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  
•       •       •

6659 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 (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2020-06-15 10:23:12 AM  
142 votes:
Goresuch and Roberts betrayed us. <smh>
 
2020-06-15 10:24:18 AM  
75 votes:
"I LIKE BEER BUT NOT GAY PEOPLE!"
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:25:21 AM  
68 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:23:32 AM  
51 votes:

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


Thomas felt icky.
 
2020-06-15 10:22:30 AM  
48 votes:
Ain't Kavanagh Great?

/s/ obviously
 
2020-06-15 10:31:51 AM  
48 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:29:08 AM  
37 votes:
This will lead to people hiring turtles and being unable to fire them, you know.
 
2020-06-15 10:30:16 AM  
32 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 10:32:30 AM  
31 votes:

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


"BUT IF A GAY MAN OFFERS ME A BEER, IT'S NOT GAY TO DRINK IT!"
 
2020-06-15 10:25:00 AM  
26 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 10:33:12 AM  
26 votes:
How the hell am I supposed to extort my gay employees into covering shifts now?  total BS
 
2020-06-15 10:33:43 AM  
25 votes:
The topic made I Like Beer uncomfortable.  It unrepressed a memory of that time his bud said "just let me rub it in your butt, Bro". And another time when he passed out and woke with that guy cuddling him and the other time when the chick he promised didn't show so he did the handies for the guys and of course, that time he passed out...

And a few others.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:12 AM  
19 votes:

Russ1642: 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'.


Where do you work that such eggplants a readily available?

Asking for a friend.
 
2020-06-15 10:39:38 AM  
19 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.)


Close your quotes, you goat farking child molester.

/Sorry
 
2020-06-15 10:45:41 AM  
19 votes:
I hope I get to keep reposting this today.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:24:51 AM  
17 votes:

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

Thomas felt icky.


He was trying to quash the nickname Tingly Thomas
 
2020-06-15 10:47:27 AM  
17 votes:
EVERYONE KNOWS UOU CAN ONLY BE GAY WHEN YOU'VE KICKED KEG NUMBER SEVEN AND YOU MISJUDGE WHAT YOU'RE GROPING

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:26:07 AM  
15 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 10:42:30 AM  
13 votes:

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

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


Schmitts Gay - SNL
Youtube hCOSejS1SSY
 
2020-06-15 10:43:54 AM  
13 votes:
The dissenting judges

.
ocregister.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:22:10 AM  
12 votes:
Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:48 AM  
12 votes:
Great! But what if the business owner uses the excuse of religion?
 
2020-06-15 10:34:44 AM  
10 votes:
Can a straight person be fired for not being gay?
 
2020-06-15 11:03:02 AM  
10 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 10:26:18 AM  
9 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 10:40:51 AM  
9 votes:
The freepers are handling with the expected class.

Won't paste anything they said here. But LOL they mad.
 
2020-06-15 11:01:11 AM  
9 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 11:27:06 AM  
9 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 10:46:23 AM  
8 votes:
Prank Call of Cthulhu:

Suck it, right-wing bigots. Suck it hard.

And no teeth this time, Brett.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:24:04 AM  
7 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 10:43:15 AM  
7 votes:

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


Also keep in mind if you do decide to suck it hard, you're legally protected from being discriminated against.  So you got that going for you which is nice.
 
2020-06-15 10:31:39 AM  
6 votes:

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


And I could easily have dated Rita Hayworth in my youth,
 
2020-06-15 10:35:10 AM  
6 votes:
I thought Kavanaugh was Bi.
 
2020-06-15 10:54:30 AM  
6 votes:

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.


Just don't be like the young straight bro at the water cooler talking about their "o" face. This transcends all identities.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:21:36 AM  
6 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]


I'm not sure, but if I was the store manager, I'd be ducking under the desk.
 
2020-06-15 11:42:15 AM  
6 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 11:45:52 AM  
6 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 12:13:03 PM  
6 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 12:28:24 PM  
6 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.


Roberts is a bushiate liberal.
 
2020-06-15 10:26:11 AM  
5 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 10:41:11 AM  
5 votes:

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


They might enjoy that
 
2020-06-15 10:49:03 AM  
5 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 11:24:22 AM  
5 votes:

Murkanen: 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.


