- 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: Supreme Court - "Sex discrimination" includes gay and transgender discrimination
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:56 am to the808bass
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:56 am to the808bass
quote:
From the ordinary public meaning of the statute’s language at the time of the law’s adoption, a straightforward rule emerges: An employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires an individual employee based in part on sex. It doesn’t matter if other factors besides the plaintiff ’s sex contributed to the decision. And it doesn’t matter if the employer treated women as a group the same when compared to men as a group. If the employer intentionally relies in
part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred.
quote:
Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.
Gee Wiz...this from the Supreme Court of the United States. What a mentally ill person decides to "identify as" today
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:01 am
2
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:56 am to Jimmy2shoes
quote:
Ms. Stephens presented as a male. B
quote:
clinicians diagnosed her with
gender dysphoria and recommended that she begin living
as a woman.
I don't even know how to comprehend this other than to say we should embrace it.
Every white person should just identify as black.
Racism solved.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:56 am to FalseProphet
How can a business owner's (et al.) rights be infringed on the basis of someone's "identity"? This just doesn't even make practical sense. It isn't a slippery slope fallacy to say that there are literally infinite ways in which a person (especially the mentally ill) may identify. And it could change from day to day, second to second. How do you decide which "identities" are worthy of protection? And yes why is this judicial? Is this in the Constitution?
I am not taking the time to torture myself with the court's tortured "reasoning."
I am not taking the time to torture myself with the court's tortured "reasoning."
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 9:58 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:56 am to Jimmy2shoes
And we thought the last plague was bad. God won’t be mocked.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:57 am to GumboPot
quote:
As an employer just make sure you fire them for another reasons not related to sexual preference or gender.
So lie? You agree with a system that forces people to be dishonest?
Even when what they are being dishonest about is their opinion that transgender people are very mentally ill? An opinion universally held a couple of decades ago?
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:57 am to FalseProphet
Alright, after actually reading the case, I've decided that the result here is pretty absurd, but that the legal reasoning is valid.
This is not the court creating a new protected class, but rather the court being bound by the extremely strict precedent and "but for" causation tests in title 7 sex discrimination cases. In other words, firing a gay employee is, in part, about the fact that he is a man. If it were a woman attracted to men, the employer would not have cared. The fact that the fired gay employee is a man does not have to be the only factor in the termination; the fact that it played any role in the decision to terminate at all is enough.
In other words, the title 7 precedent is simply so strict that it has to be applied to gay and transgendered employees, even though that would obviously have been unforeseeable to those who wrote the 1964 law. I agree that the result seems absurd, but I think the law and precedent were followed here.
This is not the court creating a new protected class, but rather the court being bound by the extremely strict precedent and "but for" causation tests in title 7 sex discrimination cases. In other words, firing a gay employee is, in part, about the fact that he is a man. If it were a woman attracted to men, the employer would not have cared. The fact that the fired gay employee is a man does not have to be the only factor in the termination; the fact that it played any role in the decision to terminate at all is enough.
In other words, the title 7 precedent is simply so strict that it has to be applied to gay and transgendered employees, even though that would obviously have been unforeseeable to those who wrote the 1964 law. I agree that the result seems absurd, but I think the law and precedent were followed here.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:00 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:58 am to Muleriderhog
quote:
Because I don’t think someone should be fired for being gay or trans?
without judicial activism, the solution for this is to change the actual law
now, our Supreme Court just ruled that words don't matter. that's kind of an important concept for a legal system based on words
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:58 am to Muleriderhog
quote:
quote:
So a teen with a dick can use the girls locker room
No. That’s stupid.
That isn’t what this was about though, it’s that you can’t get fired for being gay or trans which I think is good.
Actually, if you read the f*cking opinion you'll understand that YOU ARE A F*CKING IDIOT because that is the ONLY WAY for this opinion to be interpreted.
Title IX reads --
quote:
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
According to Gorsuch the F*CKING TRAITOR, the only possible way to read "on the basis of sex" is to include trannies in that definition. According to Gorsuch, that is the plain meaning of "sex" even though nothing could be further from the truth.
