet sweet lobbying money from his wife, Kavanaugh has blackmail material that keeps him in line and Alito doesn't give a fark about the constitution.
 
2020-06-15 12:24:01 PM  
2 votes:

KitchenBacon: FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?

Thomas is an abortion of a justice.  It is criminal that that lump is in that seat forever.  At least Alito seems to have some twisted up logic for his ultra conservatism.  Beer just likes beer, and waving his dong around.  Thomas is a null zone of conservative decisions.  It's like he is sitting around making conservative knee jerk reactions.


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

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

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

This is what he actually believes. And is what informs both his worldview, and his judicial opinions.
 
2020-06-15 12:23:58 PM  
2 votes:

HumanSVD: FarkingChas: So, the "reasoning" of the three is that the constitution does not mention these "people" specifically. And that the constitution needs to be amended to include them.

Their reasoning is that these are not human beings, the same as everyone else.

Is that correct? And Thomas agrees with this?

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


Um, discrimination based on sex is the same regardless of the sex. The law would have needed to specifically disinclude certain groups for your assertion to have merits. It did not, therefore that's why scotus ruled the way it did
 
2020-06-15 12:19:49 PM  
2 votes:

BMFPitt: Straight Outta Hate: It is not much different from when they extended men's rights to women.
They knew it was not the original intent of the law, but it should have been.

???


Federal laws explicitly mentioned the rights of men and not people.
SCOTUS ruled that men = men + women even though that was not the original intent.
 
2020-06-15 12:14:21 PM  
2 votes:

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

Women had no rights whatsoever when the country was founded


"under that law"
 
2020-06-15 12:03:49 PM  
2 votes:

deadromanoff: Warthog: Excelsior: 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.

"sorry dude, you were 5 minutes late last Wednesday and you left early this one day last February, so I'm afraid we're going to have to fire you for your ongoing absences"

Sadly yeah, that's still going to happen. But at least now that fired worker gets their day in court to try and prove it was pretextual, just like thousands of women and minority employees do each year after they're fired on made-up grounds.  If this decision had gone the other way, they wouldn't have had to even try and make up a reason and the worker would have been SOL.

This decision won't fix bigotry and hate, but it's sure as hell going to make bigotry and hate open their pocket books in civil litigation in the years ahead.

Um yes....about that,
There are no Court's, if it's a right to work state the best you get is arbitration.


That's not how Title VII works: https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-la​wsuit

If you signed an arbitration agreement with your employer at the time you were hired, yeah you probably end up in arbitration.  But you cannot be forced into arbitration if you didn't consent to being a party to the arbitration.

Even in an at will state -- which are 49 out of the 50 states -- you cannot be fired for reasons that violate Title VII.  Here's a good write-up, from Texas: https://work.chron.com/limitat​ions-atw​ill-employment-3715.html
 
2020-06-15 12:02:03 PM  
2 votes:

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.


It is not much different from when they extended men's rights to women.
They knew it was not the original intent of the law, but it should have been.
Kavanaugh's dissent is that the Supreme Court should not change laws, but only invalidate existing ones.
 
2020-06-15 12:00:54 PM  
2 votes:

Demetrius: In other news, 3 shiatsticks on the Supreme Court think it's okay to fire someone for being gay or transgender.

GFY, assholes.


That's not what they said in their dissent.  You should read more than headlines, maybe like original source material or something.
 
2020-06-15 11:51:59 AM  
2 votes:

WilderKWight: While I, as at least two of the letters in LGBTQ+, applaud the decision, the fact is that with "at will" employment being a thing, employers can just come up with another non-discriminatory "reason" to fire someone as a smoke screen and be in the clear, legally. Only the absolute DUMBEST employers would fire someone and say it's "because you're gay" or "because you're a transwoman" or anything like that. No, they'll say "it's because of your attitude" or they'll wait for you to be 30 seconds late and use that as an excuse. They'll blame you for something you didn't do. They'll find another "legitimate" reason to kick you to the curb.


Which is no different for any other person out there.  They can fire for any reason, just not an illegal one.  So, this clarifies that this is an illegal reason.  Just like race, ethnicity, or religion.   That is, the burden is still on the fired person to prove the reason was illegal, but the right exists independent of this.
 
2020-06-15 11:47:52 AM  
2 votes:

that bosnian sniper: People ITT Grouching About Trump:lol suck it MAGAts and conservatives, etc. etc.

You guys are going to be real mad when you notice who authored the opinion.


That's the best part.
 