Intersex conditions dont invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. To procreate, you need 2 sexes with 2 very specific gametes
 
2020-06-15 11:57:32 AM  
5 votes:

Grungehamster: [Fark user image image 425x338]

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


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 12:16:30 PM  
5 votes:

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
 
2020-06-15 12:26:17 PM  
5 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 12:39:25 PM  
5 votes:

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
 
2020-06-15 1:12:29 PM  
5 votes:
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."
 
2020-06-15 10:31:29 AM  
4 votes:

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


Please elaborate.
 
2020-06-15 10:41:50 AM  
4 votes:

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


They are not enumerated protected classes.  Legally, it's a lot more of a leap of logic for the 6.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:46 AM  
4 votes:

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


And now they can't be fired for sucking it in their private lives.
 
2020-06-15 10:46:08 AM  
4 votes:

Russ1642: 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'.


Louie CK likes this.
 
2020-06-15 10:48:06 AM  
4 votes:

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

Happy Pride Month, everyone!


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


Reported
 
2020-06-15 10:58:13 AM  
4 votes:
Wrong decision for good reasons.  Congress should have passed a law.

On the other hand, there are only so many words you can redefine based on changes in public perception over time,  so it seems unlikely thst this will lead to a slew of new bad decisions.

But it ranks up with Kelo in judicial overreach.
 
2020-06-15 11:16:28 AM  
4 votes:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 12:34:38 PM  
4 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 12:36:53 PM  
4 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: 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

What does that have to do with intersex people


That right there tells me you dont understand bio
 
2020-06-15 2:00:14 PM  
4 votes:

likefunbutnot: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Mmmm... nope that's pretty accurate

This is in line with what I remember of reproductive biology. Mammalian females provide an X gamete and males may provide an X or a Y. But if that's your test, you also have to deal with those incapable of providing either, which may be a reason that this is a poor test and a good basis for argument.


Because people can be infertile (though birth, accident or disease, etc) does not invalidate the fact that sexual reproduction is a specific function and you need 2 specific cells to function. Infertility and intersex conditions do not mean they arent people.
 
2020-06-15 3:03:29 PM  
4 votes:

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Because people can be infertile (though birth, accident or disease, etc) does not invalidate the fact that sexual reproduction is a specific function and you need 2 specific cells to function

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


If you have something to add, I'll respond
 
2020-06-15 3:31:14 PM  
4 votes:
So in 200 years are we going to keep reinterpreting this singular law to cover everything under the sun?  Will there never be any new civil rights legislation passed?  After all, what need is there if we can use this hammer from 1968 to hammer any shaped peg into any shaped hole?
 
2020-06-15 3:50:53 PM  
4 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?



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.
 
2020-06-15 4:23:29 PM  
4 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 6:23:58 PM  
4 votes:

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

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


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

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

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

The decision was an unconstitutional assumption of legislative powers by the judicial branch.
 
2020-06-15 7:33:33 PM  
4 votes:

Murkanen: Animatronik:

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

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


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 8:36:13 PM  
4 votes:

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

A, B, both, or neither

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Gender seems to be a spectrum because there is continuous distribution. But it is strongly bimodal. The existence of trans people show it to more than a social construct. This means it has biological roots; its innate. The overwhelming majority of people have corresponding gender identity and biological sex. This combined with a strong bimodal distribution of gender suggest that gender and sex are related. That is, gender seems to be a psychological aspect of biological sex. Plus we have ample evidence of different behaviors between sexes of the same species. However this may occur, we have already agreed that nature is messy so deviations from the norm can and will occur. This is also at least consistent with variation and reproduction within evolution. I'm not sure what ideological ground you would call a naturalistic interpretation. What ideological grounds are you willing to say that something is a spectrum when it isnt? Is this just semantics?
 
2020-06-15 10:29:18 AM  
3 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 10:45:03 AM  
3 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 10:51:00 AM  
3 votes:
Gorsuch is going to give Trump an anyeurism.  

Karma's a MItch.
 
2020-06-15 10:51:08 AM  
3 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 10:51:21 AM  
3 votes:

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


Yeah. They can't be fired for it now.
 
