- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS Reasoning
Posted on 6/16/20 at 12:03 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
Posted on 6/16/20 at 12:03 pm to GeauxFightingTigers1
There’s no slippery slope!!!
We’re supposed to continue progressing until civilization is over!!
We’re supposed to continue progressing until civilization is over!!
0
Posted on 6/16/20 at 12:09 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:This is very poor reasoning and actually embarrassing for Gorsuch. The reason being, he did not carry the scenario through all permutations of the logic. The other pertinent scenario is if two subsequent, opposite sex employees are encountered. This time the male has a female partner and the female has a female partner. If the employer terminates the female, then both sexes are treated equally by the employer. The reciprocal of a man with a man is not a woman with a man; it's a woman with a woman. So the test for sex discrimination should be that a man is not allowed to be with a man as a woman is allowed to be with a woman. This accurately distinguishes sex from sexual orientation.
In this case, Gorsuch wrote if you have two employees, male and female, who are identical in every way and they both date a man, then it is not allowed to fire the man for that. The reasoning is you have no problem with the woman doing the same thing so you are taking the employee’s sex into account which is not allowed.
Gorsuch, and the liberal justices, would need to stipulate that the employer was A-OK with some good old fashion scissoring for their reasoning to be accurate.
You can apply their logic to other mundane features to see how it isn't sound, and actually passes discrimination on to a secondary property that isn't sex.
Hair length. If I'm turned down for a job because I have long hair while the female who gets the job also has long hair; is that discrimination based on sex? It seems to follow Gorsuch's reasoning that the female is allowed somethign that the male is not. But the courts (not supreme) have already ruled that it isn't.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 12:12 pm to hawkeye007
quote:
super rare cases where its not obvious that the person is gay
Holy shite.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 12:15 pm to WildManGoose
quote:
This is very poor reasoning and actually embarrassing for Gorsuch. The reason being, he did not carry the scenario through all permutations of the logic. The other pertinent scenario is if two subsequent, opposite sex employees are encountered. This time the male has a female partner and the female has a female partner. If the employer terminates the female, then both sexes are treated equally by the employer. The reciprocal of a man with a man is not a woman with a man; it's a woman with a woman. So the test for sex discrimination should be that a man is not allowed to be with a man as a woman is allowed to be with a woman. This accurately distinguishes sex from sexual orientation.
Gorsuch, and the liberal justices, would need to stipulate that the employer was A-OK with some good old fashion scissoring for their reasoning to be accurate.
You can apply their logic to other mundane features to see how it isn't sound, and actually passes discrimination on to a secondary property that isn't sex.
Hair length. If I'm turned down for a job because I have long hair while the female who gets the job also has long hair; is that discrimination based on sex? It seems to follow Gorsuch's reasoning that the female is allowed somethign that the male is not. But the courts (not supreme) have already ruled that it isn't.
Yup, don't forget they threw in transgender (whatever that mean), assuming chicks with dicks. A chick with a dick could still be heterosexual so...
The ruling makes no sense what so ever, basically they are saying anything to do with "sex" could be sex discrimination, logic would follow anything to do with race could be racial discrimination.
They went from restricting discrimination based on facts to now behavior (feelings or opinion). So... if an employee says he/she dislikes gay people, the person can't be dismissed that I can see, nor if they dislike some race.
"Hey guys, this our newest employee, he/she like to donate their free time to the KKK/Black Power organizations"
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 12:17 pm
Posted on 6/16/20 at 12:22 pm to FooManChoo
Although the original person I responded to and I were discussing a different aspect of this ruling, I can see your point. I do however disagree that the Supreme Court made law. It is their job to interpret law as it says on their own website. First paragraph:
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
Supremecourt.gov
It would be their job to interpret existing laws and draw deductions from those laws and apply them to situations which have no prior ruling. The buck has to stop somewhere and since there wasn't any language specifically calling out LGBTQ people, the supreme court had to deduce from already established law.
I would ask though that if the SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, under whose purview would it be to say whether or not these people were protected from discrimination?
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"-These words, written above the main entrance to the Supreme Court Building, express the ultimate responsibility of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution.
