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.

(The Advocate)   Apparently if America can't discriminate against gays than surprise sex is legal   (advocate.com) divider line
    More: Creepy, Supreme Court of the United States, George W. Bush, Supreme Court justices, Justices Samuel Alito, John G. Roberts, employment discrimination, sex discrimination, Gender  
•       •       •

3285 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jun 2020 at 3:31 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-06-16 1:44:57 PM  
That Kavannaugh is one disgusting excuse for a human being.

Oh and just to retort his vile bullshiat:
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-16 2:05:03 PM  
 
2020-06-16 2:38:51 PM  
Yeah, wouldn't want a rapist on the Supreme Court.
 
2020-06-16 2:48:11 PM  
"Since both of these come after three prior definitions that refer to men and women, they are most naturally read to have the same association, and in any event, is it plausible that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on any sexual urge or instinct and its manifestations? The urge to rape?" Alito wrote.

Thomas and Kavanaugh, and now Alito's presumably running a projector, so... trifecta?
 
2020-06-16 3:12:03 PM  
So, Alito's argument was essentially based off of a reading of the thesaurus.

How quaint.
 
2020-06-16 3:33:24 PM  
3 judges were of the dissenting opinion. We call that the Devil's Triangle.
 
2020-06-16 3:34:25 PM  
Being gay isn't a choice! I was forced to be gay when I saw Chris Evans wearing nothing but a towel in Fantastic Four!

(Seriously though, I'm straight but I'm not blind.)
 
2020-06-16 3:35:29 PM  
Oh for fark's sake.

At least we know it wasn't Kavanaugh's dissent. He probably would have said rape twice.
 
2020-06-16 3:35:41 PM  
This ruling did a pretty good job of identifying which justices we need to impeach.
 
2020-06-16 3:36:04 PM  
The urge to rape?" Alito wrote.

Sam, I have never had an urge to rape. Do you need someone to talk to?
 
2020-06-16 3:36:24 PM  

Lord Dimwit: e! I was forced to be gay when I saw Chris Evans wearing nothing but a towel in Fantastic Four!

(Seriously though, I'm strai



No... that response is a little gay. NTTIAWWT
 
2020-06-16 3:36:45 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Being gay isn't a choice! I was forced to be gay when I saw Chris Evans wearing nothing but a towel in Fantastic Four!

(Seriously though, I'm straight but I'm not blind.)


I've had that reaction to more than a few women.
 
2020-06-16 3:36:50 PM  
These people are on the Supreme Court.

These read like arguments you come up with in 10th grade and you think you're the smartest little asshole for doing so.

These are the men that no one's really ever said no to in their lives, and it shows.
 
2020-06-16 3:37:10 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Being gay isn't a choice! I was forced to be gay when I saw Chris Evans wearing nothing but a towel in Fantastic Four!

(Seriously though, I'm straight but I'm not blind.)


I wouldn't have thought the host of Don't Forget Your Toothbrus could arouse unexpected desires in men, but whatever turns you on. Literally.
 
2020-06-16 3:37:28 PM  
That the Supreme Court of the United States of America is deciding a case about where people should or should not take a crap is almost the perfect metaphor for this age.

Except it's not a metaphor.  It's farkin' reality.
 
2020-06-16 3:37:56 PM  
BEET  (Brett's Easy Extremist Test)

Do they see only the extremes with nothing but slippery slopes in between?


Yes, yes they do.  If they can't discriminate against the people they want, every bad and completely illogical or impossible thing will happen.  Because ONLY the extremes exist.
 
2020-06-16 3:37:56 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Lord Dimwit: Being gay isn't a choice! I was forced to be gay when I saw Chris Evans wearing nothing but a towel in Fantastic Four!

(Seriously though, I'm straight but I'm not blind.)

I've had that reaction to more than a few women.


Go on......

(NTTIAWWT!!!)
 
2020-06-16 3:39:36 PM  

GooberMcFly: Yeah, wouldn't want a rapist on the Supreme Court.


media.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-16 3:40:11 PM  
Brett would be wonderful to see on stage with Donald J Trump at the June 20th rally.

If he doesn't attend, I'll know it's because he doesn't love Trump enough and is planning to betray him like Gorsuch did.

/shhhh
 
2020-06-16 3:40:35 PM  
A farking Supreme Court Justice* doesn't understand the concept of consent.

Think about that for a second


*besides Kavanaugh
 
2020-06-16 3:40:51 PM  
Justice GHB has an issue with this, what a shock.