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 11:16:33 AM  
3 votes:
I'm struggling to pay attention as I read this for some reason but from what I can read, it looks to me like Gorsuch is picking on Kavanaugh again and again and again. It's almost like he's going out of his way to call him an idiot.
 
2020-06-15 12:05:25 PM  
3 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Magnus: 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.

They think it's not okay but legal, which is still wrong


No.  That's not what they said in the dissent.

They were very straightforward when they said sex and sexual orientation are not the same and the legislation does not cover it and it is up to the legislature to do their job and change the law not the court.

Read the dissent.
 
2020-06-15 12:17:00 PM  
3 votes:

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

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

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

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


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 12:23:51 PM  
3 votes:

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
 
2020-06-15 12:30:57 PM  
3 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 agree on the intent of the law. They probably could very think very well LGTBQ peopke are freaks and deviants for all we know.  But it's obvious what Congress intended to do and they ruled as such.
 
2020-06-15 12:41:19 PM  
3 votes:

jake_lex: 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.


10 is too much.

Appointed people need to be recycled as often as people are elected.
 
2020-06-15 1:18:04 PM  
3 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


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 1:31:16 PM  
3 votes:

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


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

IMHO, it's the right thing to do, on a moral level, and also a bad ruling, on a legal level.  The proper way to do this, on a legal basis, is to pass a new law.  Of course, given the current make up of the Senate, that's impossible currently.
 
2020-06-15 2:13:48 PM  
3 votes:
Trump tweeted LAW & ORDER! again. Good to see he supports SCOTUS.
 
2020-06-15 2:55:57 PM  
3 votes:
This was the wrong decision.  With this kind of logic, it could make having different dress codes for men and women illegal.
 
2020-06-15 3:42:14 PM  
3 votes:

likefunbutnot: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Because people can be infertile (though birth, accident or disease, etc) does not invalidate the fact that sexual reproduction is a specific function and you need 2 specific cells to function. Infertility and intersex conditions do not mean they arent people.

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


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

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

I get you want to be inclusive. But you  are confusing morphology with function.
 
2020-06-15 3:59:22 PM  
3 votes:

Leishu: 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.


1 sperm, 1 egg. How is that not binary?
 
2020-06-15 10:22:59 AM  
2 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 10:23:54 AM  
2 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 10:24:48 AM  
2 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 10:28:36 AM  
2 votes:
Good. Maybe shiathead Republican employers will stop firing employees for being black or women or Democrats some day.
 
2020-06-15 10:28:49 AM  
2 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 10:32:06 AM  
2 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 10:33:15 AM  
2 votes:
...they say - that America's small heart grew three sizes that day.
 
2020-06-15 10:35:08 AM  
2 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 10:35:50 AM  
2 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 10:38:09 AM  
2 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 10:43:56 AM  
2 votes:

Serious Black: 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.


I love it when people say trans people were born that way AND gender is a social construct.
 
2020-06-15 10:45:03 AM  
2 votes:
Trump's OWN COURT PICK wrote the majority decision!

media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:45:32 AM  
2 votes:

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

So, Thomas, Alito, and who else?


Beer O'Rape-a-clock.
 
2020-06-15 10:48:40 AM  
2 votes:

Russ1642: 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'.


Big Train - Work Place W@nking
Youtube VKH9ECC_Qa4
 
2020-06-15 10:48:44 AM  
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.


As well it shouldnt.

Khellendros: Clever highlighting doesn't really make your argument.


No, science does
 
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 11:16:41 AM  
2 votes:

Malenfant: 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.


I'll side with science. You side with feelings and moral outrage... just like a fundie
 
Boe [OhFark]
2020-06-15 11:19:03 AM  
2 votes:
This is fanfarkingtastic!!!!!!

Roberts:  if you think you're going to taint my legacy you can GFY
 
Boe [OhFark]
2020-06-15 11:21:33 AM  
2 votes:

Persnickety: Was expecting 4-5 or 5-4.  Gorsuch is clearly not what conservatives were expecting.


Merrick Garland chuckles liberally
 
2020-06-15 11:25:04 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 850x475]


Depends on their gametes
 
2020-06-15 11:33:19 AM  
2 votes:
Didn't read the entire thread, so this may have been covered already.