Supremecourt.gov
It would be their job to interpret existing laws and draw deductions from those laws and apply them to situations which have no prior ruling. The buck has to stop somewhere and since there wasn't any language specifically calling out LGBTQ people, the supreme court had to deduce from already established law.
I would ask though that if the SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, under whose purview would it be to say whether or not these people were protected from discrimination?
Posted on 6/16/20 at 12:24 pm to Meatflap
quote:
I would ask though that if the SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, under whose purview would it be to say whether or not these people were protected from discrimination?
The cases would be final at the appeals level. Happens in millions of cases a year.
They didn't interrupt anything, they rewrote it which now will probably defeat the whole purpose of the act, at least in part. If you doubt me, where does the chicks with dicks come into play? It doesn't, the Supreme Court wanted them covered... by some type of witch craft, they're covered.
Congress could in theory cover them but we're talking of covering behavior at that point.
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 6/16/20 at 12:48 pm to Meatflap
quote:I understand what their role is. The issue I have is that I don't believe this ruling was simply an interpretation. When, by their ruling, the justices have added the language of "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" into the law, they have created legislation. You can tell this has happened because the very thing they accomplished has been under debate by Congress (where the fight is supposed to live) for years. Getting the law changed to specifically protect orientation and identity has been going for a while now and that fight stopped immediately when the SCOTUS issued their ruling. That's not an interpretation: that's a flat-out alteration of the law based on a redefinition of the term "sex".
I do however disagree that the Supreme Court made law. It is their job to interpret law...
You can tell that this "interpretation" was a change to the law when employers are forced to update their policies to reflect this new language even though that language isn't in the applicable law.
quote:Not at all. They are supposed to rule according to the law. If the law is silent, they are to be silent, as well. They are not supposed to make up for deficiencies within the law by filling the gaps with their rulings.
It would be their job to interpret existing laws and draw deductions from those laws and apply them to situations which have no prior ruling. The buck has to stop somewhere and since there wasn't any language specifically calling out LGBTQ people, the supreme court had to deduce from already established law.
The right decision would have been to say that the law specifically mentions that discrimination by sex is called out--which was understood as being biological and anatomic differences between males and females--and that sex is fundamentally different from sexual orientation and gender identity, and that the onus is on law makers in Congress to update the existing laws to reflect the will of the people. That's how our government is supposed to work.
quote:It's the purview of the courts to say that the law is clear in its intent and that there is no case to sue if there is no protection for a particular group or characteristic left out. The responsibility would be on Congress, then, to update the laws accordingly.
I would ask though that if the SCOTUS didn't rule on this at all, under whose purview would it be to say whether or not these people were protected from discrimination?
Posted on 6/16/20 at 1:12 pm to Mickey Goldmill
"The only situations this ruling will impact are the employers who are blatant about their reasoning for firing a gay person because they are gay."
Come on, Mickey, you know better than this! Employers have known about race and sex (er, whatever term you use for sex that doesn't include sexual orientation) for decades and plenty of lawyers out there make a living pursuing and defending such claims. While I agree that most employers already have policies against discrimination against gays, there will be plenty of cases in which someone alleges that the policy was not followed. And the cases will not all be "blatant," just as not all are blatant with race or "pre-Bostock" sex claims.
Come on, Mickey, you know better than this! Employers have known about race and sex (er, whatever term you use for sex that doesn't include sexual orientation) for decades and plenty of lawyers out there make a living pursuing and defending such claims. While I agree that most employers already have policies against discrimination against gays, there will be plenty of cases in which someone alleges that the policy was not followed. And the cases will not all be "blatant," just as not all are blatant with race or "pre-Bostock" sex claims.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 1:16 pm to LSU2ALA
Here is another one for you. Take a hiring case in which a job application asks if you are a homosexual (as many government jobs used to do!) and does NOT ask for your "sex." The hire is refused on the basis of the answer to the homosexuality question. "Sex" not known and not taken into account, right?
Posted on 6/16/20 at 1:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
"i mean the concept of gender existed in 1964."
