Finally, some good news for 2020 [Politics, maybe, whatever?]

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 06/15/2020 at 14:17 • Filed to: None

7

46

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

So now we know that there are at least three justices who still think it’s okay to fire somebody because they’re gay or trans. Now, I understand that it’s about how the law is interpreted and whether or not it includes sexual orientation and not just gender , but come on. That’s just hiding behind the law . With Trump’s recent order to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! Obama-era healthcare protections for transgender people, it seems he is once again on the wrong side of history.

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 14:21

2

And now to balance out this brief blip of light and optimism:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

fintail > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 14:25

15

Bu...bu...but not all conservatives.  Just most.

Still waiting for that superior alternative to Obamacare to be unveiled.

Still waiting to be sick and tired of winning, too.

Future next gen S2000 owner > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 14:31

7

I’m going to chime in and probably be vilified. Meh, here it goes.

I think they got this wrong. The laws states sex not transgender or gay. I’m more along the lines of reading the laws as they are written and much less about interpretation of their intent.

If that particular piece of legislation was written today, it probably would include more than sex. Guess what though, we have a whole group of people we chose and pay to handle this very thing.

So now we know that there are at least three justices who still think it’s okay to fire somebody because they’re gay or trans.

This may or may not be true - I didn’t read the full opinion written. They may not think it is okay but given what the law says, they read it as written versus the intent.

Edit: Kavanaugh had a more eloquent wording but it’s the same concept. This is the job of Congress , not the courts.

“They have advanced powerful policy arguments and can take pride in today’s result. Under the Constitution’s separation of powers, however, I believe that it was Congress’s role, not this Court’s, to amend Title VII. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the Court’s judgment,” Kavanaugh wrote.

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 14:34

2

It’s now illegal to fire someone for their sexual orientation

In other news, it wasn’t before

Makes me think of this kinda

fintail > CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever 06/15/2020 at 14:35

2

Ammosexual dork lol. A broken system when someone of his mettle is allowed to have a firearm.

What is it with so-called right drones and the Punisher skull? Do they not know the story of the Punisher? I’m not even into comic stuff, but I know where it came from.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 14:39

0

Yeah Trump thinks anyone he appoints for any job should be loyal to him not the American people. We need some stricter POTUS qualifications/laws after this, they can be debated.... Oh you were born here, resident for 14 years  and are 35 or older, ok you can lead the country!  

ttyymmnn > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 06/15/2020 at 14:42

2

Virtually every other profession requires higher qualifications. But making a list for being president  would be a slippery slope, leading the ones in power to write them as exclusionary. 

Your boy, BJR > CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever 06/15/2020 at 14:43

3

Of course he shoots a virgin glock instead of the chad Beretta 92.

ttyymmnn > Future next gen S2000 owner 06/15/2020 at 14:44

4

You won’t be vilified by me. I appreciate the argument. However, Congress can’t even tie its shoes these days. This is also the same SC that let stand gerrymandering, calling it a state issue, even though it directly affects federal elections. 

jminer > fintail 06/15/2020 at 14:46

1

You seriously made me laugh out loud!

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > Future next gen S2000 owner 06/15/2020 at 14:47

2

I don’t find it problematic that an Originalist dissents here. The concept should be written into law to safeguard the protections against a future Judicial Activist. However, I find it hard to expect such a revision to Title VII would be successfully passed given the current batch or legislators.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 14:48

2

Oh for sure, it’s not an easy argument. And then once they are potus... I don’t understand how a potus can make obvious lies all day long and nobody cares. I don’t think religion should be mentioned at all either.

jminer > I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker 06/15/2020 at 14:48

0

Yep - I live in a state that had zero protection for gay or trans and had even put in protections for companies and organizations that persecute them.  Also we had put in a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - I live in a place run by awful people...

Snuze: Needs another Swede > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 06/15/2020 at 14:48

1

Should be some requirement for qualifications and previous experience...

“Have you ever been a dictator, despot, or ruler of a smaller nation?”