The linked article doesn't go into why the three judges dissented, but I found a more detailed one: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p​o​litics/2020/06/15/supreme-court-denies​-job-protection-lgbt-workers/445674900​2/

In short, Alito et al said that the original intent of the Civil Rights Act didn't cover gay rights, and it isn't the Court's job to create new laws based on re-interpreting existing ones.  He technically isn't wrong - Congress should amend the Civil Rights Act to specifically cover LGBT, to clarify the whole issue.  Hopefully, we'll have Democratic majorities in both houses, plus Biden, in 2021, and can get the job done right.

I'm guessing Gorsuch and Roberts went with protecting LGBT given that earlier Court decisions have already reinterpreted the Civil Rights Act to including LGBT (the gay marriage decision, for one), so it's now a legal precedent.

Now, whether Alito et al used the original intent of the Civil Rights Act as a fig leaf to cover up they fact they just don't like gays, is both a separate issue, and probably likely.

In short, I can see both arguments.  I'm glad it went this way, but I really wish Congress would just update the Civil Rights Act directly, so we don't need to rely on the Court to keep it up to date.
 
2020-06-15 11:34:44 AM  
2 votes:

Serious Black: 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?


You can identify cells without analyzing dna.
 
2020-06-15 11:36:21 AM  
2 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.


SOLOmeyer sounds like you're type of Justice

I refuse to link that stupid Toby Kieth song so here is a more dignified 'parody' version
2 Girls 1 Cup (Red Solo Cup Parody) - by Joe Denim
Youtube 4-IyR4YumKI
also more dignified than Trump, McConnell, Pence. S.Collins and the entire New England Patriots
 
2020-06-15 11:40:11 AM  
2 votes:
I'm here for the buyers remorse on Gorsuch.

/Deeeeeeeeep Staaaaaaaaaaaaaate!
 
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 12:13:50 PM  
2 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 12:14:27 PM  
2 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


An amendent written by Congress would make it clear and additional/more precise language that you cannot discriminate against people who are lgbtq for being as such because it's inherent to sexual discrimination protections.

Having Congress do that in the first place would possibly stop lawsuits from beginning in the first place as plantiffs possibly would have been  spared in the first place from being discriminated against and having to spend time and money with lawyers and the courts.

Basically, Kavanaugh is saying the courts shouldn't have to decide something Congress should have done in the first place and shouldn't interpret poorly written laws as SCOTUS shouldn't create laws, which in some ways they have.

Whether you agree or not is another matter but that's how I'm seeing their logic and it kinda makes sense.
 
2020-06-15 12:15:22 PM  
2 votes:

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
 
2020-06-15 12:23:26 PM  
2 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"


If the law stated 'biological gender' rather than 'sex' in the protected class list then he might have a point.  'Sex' as a protected class is a superset of sexual orientation, gender identity, biological gender, sex actions, and other aspects I am either not thinking of or ignorant of.

What this means is banging in the office is a protected class and you cannot fire someone for 'sex'.
 
2020-06-15 12:24:22 PM  
2 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 12:25:38 PM  
2 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: 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"


I was not referring to that law.
I was referring to precedence from rulings on other laws.
I see this ruling as doing the same thing.
It will arguably give rights to LBTQ people with other laws that have "on the basis of sex".
 
2020-06-15 12:42:37 PM  
2 votes:

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


https://www.sss.gov/register/
 
2020-06-15 12:48:27 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.


you poor dear.
 
2020-06-15 1:08:18 PM  
2 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.


So, when you were born, did they take out your nuance during circumcision?
 
2020-06-15 1:46:55 PM  
2 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.


And he's right.  The nine SCJ's interpret, not make, laws. It's a meaningless decision anyway.  If I want to fire someone, I just fire them.  I just don't tell them it's because they wear high heels and a boa to a construction site.
 
2020-06-15 2:05:38 PM  
2 votes:

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


BEN SHAPIRO DESTROYS his undies with a huge load.
 
2020-06-15 2:24:15 PM  
2 votes:

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


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

Both are citing Title IX for their protection. Both cannot be right.
 
2020-06-15 2:32:13 PM  
2 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 3:00:07 PM  
2 votes:

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

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

So are you

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

Your position that sex is binary and absolute is frankly pretty juvenile, and for you to trot it out with such unwavering confidence is embarrassing.