Oh, and hey subby:

writingexplained.org
 
2020-06-16 3:40:53 PM  

BumpInTheNight: That Kavannaugh is one disgusting excuse for a human being.

Oh and just to retort his vile bullshiat:

Fark user imageView Full Size


That's because we haven't elected enough T's to the senate yet.
 
2020-06-16 3:40:56 PM  
FTA: "The Court may wish to avoid this subject, but it is a matter of concern to many people who are reticent about disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individuals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex,"

Hey asshole (Kavanaugh), no one is getting naked in public restrooms without a stall. The only nudity anyone ever sees in public restrooms is if they are staring at other guy's dicks while using the urinal.
 
2020-06-16 3:41:24 PM  

Sarah Jessica Farker: http://grammartips.homestead.com/than​.​html


saved me the effort.
thank you
 
2020-06-16 3:42:05 PM  

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: BEET  (Brett's Easy Extremist Test)

Do they see only the extremes with nothing but slippery slopes in between?


Yes, yes they do.  If they can't discriminate against the people they want, every bad and completely illogical or impossible thing will happen.  Because ONLY the extremes exist.


While they conveniently ignore the slippery slope of "once you start discriminating against people shiat can get real bad real quick." That's a slippery slope that actually exists.
 
2020-06-16 3:42:51 PM  

BitwiseShift: BumpInTheNight: That Kavannaugh is one disgusting excuse for a human being.

Oh and just to retort his vile bullshiat:
[Fark user image image 236x420]

That's because we haven't elected enough T's to the senate yet.


More Republican United States Senators.
 
2020-06-16 3:43:00 PM  
Sounds like they have Rump Derangement Syndrome.
 
2020-06-16 3:43:00 PM  
msnbc.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-16 3:43:56 PM  

xanadian: So, Alito's argument was essentially based off of a reading of the thesaurus.

How quaint.


Irony being, Gorsuch's ruling was pretty much also just a thesaurus/dictionary reading. He's just apparently better at understanding the words.
 
2020-06-16 3:44:01 PM  
"Since both of these come after three prior definitions that refer to men and women, they are most naturally read to have the same association, and in any event, is it plausible that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on any sexual urge or instinct and its manifestations? The urge to rape?"


Umm... what? I mean...sure, I guess if your try really hard you could make the argument that the "urge" to rape someone shouldn't, in and of itself, be a fireable offense. How one would discover someone's "urge to rape" apart from said person actually telling you, "Gosh darn I'd like to hold her down and penetrate her sexually without her consent!" is a bit of a stumbling block.
 
2020-06-16 3:44:02 PM  

avian: FTA: "The Court may wish to avoid this subject, but it is a matter of concern to many people who are reticent about disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individuals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex,"

Hey asshole (Kavanaugh), no one is getting naked in public restrooms without a stall. The only nudity anyone ever sees in public restrooms is if they are staring at other guy's dicks while using the urinal.


And there is a strict code for urinal behavior: eyes front, no talking, only shake it twice.
 
2020-06-16 3:44:57 PM  
Alito, a George W. Bush appointee, brought up the idea that an expansive reading of the term "sex" could lead to antidiscrimination protections for rapists. He included several dictionary definitions of "sex," mentioning that some refer to "the sexual urge or instinct."

"Since both of these come after three prior definitions that refer to men and women, they are most naturally read to have the same association, and in any event, is it plausible that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on any sexual urge or instinct and its manifestations? The urge to rape?" Alito wrote.


You're getting a bit lazy, Samuel.
 
2020-06-16 3:45:55 PM  
Like most Republicans, especially the religious ones and the rapey ones (the Venn diagram on that does not make the religious ones look very good), they don't understand consent because they think it's unimportant.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/slackti​v​ist?s=consent
 
2020-06-16 3:45:58 PM  
holy farking shiat i had no idea how any ads were on this website until i was forced into in.

almost 20 years

sad shiat
 
2020-06-16 3:46:18 PM  
I swear, that vagina came out of nowhere!  I was so surprised!
 
2020-06-16 3:46:31 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Lord Dimwit: Being gay isn't a choice! I was forced to be gay when I saw Chris Evans wearing nothing but a towel in Fantastic Four!

(Seriously though, I'm straight but I'm not blind.)

I've had that reaction to more than a few women.


I'm about as straight as a clover-leaf highway interchange, but I'd bang Gina Torres in a hot minute.
 
