- 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 10:03 am to Tigerlaff
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:03 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.
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.
Why wouldn't any mention of sex discrimination apply to LGBTs then?
0
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:03 am to the808bass
quote:
It is of no comfort, nor should it be, that this result is simply a following of precedent.
WRONG.
Gorsuch says it is but any such conclusion is a complete f*cking joke. The cases cited have nothing to do with extending the definition of "sex" to homosexuals and mentally disturbed freaks who think they are something that SCIENCE says they are not.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:03 am to PhoenixLSUTiger
quote:
I'm implying all of us snowflake mfers.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:04 am to Damone
quote:
Anyone who would fire or discriminate against an employee for being gay is a piece of shite, without exception.
I disagree.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:04 am to MMauler
I agree with you. I’m pointing out that “precedent” for shitty decisions is no defense.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:05 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
I disagree.
Care to elaborate?
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:05 am to FalseProphet
Goddamn...this is why I fricking hate lawyers (and, in this case, malleable Supreme Court Justices).
They readily admit that in 1964 and for Title VII, "sex" meant only biological sex and was only to prevent/prohibit/redress discriminatory hiring/firing on that basis.
They then bastardize the law to say that biological sex essentially "played a part" in the personnel decisions of these companies such that you can extend the Act and its protections to gay/transgender people.
THIS is why people scream about the manipulation of words and their meanings.
I hope every one of those 6 burns in Hell, and soon.
They readily admit that in 1964 and for Title VII, "sex" meant only biological sex and was only to prevent/prohibit/redress discriminatory hiring/firing on that basis.
They then bastardize the law to say that biological sex essentially "played a part" in the personnel decisions of these companies such that you can extend the Act and its protections to gay/transgender people.
THIS is why people scream about the manipulation of words and their meanings.
I hope every one of those 6 burns in Hell, and soon.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:08 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:05 am to Breesus
I told my boss I identify as someone who has tourettes syndrome then I told him to go frick himself in his fat frickin piece of shite arse and I hope he eats a mile-long pile of dogshit and then dies in a gutter somewhere. He fires me, I sue him for discrimination against people with Tourette's. After all I can't control what I say.
And according to this decision even if I didn't know I identified that way and the company had no way of knowing they already hired me and now I can do whatever I want
And according to this decision even if I didn't know I identified that way and the company had no way of knowing they already hired me and now I can do whatever I want
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:11 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:06 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
for what?
For not amending the law upon realizing that litigants were obviously going to try to create new rights on the basis of transexuality, etc. It's not like this hasn't been on the horizon for the past 5-10 years. The result here is crazy, but it's in line with those insane title 7 causation tests already countenanced by scotus.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:09 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:06 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.
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.
Did you read Alito's dissent?
He completely f*cking obliterates this absurd leap of f*cking logic.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:06 am to Damone
quote:Great opinion you've got there.
Anyone who would fire or discriminate against an employee for being gay is a piece of shite, without exception.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:06 am to Wally Sparks
quote:
Care to elaborate?
Someone may simply not want a gay or trans person to represent them and their business, and that's okay.
ETA: It is acceptable to have beliefs that homosexuality is abhorrent and not want that to represent you.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:08 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:07 am to FalseProphet
Gorsuch is the new Souter
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:07 am to Wally Sparks
quote:
Care to elaborate?
I will. A church secretary who comes to the realization that she is in fact a he.
An elementary school teacher who transitions.
A man who decides to start using the women’s restroom at work.
I would be perfectly fine with all of those people being discriminated against.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:07 am to thetempleowl
frick this country
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:07 am to Breesus
quote:
Every white person should just identify as black.
Racism solved.
Racism will only be solved when everyone votes Democrat.
Surprised you didn't know that.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:07 am to MMauler
This law making from our Supreme Court needs to be shut down. This is systemic.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:08 am to FalseProphet
Another win for the good guys.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:08 am to Champagne
quote:
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.
The Left's Long March continues. They are marching with a vengeance, and, unless you are a protected minority, you will pay.
Yep. Every business that exists or might exist in the future is now on borrowed time, and will just have to hope to be lucky enough to avoid the crosshairs.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:08 am to CP3LSU25
quote:
frick this country
We are allowing them to do just that.
Page 7 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News