You are confusing morphology with function.
 
2020-06-15 3:43:09 PM  
2 votes:

codergirl42: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Nope. Gender could be thought of as a spectrum. Intersex conditions are abnormalities. Reproduction is point of biological sex. Their existence does not invalidate 100s of millions of years of sexual reproduction. There are plenty of biologists, psychologists, and human sexologists that show you are misinformed. Gender is not 100% socially constructed and biological sex is real and binary.

"Plenty", like there are "plenty" of climatologist that think man affecting climate change is a myth.  It's easy to find quacks that support your pet zoological theories.  The overwhelming number of biologists and psychologists would laugh at what you wrote.  Especially your incredibly simplistic (and quite wrong) assertion about the history of sexual reproduction.

Behavioral biology would categorize what you wrote in the same place physicists put geocentrism and steady state cosmology.  You're crowing two hundred year old social theory that got destroyed by evidence before any of us were born.

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Depends on their gametes

What's amusing is that you'd start stammering the first time you were presented a population of people with XY chromosomes that physically would be identified as female in every way.  Or vice versa.  There's not a single unified relationship between chromosomes, sex organs, physical morphology, and gender psychology.  What you see in the world around you is what people socially present.  What you don't know is how that relates to the genes they carry, the hormones in their system, their mental construct, nor the dangly bits between their legs.

The more you look at the science of sexual biology, the more your perspective falls apart.

Stammering? Where? Go ahead and try making another human between two sperm producers. Objective reality is a biatch

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


Non sequitur is non sequitur
 
2020-06-15 4:08:12 PM  
2 votes:

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.
 
2020-06-15 4:50:22 PM  
2 votes:

MechaPyx: 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.


That's not how laws work.  You can't make a law prohibiting undefined and nebulous activities.

"Don't discriminate!"  Sounds like a sweet bumper sticker.  And a really, really, really stupid law.

So a kindergarten can't discriminate against a registered sex offender?  A fire rescue department can't discriminate against a blind person who wants to drive a fire truck?  I guess massage parlors are going to have to hire people who are paralyzed below the neck as masseuse?  Sounds like all those restaurants that refused to hire typhoid mary - who killed hundreds of people through her negligence - need to be sued.

Discrimination is a part of life.  As a society we pass laws saying "But THIS discrimination is unlawful."  And that's good.  I do not criticize the goal of protecting gay people from being fired.  That's laudable.  But if you want to achieve that then PASS A LAW.  As so many states and municipalities already did, because Title VII simply didn't provide these protections until SCOTUS waved a magic wand and rewrote the law.  Which is NOT a long term solution to anything.
 
2020-06-15 5:22:28 PM  
2 votes:

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."
 
2020-06-15 10:22:03 AM  
1 vote:
This is a big farking deal. It could have easily gone the other direction.
 
2020-06-15 10:23:08 AM  
1 vote:
Who are the three? And what is their "reasoning"?
 
2020-06-15 10:23:32 AM  
1 vote:
Wowza. Pleased as punch about the results, slightly shocked at the 6-3 split.

Happy Pride Month, everyone!
 
2020-06-15 10:24:33 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:25:09 AM  
1 vote:
This is cool. I wasn't expecting to wake up to a freer country at any point this year.
 
2020-06-15 10:25:20 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:25:31 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:25:34 AM  
1 vote:
The logic is unassailable.  The 3 dissenters are farking trash.
 
2020-06-15 10:26:39 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:27:09 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:27:18 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:28:04 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:29:01 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:32:21 AM  
1 vote:
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
 
d23 [OhFark]
2020-06-15 10:35:34 AM  
1 vote:

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


"Gay and Trans people are icky!"
 
2020-06-15 10:36:32 AM  
1 vote:
But they *can* be fired for unspecified insubordination and "performance issues".
 
