- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 7:12 am to udtiger
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:12 am to udtiger
quote:
What if the employer is a church?
What if the employer is a daycare
No, since when what you do in the bedroom should affect your employment?
I'm not a fan of the ruling, but I do get it
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 7:14 am
1
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it only makes sense if the law was written to prohibit discrimination based on the sex of the partner of the employee
It’s not based on the sex of the partner though. It is accepting something that if a female does it is OK but if a male does it you don’t. Clearly the sex of the employee is coming into the consideration.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:13 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
But that is the entire point of textualism. You don’t look at what people intended. You look at what the words say. I
the words say sex
not sexual orientation
and certainly not gender
quote:
but that is the logical outcome of what those words say
no it's not. were sexual orientation or being transgender foreign concepts to legislators in 1964? no. if those were classes sought to be protexted, that Congress would have included them.
the law says you may not discriminate based on the sex of your employee, not the sex of their sexual partner
also, this sophist argument completely ignores the transgender issue and doesn't apply in any way to THAT aspect of the ruling
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i feel we're a generation or 2 away from courts saying that legislatures can't rescind well-established laws b/c of the disruption in society or negative effects it would have
A generation or two?
Are we pretending this isn't going to happen when Roberts and the majority prevent Trump from rescinding DACA within a matter of weeks?
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:14 am to musick
quote:
quote:What if the employer is a church? What if the employer is a daycar e No
So, the employer has to forego its beliefs and/or its business because an employee decides to "come out" or "transition" after they are hired.
frick that.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:15 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
It’s not based on the sex of the partner though.
the law wasn't meant to. you're correct
your argument is based in this, though
quote:
It is accepting something that if a female does it is OK but if a male does it you don’t.
define "something"
quote:
Clearly the sex of the employee is coming into the consideration.
the sex of the employee's partner, yes
if your argument is valid, then explain it without using the sex of the employee's partner
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:16 am to Muthsera
quote:
Are we pretending this isn't going to happen when Roberts and the majority prevent Trump from rescinding DACA within a matter of weeks?
that's not a law. that's executive policy which is a whole nother ballgame
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
also, this sophist argument completely ignores the transgender issue and doesn't apply in any way to THAT aspect of the ruling
If a woman can wear a dress and you’re fine with it, then why can’t a man? Doesn’t the sex of the man become the reason for the denial and wouldn’t that be discrimination under Title VII?
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:16 am to Muthsera
quote:
when Roberts and the majority prevent Trump from rescinding DACA within a matter of weeks?
If this happens, Trump should ignore the Court. It would be an extralegal and unconstitutional. It would warrant the arrest of the majority as a blatant disregard of their oath.
The Court will essentially be saying that Obama was a king and that no other President can reverse his edicts (which is contrary to the concept of monarchy).
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:17 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
If a woman can wear a dress and you’re fine with it, then why can’t a man?
wow. that's insulting to transgender people
like holy fricking shite
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:17 am to LSU2ALA
quote:Alito addresses this. He said that if you expand the hypothetical to include a homosexual woman and a heterosexual man, there is no discrimination by sex because the two employees that are not fired are of different sexes, leading to the conclusion that sex is not the reason for the discrimination but the sexual orientation, which is not the same category.
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
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:19 am to Wtodd
quote:
Roberts disagrees
Sometimes. When he wants to.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:19 am to Wtodd
quote:
Roberts disagrees
He was the lead on forcing legislation on health care too.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if your argument is valid, then explain it without using the sex of the employee's partner
If you’re argument is valid, explain how the firing would take place without taking the employee’s sex into account. I don’t disagree the sex of the partner comes into play; however, if the sex if the employee is part of the decision, then it runs afoul of the clear text of Title VII
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:21 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
If a woman can wear a dress and you’re fine with it, then why can’t a man?
Because he's not a woman and NO ONE should have to pretend -- under the threat of firing or a lawsuit -- that he is. Employers shouldn't be forced to have these mentally disturbed freaks represent their companies. And fellow employees shouldn't be forced to "accommodate" the mental retardation of these freaks.
Employers should have the RIGHT to dictate how a person dresses, does his or her hair, or any number of personal hygiene requirements if someone is going to represent his or her company.
This post was edited on 6/16/20 at 7:24 am
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:22 am to LSU2ALA
Imagine if they would have just used the word gender instead of sex. Then this is a non-issue is it not?
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:22 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
If you’re argument is valid, explain how the firing would take place without taking the employee’s sex into account.
my argument is the firing didn't take the sex into account and the CRA wasn't triggered
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:22 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
wow. that's insulting to transgender people
like holy fricking shite
I agree that the person in my example would call herself a woman. I didn’t want to get into that because of the argument that brings up with people saying there are only two genders. Please explain how my example does not take sex into account.
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:23 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
I didn’t want to get into that because of the argument that brings up with people saying there are only two genders.
there are infinite genders
there are only 2 SEXES
what word did the law use: sex or gender?
Posted on 6/16/20 at 7:24 am to LSU2ALA
Sex and who I have sex with are two entirely different things.
Page 2 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News