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 Hill)   "Professor of Law" insists SCOTUS opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County actually legalized sex discrimination instead of banning it   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Gender, Gender role, Discrimination, Supreme Court, Transgender, Sexual orientation, Supreme Court of the United States, Homosexuality  
•       •       •

2230 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Jul 2020 at 10:36 PM (10 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



27 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-07-13 12:45:37 PM  
So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.
 
2020-07-13 10:38:37 PM  
Lies are your truth.  Obedience is your freedom.
 
2020-07-13 10:39:09 PM  
Isn't The Hill the publication where the CEO's wife got a do-nothing job in the Third Lady's office as a favor?
 
2020-07-13 10:49:54 PM  

stoli n coke: Isn't The Hill the publication where the CEO's wife got a do-nothing job in the Third Lady's office as a favor?


The very same.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06​/​30/publishers-wife-played-undisclosed-​role-for-melania-trump-345053

The same guy that helped John Soloman, who formerly worked at The Hill and left for a job with Fox News, concoct the Ukrainian conspiracy theory bullshiat with Rudy Giuliani.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/media/​j​immy-finkelstein-the-hill-ukraine/inde​x.html
 
2020-07-13 11:06:07 PM  

pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.


What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.
 
2020-07-13 11:28:21 PM  
Is this the math Republicans do to make themselves feel better?
 
2020-07-13 11:29:12 PM  
What I get out of that is "I found a way to feel victimized as a white male".
 
2020-07-13 11:32:53 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-13 11:32:55 PM  

Gyrfalcon: What I get out of that is "I found a way to feel victimized as a white male".


"Found a way?"  About the only skill white men have ever had is finding a way to feel victimized and then raping and murdering everyone within arms' reach to assuage their precious fee-fees.  Any advances, inventions, or discoveries were just ways to extend that arms' reach and/or body count.
 
2020-07-13 11:42:59 PM  

phalamir: Gyrfalcon: What I get out of that is "I found a way to feel victimized as a white male".

"Found a way?"  About the only skill cisgender, straight white men have ever had is finding a way to feel victimized and then raping and murdering everyone within arms' reach to assuage their precious fee-fees.  Any advances, inventions, or discoveries were just ways to extend that arms' reach and/or body count.


Slight clarification.  We're just as much their victims as anyone else.  (And it sucks.)
 
2020-07-13 11:56:01 PM  
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard that SCOTUS banned sex altogether. I guess it's pretty serious.
 
2020-07-14 2:25:07 AM  
thumbs.gfycat.comView Full Size
 
2020-07-14 2:28:31 AM  

apoptotic: My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard that SCOTUS banned sex altogether. I guess it's pretty serious.


Thank you, Simone.
 
2020-07-14 2:30:35 AM  

LrdPhoenix: pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.

What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.


But
xy + xy + xy = 3xy

and
xx + xx + xx = 3x2

and
xy + xy + xx = x2 + 2xy

Your math is off.
 
2020-07-14 2:34:25 AM  
Is this just another example of some GOP sleeper cell tipping their hand?

I mean, this is what the GOP wants to do anyway, right? So, I guess this makes it more of a trial balloon then?
 
2020-07-14 4:46:39 AM  

LrdPhoenix: pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.

What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.


Faulty reasoning. You are disbanding a group that itself discriminates and treats sex differently. These groups themselves do not have a sex.
 
2020-07-14 5:01:23 AM  

NM Volunteer: LrdPhoenix: pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.

What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.

But
xy + xy + xy = 3xy

and
xx + xx + xx = 3x2

and
xy + xy + xx = x2 + 2xy

Your math is off.


But, per the Supreme Court decision, they are all equal, and there is a definite solution to the three equations.  In this case, x=ℝ && y=x.
 
2020-07-14 5:02:04 AM  

keldaria: Faulty reasoning. You are disbanding a group that itself discriminates and treats sex differently. These groups themselves do not have a sex.