2020-06-16 3:46:49 PM  
FTA: "Seneca Falls was not Stonewall," he wrote, referring to the 1848 women's rights convention and the 1969 LGBTQ+ uprising, respectively. "The women's rights movement was not (and is not) the gay rights movement, although many people obviously support or participate in both. So to think that sexual orientation discrimination is just a form of sex discrimination is not just a mistake of language and psychology, but also a mistake of history and sociology."

Completely wrong. It is exactly the same fight against bigotry in all its forms.
 
2020-06-16 3:48:11 PM  
window shopping. Imagine paying for that. For looking.

you've forced my neck, Drew
 
2020-06-16 3:48:46 PM  

Icarus_Rising: Gyrfalcon: Lord Dimwit: Being gay isn't a choice! I was forced to be gay when I saw Chris Evans wearing nothing but a towel in Fantastic Four!

(Seriously though, I'm straight but I'm not blind.)

I've had that reaction to more than a few women.

I'm about as straight as a clover-leaf highway interchange, but I'd bang Gina Torres in a hot minute.


Because she's pretty?
 
2020-06-16 3:49:07 PM  

avian: FTA: "The Court may wish to avoid this subject, but it is a matter of concern to many people who are reticent about disrobing or using toilet facilities in the presence of individuals whom they regard as members of the opposite sex,"

Hey asshole (Kavanaugh), no one is getting naked in public restrooms without a stall. The only nudity anyone ever sees in public restrooms is if they are staring at other guy's dicks while using the urinal.


What my friends and I do in the privacy of a secluded park bathroom is none of your concern.
 
2020-06-16 3:50:17 PM  
I like that the go-to image for Kavanaugh is the angry "I like beer!" face

advocate.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-16 3:51:30 PM  

Officer Barrelroll: I like that the go-to image for Kavanaugh is the angry "I like beer!" face

[advocate.com image 750x422]


Fark user imageView Full Size

He always likes beer.
 
2020-06-16 3:55:10 PM  

BumpInTheNight: [Fark user image 236x420]


So, why do they always go in groups?
 
2020-06-16 3:55:17 PM  

Purple_Urkle: Officer Barrelroll: I like that the go-to image for Kavanaugh is the angry "I like beer!" face

[advocate.com image 750x422]

[Fark user image image 425x318]
He always likes beer.


And is always angry. 
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-16 3:55:36 PM  

Icarus_Rising: "Since both of these come after three prior definitions that refer to men and women, they are most naturally read to have the same association, and in any event, is it plausible that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on any sexual urge or instinct and its manifestations? The urge to rape?"


Umm... what? I mean...sure, I guess if your try really hard you could make the argument that the "urge" to rape someone shouldn't, in and of itself, be a fireable offense. How one would discover someone's "urge to rape" apart from said person actually telling you, "Gosh darn I'd like to hold her down and penetrate her sexually without her consent!" is a bit of a stumbling block.


It's not sex discrimination, it's discrimination on the basis of sex.

It probably would be fine to refuse to hire a rapist, as long as the policy applied to men, women, and other equally.

You couldn't just hire male rapists.  Which is obviously their concern here.
 
2020-06-16 3:57:09 PM  
What morons. The inclusion of orientation is based on the fact that to do otherwise would be discriminating based on sex. If you fire a man for farking a guy but don't fire a woman for farking the exact same person, you're discriminating based on sex.

As long as you fire rapists regardless of their gender (which I farking hope you are), then you aren't discriminating and they aren't a protected class.
 
2020-06-16 3:58:26 PM  
the difference is consent. rape, by definition, precludes it. you may find gay sex icky, and that's fine, but you don't get to discriminate against people based on their actions with other consenting adults in private.

/then there's the issue that urges aren't actions
 
2020-06-16 3:59:05 PM  
It's always a surprise when I have sex.
 
2020-06-16 3:59:16 PM  
Republicans are the stupidest farking people on earth and the proof of that is easy to discern when you ask any of them to explain their "beliefs." Like this stupid shiat.

ALITO: "I don't have a legal argument for why I think gay people are icky, I'm a Supreme now so I don't think the religion thing is gonna fly, the liberals go farking crazy when you do that. I know, I'll imply that sexual identity is exactly the same as sexual urges and kinda reference the bathroom rape thing and hope that convinces enough idiots to make them think it's an actual legal argument. I'll use a bunch of half-assed rationales and law talking from that time I paid attention in class at Yale, that'll really impress them."

KAVANAUGH: "Sounds good to me, buddy."

THOMAS: "I concur."

The "conservative" wing of the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
2020-06-16 3:59:19 PM  
Beerbro trying to legalize rape after commiting rape
 
Displayed 50 of 90 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  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.