2020-06-15 10:36:43 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:39:06 AM  
1 vote:
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 10:40:28 AM  
1 vote:

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


This is a satire account, right? I just can't tell any more.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:08 AM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-06-15 10:42:51 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:44:50 AM  
1 vote:

John the Magnificent: The dissenting judges

.[ocregister.com image 482x599]


In their judicial robes...

daily.jstor.orgView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 10:45:01 AM  
1 vote:

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


You could always pray for their swift deaths
 
2020-06-15 10:46:32 AM  
1 vote:

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 10:51:51 AM  
1 vote:
Blog seems to indicate a 7-2 decision in the Appalachian Trail case (Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association)

The theoretical case - Can the Forest Service do stuff on the trail if the trail also counts as a national park and therefore hypothetically exempt from a non national parks agency doing stuff

The practical case - Forest Service wants to drill baby drill..

Decision 7-2 Thomas wrote the opinion for the court. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Kagan.  The Fourth Circuit's decision is reversed and remanded.

The Court holds in the US Forest Service Case (also known as the Appalachian Trail case) that because the Department of the Interior's decision to assign responsibility over the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service did not transform the land over which the trail passes into land within the National Park system, the Forest Service had the authority to issue the special use permit" to Atlantic Coast Pipeline.


And that is the last opinion for the day.

Ruling 1 - No one is allowed to fire you for drilling who you want.
Ruling 2 - Per ruling one we wanna drill mother earth right in her Appalachian Trail.
 
2020-06-15 10:55:23 AM  
1 vote:
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.
 
2020-06-15 11:00:19 AM  
1 vote:
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 11:00:33 AM  
1 vote:

New Farkin User Name: Hell yeah. GFY Kavanaugh


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 11:01:28 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:02:48 AM  
1 vote:
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 11:12:09 AM  
1 vote:
"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 11:23:10 AM  
1 vote:

skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Gender could be thought of as a spectrum.


Which would be true, but misleading.

The canonical binary, actual binary language, in practice functions via voltage switching. Ideally, this is 0V and 100% voltage, which is treated as 1. 0 need not be actual 0, just some arbitrary lower datum. There is a high value treated as 1 and a low value treated as 0.

But...sometimes you end up with spurious line voltage, or voltage sag, or a cosmic ray, and sometimes analog is a biatch and you end up with something noisy. If enough of that adds up, you can flip a bit. Or a lot of them. With enough noise, sometimes a 1 becomes a 0, or a 0 becomes a 1.

Kind of looks like this:
Fark user imageView Full Size


Human gender sort of works like that. The vast majority of the signal is encoded as a 0 or a 1, but the system isn't so sensitive to noise that intermediate values or bit flips aren't possible. Sometimes a fair coin lands on its edge. So it's a continuum, technically. But it's not normally-distributed. It's extremely Weibull.
 
2020-06-15 11:26:02 AM  
1 vote:
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 11:27:10 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:28:58 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:33:01 AM  
1 vote:
I'm sure Trump was tickled pink when he heard this
 
2020-06-15 11:35:57 AM  
1 vote:

This text is now purple: Error 482: 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.

Probably not Ginsburg as far as these things go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky​_v._King
This would suggest Kagan and Sotomayor are in play.


They make deals all the time. I bet  that may have been the cost of leaving the second amendment cases alone
 
2020-06-15 11:41:08 AM  
1 vote:
Gorsuch is trying to prove he deserves to be there, notwithstanding the manner he got on the bench.
 
2020-06-15 11:48:32 AM  
1 vote:

This text is now purple: The class of people who thought Kelo was the wrong decision is the US Population-5. Even Kelo thought it was the wrong call.

So that's not very useful as a discriminator.


Well Kelo was the plantiff, who lost, so obviously he wasn't a fan.

But I have a certain Farker tagged as having defended the Kelo decision, so at least 6 people are wrong about it.
 
2020-06-15 11:49:58 AM  
1 vote:

dragonchild: 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 inte ...


I don't think you're interpreting the attainder clause correctly.  Attainders are punishments on certain person or group of people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attain​de​r).  The clause specifically prevents you from punishing people by legislation, without a trial.

The Civil Rights Act created new rights for certain people.  As in, it didn't punish anyone, but it decided to provide additional rights to a certain subset of people.  Whether the prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sex included LGBT, or should be interpreted broadly, is a different question, but it doesn't come down to attainder.

Likewise, your example of the tax code is also incorrect - special tax breaks for certain groups are a privilege, not a punishment, and thus not subject to the attainder prohibition.  If you argued that additional taxes on cigarettes are a bill of attainder, punishing smokers via legislation, I might see your point.  But then, the Courts have allowed such things when there are strong public good reasons, so even then it probably wouldn't be unconstitutional.
 
