- 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 10:09 am to Champagne
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:09 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.
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.
Yep. You're not overstating the importance of this. We all knew "anti-discrimination" laws would eventually destroy our nation. Not being able to choose who represents you at your business is antithetical to a free society. It was only a matter of time.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:11 am
1
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:11 am to MMauler
quote:
Did you read Alito's dissent?
Yep. I did. But the dissent didn't win the vote. I think the result of this case is absurd, but it comes from a long history of title 7 precedent that was meant to overzealously protect women. This result is decades in the making. I think you ought to be able to fire anyone for any reason.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:12 am to Boy_of_wonder75
quote:
Another win for the good guys
I’m going to put my knee on your throat
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:13 am to Muleriderhog
quote:
It’s literally only saying that Gays and Transgenders fall under the civil rights act of 1964 by saying that you can’t get fired based on being gay or transgender. Come on man, do better. At least read the case before going into a rage.
I have read the case and you just cannot be THAT F*CKING STUPID.
He totally redefined the word "sex."
As I posted above, based upon Gorsuch's new definition of "sex" you can f*cking forget about women's sports. Title IX states --
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.
Now you f*cking tell me how trannies CANNOT be covered under Gorsuch's absurd and completely f*cking insane definition of "sex"?
There is NO F*CKING WAY that this opinion as written can only be relegated to employment. Gorsuch is a f*cking moron.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:15 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:13 am to Tigerlaff
quote:
Yep. I did. But the dissent didn't win the vote. I think the result of this case is absurd, but it comes from a long history of title 7 precedent that was meant to overzealously protect women. This result is decades in the making. I think you ought to be able to fire anyone for any reason.
This is true. The irony here is this will have a largely negative effect for women when it is applied to Title 9. Feminists are getting what they "wanted."
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:13 am to CP3LSU25
Of course you are, internet tough guy.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:14 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Not being able to choose who represents you at your business is antithetical to a free society. It was only a matter of time.
They are practically making it against the law to hold, express, and stand by opinions that are in line with natural law and honest reasoning.
This is unlike anything else that has happened before.
If you outlaw reason, you should expect madness, and you should expect death.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:14 am to FalseProphet
You know y’all immolated the party on Trumps behalf so you could appoint judges to give social conservatives desperately needed wins in cases just like this, only to lose anyway.
You gotta admit on some level it’s pretty funny
You gotta admit on some level it’s pretty funny
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:14 am to MMauler
Yep, they snubbed gun owners - LINK Gun rights advocates had hoped the court would expand the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” beyond the home.
Instead, the justices left in place restrictions on the right to carry weapons in public in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey. They also declined to review Massachusetts’ ban on some semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines, a California handgun control law and a half-century-old federal law banning interstate handgun sales.
Instead, the justices left in place restrictions on the right to carry weapons in public in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey. They also declined to review Massachusetts’ ban on some semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines, a California handgun control law and a half-century-old federal law banning interstate handgun sales.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:16 am to EmperorGout
but for Wales!
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:16 am to the808bass
quote:
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.
That doesn't jive with your response to the below:
quote:
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 10:16 am to uway
quote:
They have made it against the law to hold, express, and stand by opinions that are in line with natural law and honest reasoning.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:17 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:17 am to Presidio
quote:
Yep, they snubbed gun owners - LINK / Gun rights advocates had hoped the court would expand the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” beyond the home.
Instead, the justices left in place restrictions on the right to carry weapons in public in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey. They also declined to review Massachusetts’ ban on some semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines, a California handgun control law and a half-century-old federal law banning interstate handgun sales.
What's that about us needing Trump because of the judges.
I remember, during the Gorsuch debacle, feeling like we were being manipulated into supporting him just because the left was pretending to hate him.
That is what was happening, surely.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:18 am to themunch
I wonder what the next LGBT "rights" campaign will be. They've been granted everything they've demanded but we know they need to have another cause to rally for.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:19 am to Presidio
quote:
Yep, they snubbed gun owners - LINK / Gun rights advocates had hoped the court would expand the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” beyond the home.
This is what I'm really mad about.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:20 am to FalseProphet
"Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague. Put differently, the employer intentionally singles out an employee to fire based in part on the employee’s sex, and the affected employee’s sex is a but for cause of his discharge"
The argument is logical to me, they aren't saying you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, they are saying that by doing so you are discriminating based on sex.
The argument is logical to me, they aren't saying you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, they are saying that by doing so you are discriminating based on sex.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:20 am to teke184
How would that hold up in court?
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:21 am to BRbornandraised
quote:
The argument is logical to me, they aren't saying you can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, they are saying that by doing so you are discriminating based on sex.
Read Alito's dissent. He specifically obliterates this particular (and completely f*cking absurd) hypothetical.
quote:
In an effort to prove its point, the Court carefully includes in its example just two employees, a homosexual man and a heterosexual woman, but suppose we add two more individuals, a woman who is attracted to women and a man who is attracted to women. (A large employer will likely have applicants and employees who fall into all four categories,and a small employer can potentially have all four as well.) We now have the four exemplars listed below, with the discharged employees crossed out (bolded):
Man attracted to men
Woman attracted to men
Woman attracted to women
Man attracted to women
The discharged employees have one thing in common. It is not biological sex, attraction to men, or attraction to women. It is attraction to members of their own sex—in a word, sexual orientation. And that, we can infer, is the employer’s real motive.
In sum, the Court’s textual arguments fail on their own terms. The Court tries to prove that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex,” ante, at 9, but as has been shown, it is entirely possible for an employer to do just that. “[H]omosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex,” ante, at 19, and discrimination because of sexual orientation or transgender status does not inherently or necessarily constitute discrimination because of sex. The Court’s arguments are squarely contrary to the statutory text.
This post was edited on 6/15/20 at 10:27 am
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:22 am to Wally Sparks
quote:
That doesn't jive with your response to the below:
It’s the same thing per the Supreme Court. Gay and transgender are both simply different expressions of sex.
Posted on 6/15/20 at 10:23 am to Tigerlaff
quote:doesn't exist anymore. Any man can identy as a woman and thus title 7 is destroyed.
long history of title 7 precedent that was meant to overzealously protect women.
Page 8 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News