I am not sure this is true in the sense you intended. I believe that in 1964, "gender" was limited to grammar. I am pretty sure its use as a euphemism for "biological sex" developed later.
I am not sure this is true in the sense you intended. I believe that in 1964, "gender" was limited to grammar. I am pretty sure its use as a euphemism for "biological sex" developed later.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 1:29 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:Yes, it wasn't until recently that the deconstructionists got together to redefine the word to mean something other than biological sex to justify tolerance, acceptance, and then promotion of those who believe they are a different sex than they are. Back in the 1960's, everyone would have thought you were crazy to think your gender was different from your sex.
I am not sure this is true in the sense you intended. I believe that in 1964, "gender" was limited to grammar. I am pretty sure its use as a euphemism for "biological sex" developed later.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 1:46 pm to FooManChoo
eeoc.gov
On March 1, EEOC filed the U.S. government's first sex discrimination lawsuit based on sexual orientation, U.S. EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center (Case 2:16-cv-00225-CB), in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. In its complaint, EEOC charged that a gay male employee was subjected to sex discrimination in the form of harassment because of his sexual orientation and then forced to quit his job rather than endure further harassment. In response to EEOC's lawsuit, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case.
In a decision issued on Nov. 4 by U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, the court denied Scott Medical Health Center's motion to dismiss EEOC's case. In its ruling, the court found that sexual orientation discrimination is a type of discrimination "because of sex," which is barred by Title VII. Applying decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court finding that Title VII's ban on sex discrimination includes adverse treatment of workers based on "sex stereotypes," i.e. pre-conceived ideas of how a man or a woman should act or think, the federal court stated, "There is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality."
The court's decision is consistent with EEOC's reading of Title VII's sex discrimination ban. As the federal law enforcement agency charged with interpreting and enforcing Title VII, EEOC has previously concluded that harassment and other discrimination because of sexual orientation is prohibited sex discrimination. On July 15, 2015, EEOC, in a federal sector decision, determined that sexual orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination because of sex. See Baldwin v. Dep't of Transp., Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015).
In that case, EEOC explained the reasons why Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination includes discrimination because of sexual orientation: (1) sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves treating workers less favorably because of their sex because sexual orientation as a concept cannot be understood without reference to sex; (2) sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in non-compliance with sex stereotypes and gender norms, and employment decisions based in such stereotypes and norms have long been found to be prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII; and (3) sexual orientation discrimination punishes workers because of their close personal association with members of a particular sex, such as marital and other personal relationships.
This sounds almost exactly like the language used by Gorsuch on Monday but this ruling was a few years ago.
On March 1, EEOC filed the U.S. government's first sex discrimination lawsuit based on sexual orientation, U.S. EEOC v. Scott Medical Health Center (Case 2:16-cv-00225-CB), in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh. In its complaint, EEOC charged that a gay male employee was subjected to sex discrimination in the form of harassment because of his sexual orientation and then forced to quit his job rather than endure further harassment. In response to EEOC's lawsuit, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case.
In a decision issued on Nov. 4 by U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon, the court denied Scott Medical Health Center's motion to dismiss EEOC's case. In its ruling, the court found that sexual orientation discrimination is a type of discrimination "because of sex," which is barred by Title VII. Applying decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court finding that Title VII's ban on sex discrimination includes adverse treatment of workers based on "sex stereotypes," i.e. pre-conceived ideas of how a man or a woman should act or think, the federal court stated, "There is no more obvious form of sex stereotyping than making a determination that a person should conform to heterosexuality."
The court's decision is consistent with EEOC's reading of Title VII's sex discrimination ban. As the federal law enforcement agency charged with interpreting and enforcing Title VII, EEOC has previously concluded that harassment and other discrimination because of sexual orientation is prohibited sex discrimination. On July 15, 2015, EEOC, in a federal sector decision, determined that sexual orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination because of sex. See Baldwin v. Dep't of Transp., Appeal No. 0120133080 (July 15, 2015).