2020-06-15 11:50:25 AM  
1 vote:

overthinker: When BOTH parties consent of their own free will without outside influence and nobody is harmed, who the fark cares who you do, and why should they?


=)

Define "harm."
 
2020-06-15 11:51:53 AM  
1 vote:

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 11:54:21 AM  
1 vote:

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


On Friday he's going to look back and be like, "Ah f*ck!!"
 
2020-06-15 11:55:17 AM  
1 vote:

BMFPitt: This text is now purple: The class of people who thought Kelo was the wrong decision is the US Population-5. Even Kelo thought it was the wrong call.

So that's not very useful as a discriminator.

Well Kelo was the plantiff, who lost, so obviously he wasn't a fan.

But I have a certain Farker tagged as having defended the Kelo decision, so at least 6 people are wrong about it.


Scalia's dead.  5.
 
2020-06-15 12:01:36 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:05:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 12:05:51 PM  
1 vote:

eiger: 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.


I didn't know those guys were psychic mind readers...
 
2020-06-15 12:13:58 PM  
1 vote:

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
 
2020-06-15 12:17:04 PM  
1 vote:

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-n​e​ws/3855734/posts
 
2020-06-15 12:20:27 PM  
1 vote:

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.
 
2020-06-15 12:21:50 PM  
1 vote:

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
 
2020-06-15 12:36:51 PM  
1 vote:

Straight Outta Hate: Federal laws explicitly mentioned the rights of men and not people.


which ones?
 
2020-06-15 12:52:24 PM  
1 vote:

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.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-15 12:56:52 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


There have been plenty of people that challenge that, but since it has effectively no impact in modern society otehr than a need to file some paperwork it isn't exactly a priority.

Also it is currently being heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation​al​_Coalition_for_Men_v._Selective_Servic​e_System)
 
2020-06-15 12:58:37 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

I'm also not American.


We draft people who aren't Americans yet.
 
2020-06-15 1:03:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 1:15:16 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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


One of those examples makes "Finding Nemo" really... um...
Well, just do not think about it too long.
 
2020-06-15 1:20:23 PM  
1 vote:

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

Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh dissented.  'Nuff said.


Kavanaugh?? Really.  Well, not *totally* unexpected, I suppose.  And Gorsuch went WITH the liberal wing????

That's it.  Time to crack open your neighbor's skull and feast on the goo inside.
 
2020-06-15 1:24:19 PM  
1 vote:

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?
 
2020-06-15 1:32:08 PM  
1 vote:
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 1:40:11 PM  
1 vote:
Just finished reading through the rulings.

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

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


The legislative intent was to stop legal discrimination against vulnerable populations. That protecting vulnerable populations included groups that weren't on the political radar of the time isn't really relevant to the spirit and intent of the law itself.
 
2020-06-15 1:50:48 PM  
1 vote:

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


Wrong. If a LARP group was hiring a secretary. It would certainly apply if it was a employee situation. However Title VII also exempts theater companies etc from hiring/not hiring based on sex and other jobs that are based on the face of it on sex, for example an all girls baseball team, or strippers, or hooters waitress (tho private club rules apply there).
 
2020-06-15 2:17:55 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


Theoretically possible if combined with mosaicism.
 
2020-06-15 2:33:55 PM  
1 vote:

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


IT's not all about you flondrix.
 
2020-06-15 2:36:44 PM  
1 vote:

G. Tarrant: tyyreaunn: DarnoKonrad: tyyreaunn: He technically isn't wrong -

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


The logic is clear and concise.

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

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

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

His argument is quite simple. If someone fires a man for marrying a man and would not fire a woman for marrying a man, the only thing that changes in that scenario is the sex of one of the people involved.


That analogy doesn't really apply in this case.  Lasers and smartphones didn't exist in the 18th century; LGBT issues did exist in the 1960s.  It's not a new thing in the 2010s that Courts needed to decide how to handle using existing laws - they had 50 years to decide the CRA applied to LGBT issues, but didn't until recently.
 
2020-06-15 2:39:00 PM  
1 vote:
People shouldn't be fired for being gay or trans, they(people) should be fired for being shiatty workers.
 