Doesn't matter, the reason you are discriminating against the group it is because of the sex of their members.  Take it up with the Supreme Court.  I think if the legal team at Harvard, which of course has one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, couldn't find a way around it to protect their own policy, then there is quite possibly no way around it.
 
2020-07-14 5:10:44 AM  

keldaria: LrdPhoenix: pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.

What they're saying is that under the decision's reasoning, xy+xy+xy = xx+xx+xx = xy+xy+xx.  You can't prohibit a group which is consisting only of males or only of females because they are legally equivalent to a mixed group.  Since the court's reasoning was that firing a man for being married to a man but not firing a woman who was married to a man is sexual discrimination, then it is equally true that a disbanding a group consisting only of women but not disbanding a group consisting of men and women is sexual discrimination, because the only difference is that there's also males in the second group.

Faulty reasoning. You are disbanding a group that itself discriminates and treats sex differently. These groups themselves do not have a sex.


This.
 
2020-07-14 6:02:30 AM  

keldaria: Faulty reasoning. You are disbanding a group that itself discriminates and treats sex differently. These groups themselves do not have a sex.


But are you allowed to discriminate against all groups that do not discriminate against themselves?
 
2020-07-14 6:53:11 AM  
Head of Yale law review disagrees with Harvard law grad.  Stopped reading there.
 
2020-07-14 7:15:04 AM  
"To be clear"

LOL.
 
2020-07-14 7:28:07 AM  

flondrix: keldaria: Faulty reasoning. You are disbanding a group that itself discriminates and treats sex differently. These groups themselves do not have a sex.

But are you allowed to discriminate against all groups that do not discriminate against themselves?


Does the group of all groups that discriminate based on gender, discriminate based on gender?


This is why we don't let group theorists go to law school...
 
2020-07-14 8:34:16 AM  
Being gay isnt discriminating against the opposite sex, just like being straight isn't discriminating against the same sex. So no, Harvard, you're drunk, go home.
 
2020-07-14 9:23:12 AM  

incendi: Does the group of all groups that discriminate based on gender, discriminate based on gender?


This is why we don't let group theorists go to law school...


I think you're looking at a proper class action lawsuit there.
 
2020-07-14 9:26:45 AM  

pueblonative: So how does Harvard's policy violate the mathematical rule? Harvard is prohibiting a group consisting of XY+XY+XY, but not a group consisting of XY+XY+XX.

No, they're banning groups that only allow xy+xy+xy or xx+xx+xx.


Harvard isn't banning any groups.  As the linked article points out, Harvard has no authority over the unofficial fraternities, sororities, and "final clubs" that are all single-sex and all off-campus.  But it does have authority over its students.  So Harvard instituted a policy that barred members of those groups from leadership positions in certain on-campus groups, like student government.  Harvard has now dropped that ban because it discriminates on the basis of sex.

In effect, the reasoning goes: if we're only barring members of single-sex groups, then we're barring them based on sex.  I'm not sure I follow that logic.  Deciding whether to belong to a fraternity isn't the same thing as deciding whether to be gay or not.  It seems to me like those are fundamentally different situations.  It also has some implications for religious organizations.  As the Supreme Court recently ruled, those organizations can discriminate against employees who are not members of their "club."  I think Harvard may have learned the wrong lesson from Bostock.
 
2020-07-14 8:36:17 PM  

LrdPhoenix: keldaria: Faulty reasoning. You are disbanding a group that itself discriminates and treats sex differently. These groups themselves do not have a sex.

Doesn't matter, the reason you are discriminating against the group it is because of the sex of their members.  Take it up with the Supreme Court.  I think if the legal team at Harvard, which of course has one of the most prestigious law schools in the country, couldn't find a way around it to protect their own policy, then there is quite possibly no way around it.


You are discriminating against the group for having discriminatory practices not because of their gender.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is 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.