In that case, EEOC explained the reasons why Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination includes discrimination because of sexual orientation: (1) sexual orientation discrimination necessarily involves treating workers less favorably because of their sex because sexual orientation as a concept cannot be understood without reference to sex; (2) sexual orientation discrimination is rooted in non-compliance with sex stereotypes and gender norms, and employment decisions based in such stereotypes and norms have long been found to be prohibited sex discrimination under Title VII; and (3) sexual orientation discrimination punishes workers because of their close personal association with members of a particular sex, such as marital and other personal relationships.
This sounds almost exactly like the language used by Gorsuch on Monday but this ruling was a few years ago.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 1:48 pm to Meatflap
quote:
determined that sexual orientation discrimination is, by its very nature, discrimination because of sex
This moron doesn’t know how to define definition.
Dripping in irony.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 2:00 pm to FooManChoo
It is pretty strange how language evolves from one generation to the next, and I agree that in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights Act was written, they may not have considered LGBTQ people as needing protection from discrimination. But sixty years later, those people who are charged with interpreting those words, do.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 2:11 pm to Meatflap
quote:
This sounds almost exactly like the language used by Gorsuch on Monday but this ruling was a few years ago.
Yeah, pretty close. In this, and the more you read this... it appears when they are talking about "sex", they are talking about "sexual relations", a gay person could be gay and not have "sexual relations".
Of course, I don't know how they jump from that to transgenders(?) either, its probably not about "sex" or "sexual relations". People don't want anything to do with those people because they're freaks and they believe them to be mentality ill.
quote:
"sex stereotypes," i.e. pre-conceived ideas of how a man or a woman should act
That would mean a pure racist really couldn't be fired for being a racist, as that is a pre-conceived idea of how a man or a woman should act.
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 6/16/20 at 2:49 pm to Turbeauxdog
The paragraph directly before the one that includes your quote, defines "sexual orientation discrimination" and makes the connection as to why it is "because of sex".
It might sound murky, but until they invent new language for this situation, we're stuck with this choppy legalese.
It might sound murky, but until they invent new language for this situation, we're stuck with this choppy legalese.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 2:58 pm to Meatflap
quote:Yes, it's possible for multiple people to come to the same wrong conclusion.
This sounds almost exactly like the language used by Gorsuch on Monday but this ruling was a few years ago.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 3:05 pm to Meatflap
quote:Yes, and it isn't the role of the judiciary to extend application of a law to where it wasn't intended. It's not the role of the judicial branch to right social wrongs. They exist to apply the law towards instances of legal injustice. Congress is responsible for tackling the tough issues of discrimination and fairness and what is right for our nation and culture through the process of making law. The judiciary is responsible for making sure that the laws made are within the boundaries set forth by the Constitution and ensure equal justice according to those constitutional laws
It is pretty strange how language evolves from one generation to the next, and I agree that in the 1960s, when the Civil Rights Act was written, they may not have considered LGBTQ people as needing protection from discrimination. But sixty years later, those people who are charged with interpreting those words, do
Again, it isn't the job of those in black robes to determine policy. It's the job of Congress to address those issues. The reason for this is that policy makers are accountable to the people and will be held accountable if they go against the will of their constituents. We have separation of powers and those in the judiciary--as those in the other two branches--are supposed to stay in their respective lanes.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 3:08 pm to Meatflap
quote:
The paragraph directly before the one that includes your quote, defines "sexual orientation discrimination" and makes the connection as to why it is "because of sex".
It’s using terrible tangential nonsense
Posted on 6/16/20 at 3:14 pm to Meatflap
quote:It sounds like the language isn't the issue. It sounds like we are seeing the fruits of destroying and re-configuring the meaning of words to fit our belief systems.
It might sound murky, but until they invent new language for this situation, we're stuck with this choppy legalese.
The 60's weren't that long ago. We know what the definitions of words were then. We know what they meant to the law-makers.
We have appropriate words to use if we want the law changed through the process laid out by the Constitution and there have been opportunities to change it that way, and there would have been more opportunities to do so. What the SCOTUS majority did was redefine our language to reach a conclusion they thought was best for today and robbed the people and their representatives of the ability to debate these ideas in the public square.
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News