2020-06-15 2:54:03 PM  
1 vote:

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

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


Dude.  Stop putting your hands in the blender.
 
2020-06-15 3:21:14 PM  
1 vote:

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

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

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

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

/Life isn't fair.

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


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

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

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

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

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

/Must have been squelched by the conservatives running the media
//Wait, what?
 
2020-06-15 3:27:38 PM  
1 vote:

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 3:43:31 PM  
1 vote:

codergirl42: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: Hence sex isnt a spectrum. Most intersex conditions are simply on sex with ambiguous morphological characteristics. They still produce 1 of 2 types of sex cells.

*RED BUZZER NOISE*

Incorrect.  And incredibly ignorant of the basics of biological science.

Mmmm... nope that's pretty accurate

Some of us don't produce gametes.


And?
 
2020-06-15 3:44:05 PM  
1 vote:

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
 
2020-06-15 4:34:45 PM  
1 vote:

Khellendros: skipping non-voting comment in contest thread: You still need a sperm and an egg to make another human. You still have to deal with this very basic fact. 1 sperm and 1 egg is binary. There is not a 3rd type of sex cell and there isnt a cell that's an intermediate of the 2.

But again - someone may produce one, the other, both, or neither. And that is NOT definitionally determined by their chromosomes, their genitals, their classically masculine or feminine features, or any other specific attribute that people like you want to nail down as a binary sex selection.

You're trying to force a statistical argument into a definitional argument.  Sex is not binary.  It's certainly less diverse than gender expression, and more fall into the classical definitions.  But again, it's a statistical preference in biological expression.


Statistical definitions are still definitions. But this does not matter here. Sex is a function not a form. People who produce neither or both have some sort of defect. It doesnt make them less human. It just means they are evolutionary dead ends.

Saying that intersex conditions are a spectrum is like saying a one arm man is on a spectrum of human limbs. It's clearly not supposed to be that way under normal conditions. Plus this ignores the fact that intersex conditions have different causes.
 
2020-06-15 4:38:56 PM  
1 vote:

Khellendros: 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?


Exceptions do not invalidate the overwhelming rule. Reproduction is the function of sex. You need one of both. How do you not understand this?
 
2020-06-15 4:41:54 PM  
1 vote:

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 4:44:27 PM  
1 vote:
Wait. Is red hatter the long-named anti-trans bigot with a dysfunctional understanding of biology, or the longer-named anti-trans bigot with a dysfunctional understanding of biology?
 
2020-06-15 4:58:19 PM  
1 vote:

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?
 
2020-06-15 6:38:19 PM  
1 vote:

emtwo: The law says that sex discrimination is illegal.

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

Therefore it's illegal.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


Hint:  It's your entire post.
 
2020-06-15 7:59:10 PM  
1 vote:

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


Seems to me a bit of irony.

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

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

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

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

It's quite beautiful, really.
 
2020-06-15 10:03:19 PM  
1 vote:

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


You just made that up, it has no basis in reason or logic, and it's 100% wrong.
 
2020-06-15 11:06:11 PM  
1 vote:

cameroncrazy1984: HumanSVD: johnny queso: [YouTube video: Faith No More - A Small Victory (Official Music Video)]positive baby steps

fark you, justice rapey.

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

Interesting that you used "substantial"


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

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

And it's all because you guys know all the far left crap you want pushed won't ever fly in Congress if it was pushed into a vote. shiat, the comments more or less show that.
 
2020-06-15 11:16:12 PM  
1 vote:

Murkanen: HumanSVD:

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

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


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

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

I then added I'll be surprised If fark leftists actually stand by their position. Considering your comment, others and the Funny votes, it's obvious you don't stand against discrimination against all.
 
2020-06-16 1:50:51 PM  
1 vote:

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

Happy Pride Month, everyone!

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


Reported


Actually I'm not sure re-recording it with a gay choir would do anything to it except make it less gay.  The only thing anybody could do to that song is tone it down.
 
2020-06-16 7:13:44 PM  
1 vote:

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

[whorange.net image 468x650]

I demand a holographic Liberace chorus line!


OK, I stand corrected.  You made it gayer.
 
Displayed 213 of 213 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.