So, you can bet your A$$ that trannies will rely on this case and it's completely f*cking ABSURD "definition" of sex to force schools to allow dudes in drag to compete against women in sports and for scholarships. May as well get rid of all women's sports.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:59 am to uway
quote:
Even when what they are being dishonest about is their opinion that transgender people are very mentally ill
Yes that is true. However, it is settled law that you cannot fire someone for mental health issues so you just fricked your entire argument.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:59 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
Alright, after actually reading the case, I've decided that the result here is pretty absurd, but that the legal reasoning is valid.
an absurd result based on precedent means the precedent is absurd
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:59 am to Jimmy2shoes
quote:
the employer intentionally relies in
part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge the employee—put differently, if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred.
Wait. Did 6 Supreme Court justices just sign onto the idea that it is possible for a person to change their SEX?
Posted on 6/15/20 at 9:59 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
In other words, the title 7 precedent is simply so strict that it has to be applied to gay and transgendered employees, even though that would obviously be absurd to those who wrote the 1964 law. I agree that the result seems absurd, but I think the law and precedent were followed here.
Yes. When you start with a dumb premise, you end with a dumb result. The Supreme Court is fine with halving the baby in case after case after case. It is of no comfort, nor should it be, that this result is simply a following of precedent.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:00 am to MMauler
quote:
plain meaning of "sex" even though nothing could be further from the truth.
Yep
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:00 am to McLemore
quote:
there are literally infinite ways in which a person (especially the mentally ill) may identify. And it could change from day to day, second to second.
We're fricked
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:01 am to FalseProphet
RIP to women’s sports
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
an absurd result based on precedent means the precedent is absurd
Agree. Blame congress.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:02 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
Agree. Blame congress.
for what?
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:02 am to McLemore
Some elementary kids toured a new school last year somewhere around my home base and the parent announced to the principal that the kids were gender fluid. So they may use different bathrooms on different days depending on how they felt.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:02 am to FalseProphet
That's it. That's what the Left has been seeking for decades -- to be treated as a protected minority under FedGov Civil Rights Law. Now there will be quotas for the hiring of these people in every business in the USA.
Protected status - they have finally won their battle. Now all they need to do is to carry it to the next step, which is, not Equality, but - Suprmacy - to have superior rights and status protected by Federal Law.
Trump's hand is now smacked away from his attempt to keep
Trans-people from joining the US military and having the US military pay for their surgery and protect their Civil Rights to being Promoted.
This is a heavy, HEAVY defeat for the USA. A VERY damaging self-inflicted wound, IMHO.
This will lead to MORE division, MORE animosity, MORE tribal strife -- the Gays are relentless fighters in their desire to inflict vengeance upon Breeders. This SCOTUS decision will weaken the USA even further.
TRUMP will no doubt attack the decision, and, this will provide Biden with an opportunity to be the Civil Rights Candidate - framing TRump as the Anti-Civil Rights Candidate.
This is an EXTREMELY helpful boost for the Biden campaign. SCOTUS wants Biden to be POTUS.
The Left's Long March continues. They are marching with a vengeance, and, unless you are a protected minority, you will pay.
Protected status - they have finally won their battle. Now all they need to do is to carry it to the next step, which is, not Equality, but - Suprmacy - to have superior rights and status protected by Federal Law.
Trump's hand is now smacked away from his attempt to keep
Trans-people from joining the US military and having the US military pay for their surgery and protect their Civil Rights to being Promoted.
This is a heavy, HEAVY defeat for the USA. A VERY damaging self-inflicted wound, IMHO.
This will lead to MORE division, MORE animosity, MORE tribal strife -- the Gays are relentless fighters in their desire to inflict vengeance upon Breeders. This SCOTUS decision will weaken the USA even further.
TRUMP will no doubt attack the decision, and, this will provide Biden with an opportunity to be the Civil Rights Candidate - framing TRump as the Anti-Civil Rights Candidate.
This is an EXTREMELY helpful boost for the Biden campaign. SCOTUS wants Biden to be POTUS.
The Left's Long March continues. They are marching with a vengeance, and, unless you are a protected minority, you will pay.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:09 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:02 am to GumboPot
quote:
As an employer just make sure you fire them for another reasons not related to sexual preference or gender.
Won’t matter. They’ll just sue, claiming that’s why you fired them. No matter how much you may have documented as to what a shitty employee they were. They’ll just say that your decision was based in part on their orientation/mental illness. And the way things are going now, they’ll likely win, because you won’t be able to disprove it.
That’s the can of worms this decision has opened.
Page 6 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News