2020-06-15 11:47:46 AM  
2 votes:
While I, as at least two of the letters in LGBTQ+, applaud the decision, the fact is that with "at will" employment being a thing, employers can just come up with another non-discriminatory "reason" to fire someone as a smoke screen and be in the clear, legally. Only the absolute DUMBEST employers would fire someone and say it's "because you're gay" or "because you're a transwoman" or anything like that. No, they'll say "it's because of your attitude" or they'll wait for you to be 30 seconds late and use that as an excuse. They'll blame you for something you didn't do. They'll find another "legitimate" reason to kick you to the curb.
 
2020-06-15 11:46:18 AM  
2 votes:

Warthog: Excelsior: 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.

"sorry dude, you were 5 minutes late last Wednesday and you left early this one day last February, so I'm afraid we're going to have to fire you for your ongoing absences"

Sadly yeah, that's still going to happen. But at least now that fired worker gets their day in court to try and prove it was pretextual, just like thousands of women and minority employees do each year after they're fired on made-up grounds.  If this decision had gone the other way, they wouldn't have had to even try and make up a reason and the worker would have been SOL.

This decision won't fix bigotry and hate, but it's sure as hell going to make bigotry and hate open their pocket books in civil litigation in the years ahead.


"That term incorporates the but-for causation standard, id., at 346, 360, which, for Title VII, means that a defendant cannot avoid liability just by citing some other factor that contributed to its challenged employment action. " - today's decision.
 
2020-06-15 11:44:23 AM  
2 votes:
I think it's terrifying that three Justices on the United States Supreme Court of Appeals can't recognize a basic human right.
 
2020-06-15 11:40:32 AM  
2 votes:

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

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

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

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

What biological sex would you say these people are?

[Fark user image image 850x475]


The I don't-care-but-second-row-with-orange-​earrings-and-bottom-row-middle-are-hel​la-cute! Sex?
 
2020-06-15 11:40:12 AM  
2 votes:

Animatronik: But it ranks up with Kelo in judicial overreach.


I would be very interested in knowing what the Venn diagram of people who thought that Kelo was was the wrong decision, but Keystone XL had the right to seize private property for profit, looks like.
 
2020-06-15 11:30:07 AM  
2 votes:
While I am so happy that this has been determined, I'm also sad that this wasn't a thing sooner.
 
2020-06-15 11:28:14 AM  
2 votes:

Murkanen: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread:

I'll side with science.

Your understanding of the "science" of human sexuality and gender is about 30 years out of date.  Clinging to the belief that there are only 2 static sexes, because intersexed individuals don't count as real people, is like clinging to the steady-state theory of cosmology.


There is a difference between personhood and biological sex. And you need to learn what a strawman argument is
 
2020-06-15 11:27:06 AM  
2 votes:
The face when you realize Garland would have been more conservative than Gorsuch

Fark user imageView Full Size


The face when you realize your going to seat 1-2  more judges before the year is out and effectively paint scotus the way you want it.

Fark user imageView Full Size



/we will need to take the court up to 11 judges next year
//however many trump seats is how many more Biden and D should increase the bench
 
2020-06-15 11:21:50 AM  
2 votes:
Those 3 that voted to allow companies to fire employees for being gay or transgender need to be removed immediately.

What others do they feel that companies should be allowed to be fired for being? Black? Jewish? Muslim?

Those 3 have no business being on the bench or allowed to practice law.
 
2020-06-15 11:14:14 AM  
2 votes:
Congratulations to the lgbt members in Fark. This is a big deal.
 
2020-06-15 11:13:03 AM  
2 votes:

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


This is something of an urban myth.  All states are "at will" states.  As long as your employment contract/agreement doesn't give you any kind of rights to your job (such as a collective bargaining agreement might), then your employer can fire you for any reason or for no reason.  That's true in every state.  The one exception to that is that you can't be fired for a reason that would violate some protected right.  What the Supreme Court said today is that, under federal anti-discrimination laws which protect everyone from being discriminated against because of sex, workers can't be fired solely because of their homosexuality.  And that's now the law everywhere in the US.
 
2020-06-15 11:12:36 AM  
2 votes:
Some of the best news of 2020. I mean the list of choices isn't long, but still this is massive.
 
2020-06-15 11:11:46 AM  
2 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size


Huzzah! Suck it, bigots.
 
2020-06-15 11:10:49 AM  
2 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 11:05:57 AM  
2 votes:

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


Yes, it does. They will make up some bullshiat excuse (as they did with the cases were heard). But if you can PROVE you were fired for being gay/trans then you can sue.
 
2020-06-15 11:02:40 AM  
2 votes: