- 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: Supreme Court - "Sex discrimination" includes gay and transgender discrimination
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:38 am to FalseProphet
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:38 am to FalseProphet
Oh look Gorsuch is also a turncoat. Looks like another failure of Trumps. I’m starting to think we have been fooled. Progressivism is gaining ground faster today than under Obama and Trump sits there and does nothing but tweet. frick him and frick the Supreme Court
0
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:38 am to Flats
quote:
Discrimination based on having swastika tattooed on your forehead isn't explicitly in fine print either, so that should be a protected class. It's a natural extension.
Ummmm, no, that is a point of view. I’m allowed to discriminate against someone’s point of view. Plus what’s the guy with swastika tattoo going to do with hiring practices when it comes to race, religion, sexuality, and disabilities? That could be the most fricking retarded example you could have given. You’re an idiot.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 11:45 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:38 am to ShortyRob
quote:And every company will be a "Woman and Minority Owned" qualified business.
Inside of 20 years, every women's American record will be held by a biological male.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:40 am to ShortyRob
quote:
It goes beyond athletics.
Can biological males now get scholarships, even non-athletic ones, set up for women?
Basically, can biological males basically skim off the top of EVERYTHING designed for women?
Saying "sex discrimination" includes transgender ends being female as an actual distinction. And yes, I know it goes both ways but let's face it, the damage is going to be 99% in one direction.
I actually agree with you, ShortyRob. You have put forth a good argument on why gender identity should not be a protected class. Sexuality: yes. Gender identity: no.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:40 am to udtiger
quote:
Roberts
Not a surprise.
quote:
Gorsuch
A surprise
At least Kavabaw knows what’s right. And can always count on Thomas and Alito. We really need to get Breyer and RBG replaced with conservatives though
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:40 am to OMLandshark
quote:IT was a bad example
Ummmm, no, that is a point of view. I’m allowed to discriminate against someoneMs point of view
But, you CAN still discriminate against ugly, pretty, fat, skinny, tall, short, etc etc etc.
There should be no such thing as protected groups and, yes, I'm saying it. Anti-discrimination law should all be repealed.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:41 am to Taxing Authority
Enjoy the shite show of Christian universities, schools, and other institutions getting sued left and right because they refuse to higher an individual because they are transgender.
It is coming.
It is coming.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:42 am to ShortyRob
quote:Yep. Nothing prevents one from being fired for being a white male heterosexual.
By definition, the government declaring certain classes of people as "protected" is government sanctioned discrimination.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:42 am to kingbob
quote:
The other 6 believed the word also included one or both of the latter two.’
You're giving them way too much credit. They wanted an outcome; it's not any more complex than that. Whatever twists and "beliefs" they needed for that outcome were figured out and worked into their justification, but this outcome was their starting point. They worked backwards from there.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:43 am to cokebottleag
quote:
I can make that argument on sexuality. If you’re pedosexual, you can stop diddling kids that can prevent you from doing your job. It can lose you a significant amount of business if say you have a pediatric clinic and a pedosexual wants to be a doctor. You can absolutely fire someone for being a pedo and they can do nothing about it.
I think places dealing extensively with children should have some exceptions with this much like how religious institutions and businesses (like say a Kosher slaughterhouse) do, but only when it comes to pedophiles and not other sexualities.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:44 am to OMLandshark
quote:
I think places dealing extensively with children should have some exceptions with this much like how religious institutions and businesses (like say a Kosher slaughterhouse) do, but only when it comes to pedophiles and not other sexualities.
The SCOTUS says no.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:44 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Once you introduce the concept of protected classes, you have to present an argument on why something isn’t a protected class.
Why?
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:44 am to ShortyRob
quote:
But, you CAN still discriminate against ugly, pretty, fat, skinny, tall, short, etc etc etc.
There should be no such thing as protected groups and, yes, I'm saying it. Anti-discrimination law should all be repealed.
Agreed, but so long as it exists, I don’t see the real argument (save for pedophilia when it comes to child focused industries) that sexuality wouldn’t be a protected class.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:45 am to Turbeauxdog
I honestly think this will hurt Trump in November. This will hurt his bases's enthusiasm and cause some to stay home.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:46 am to jatilen
quote:
I honestly think this will hurt Trump in November. This will hurt his bases's enthusiasm and cause some to stay home.
Ummm, no it’s not. How many people refuse to hire or serve gay people in this day and age?
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:47 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Ummmm, no, that is a point of view.
So? I think point of view is a natural extension of protecting religion, and you're all about SCOTUS adding in natural extensions to the law. No need for "point of view" to actually be in the text, amirite?
You don't understand basic civics and I'm an idiot?
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:50 am to udtiger
quote:
May as well let antifa and BLM just burn it to the ground.
I've got a better idea.
Let's burn THEM to the ground, and then rebuild things as it should be.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:51 am to Flats
quote:
So?
You explicitly hire people for their point of view. That by definition can’t be a protected class. You’re an idiot.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 11:53 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:52 am to ShortyRob
quote:
IT was a bad example
Not using his logic. We should just protect everything that SCOTUS thinks is a "natural extension" of what the law actually says, because what it actually says isn't that important, it's just a starting place. It makes more sense to make political views a protected class than it does trannies.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 11:54 am to OMLandshark
quote:
that sexuality wouldn’t be a protected class.
I’m not sure what you are arguing. That the court can just add new protected classes as they desire regardless of the law? Or the law should be modified.
Sex has a clear definition and who you desire to frick is a different concept.
It’s almost hysterical that the gays would argue simultaneously that your sex doesn’t determine who you want to frick but that sex protections should be extended to who you want to frick.
And it’s embarrassing that the court came to that same patently retarded decision.
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News