re: SCOTUS Reasoning

quote:

---

wow. that's insulting to transgender people like holy fricking shite

---

That just lost that dude all his woke points.

quote:

---

Easy.

Same sex partnerships get you fired.

Exact equal treatment for men and women.

This ruling is retarded, and an 8th grader could argue Gorsuch into the ground on it.

---

But the term same sex clearly takes the employee’s sex into account. You can’t decide a relationship is same sex without looking at the sex of both parties.

ITT (lest we miss it), we had a guy arguing not even religious institutions should be able to discriminate against a trans or homosexual person for employment.

quote:

---

I know people are unhappy about the result of the SCOTUS decision yesterday, but I have not seen a discussion on the reasoning of the decision. Instead, the discussion has been on the outcome itself and what it means for the future which is fair. Title VII clearly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex among other things. 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. I have to say this makes sense from a textual interpretation standpoint, regardless of thoughts on what the outcome is. Thoughts?

---

In most cases, if someone were fired because they were gay or an IT, it was because the gay or IT ( trying to act like something they are not an IT). I would imagine in some cases it could come down to "sex", but they made it an absolute.

They wanted an outcome and wrote something that legally doesn't make sense to reach the desired outcome.

For example, I don't hire male gays, but hire female gays. But that is not what they wrote, they gave rights to a class which is not covered by the statute.

quote:

---

it should make you question your argument if half of this ruling is so easily dismissed. i mean the concept of gender existed in 1964. why didn't Congress use that word? how can the Supreme Court interpret "sex" to mean "gender"?

---

While you had some academics argue they were different, I have seen nothing to show that difference was in wide usage when the law was written. For a textual argument, you have to take into account what the words say and what they meant at the time they were written.

quote:

---

ITT (lest we miss it), we had a guy arguing not even religious institutions should be able to discriminate against a trans or homosexual person for employment.

---

I think that’s wrong. In that case, you would have Title VII running up against the First Amendment. That is a Congressional law against the Constitution. Seems to me the Constitution should hold.

quote:

---

It takes the fact the employee has a sex for granted. I hope we can agree that all people have a sex. It does not take the sex of the employee into account.

---

If the homosexual or transsexual (IT) was to be discriminated based on the sex, meaning filter by males/females type situation, the statute would most likely cover this... they basically rewrote what sex is... including sexuality.

It depends, mostly though its probably wouldn't fall into the statute so they rewrote what it said to get the conclusion they wanted.

quote:

---

I think that’s wrong.

---

So? Your opinion is meaningless. As is all of ours.

It’s whatever outcome the Supreme Court wants. That’s what we’ll get.

quote:

---

But the term same sex clearly takes the employee’s sex into account. You can’t decide a relationship is same sex without looking at the sex of both parties.

---

The phrase “same sex” is describing the nature of the sexual union, making the issue about the sexuality involved, not the biological sex of the one involved. The evidence--as Alito pointed out--is that a homosexual woman and a homosexual man would both be fired while a heterosexual man and heterosexual woman would both be retained if you expanded the comparison to four employees instead of just two. The issue, then, is not the sex but the sexuality, otherwise men and women would be treated differently by the practice, which is what title 7 was meant to address with the word “sex”.