(Credit where due,  paraphrasing a Seinfeld bit)

CarsofFortLangley - Oppo Forever > Your boy, BJR 06/15/2020 at 14:50

1

Murica.

IMO, should be a colt .45, but maybe too on the nose?

facw > Future next gen S2000 owner 06/15/2020 at 14:50

9

This is very straightforward to me. If wouldn’t fire a woman for dating a man, then firing a man for dating a man is discriminating based on sex. Period. 

zipfuel > I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker 06/15/2020 at 14:53

1

Yikes popular acceptance of interacial marriage only reached 51% in 1995!? (Per that xkcd strip)

That helpfully illustrates what the white population thinks of humans with other skin tones doesn’t it!

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Future next gen S2000 owner 06/15/2020 at 14:54

0

I think you it the nail on the head with the comment about congress. If congress is incapable of making laws then other branches of the government are having to step in and pick up the slack. They did the right thing.

facw > 415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) 06/15/2020 at 15:01

1

There’s the important bit that you need to be able to convince a large number of people to vote for you. It’s a harder thing to do, but I’m all for improving education over adding additional requirements for the presidency .

Of course we’ve previously had other constraints on who can be elected. Originally the Electoral College was supposed to be a deliberative body of wise and respected men who wouldn’t succumb to the whims of the mob. That process collapsed basically immediately, but it was replaced with the party system, where party insiders picked candidates, which again encouraged the conservative selections of insiders (and a lot of corruption obviously). That system came to a screeching halt when RFK was assassinated and the Democrats decided to select Hubert Humphrey (who hadn’t run) and enraging the anti-war wing of the party, necessitating reforms going forward. That lead to greater openness and more democracy, but also a greater chance of electing demagogic outsiders.  

I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker > zipfuel 06/15/2020 at 15:05

5

Schools were only desegregated (by law- they’re still segregated in reality) 62 years ago. Ruby Bridges is only 65. Anti-m iscegenation were only ruled unconstitutional 53 years ago. The average age of a US Senator is 62.9 years. Many of the people who currently lead this country were alive when segregation was the norm, and some continue to perpetuate it.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > facw 06/15/2020 at 15:08

1

Yes the election part is a long discussion, how about some rules for someone who has been elected, like not verifiably lying all day long, mandatory financial document release etc... If you want lead to country we better know everything.... 

Chariotoflove > Future next gen S2000 owner 06/15/2020 at 15:12

1

Thank you for this.

Mid Engine > fintail 06/15/2020 at 15:17

4

I had no fucking idea we were winning.. can you imagine what losing would be like??

Future next gen S2000 owner > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 15:24

1

However, Congress can’t even tie its shoes these days.

That one is on us it seems. Every one seems to think it is the other guys rep that is the reason for the gridlock.

fintail > Mid Engine 06/15/2020 at 15:28

0

With any luck, we won’t find out in a little under 5 months.

Future next gen S2000 owner > I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker 06/15/2020 at 15:29

2

However, I find it hard to expect such a revision to Title VII would be successfully passed given the current batch or legislators.

True. That doesn’t mean over branches suddenly get more authority though.

Chariotoflove > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 15:29

2

Ttyymmnn, I also agree wholeheartedly with the idea that people shouldn’t be fired because of what they do in their private lives that doesn’t affect job performance. But I concur with S2000 owner about the Court’s function and the relationship of congressional vs. judicial roles. Sex is not the same as sexual orientation. By extending this existing law that was not originally written to cover something to cover it, we are seeing a form of legislating from the bench. Better to let Congress pass a law that specifically protect this population properly and not subject it to reversal in a future court opinion (not that I think such a reversal is coming or is likely).

But even more important than that, I don’t think it serves anyone to take what starts out as good news and drift into language that firmly sets the tone for another “ hate conservatives, bash Trump” rally in the comments. I know some people say you can never have enough Trump-hate, but I’m tired of reading hate in so many of the posts I click. I’m drifting more away from clicking on any posts that could possibly contain mention of healthcare, politics, education, environment, energy, etc. (i.e: not specifically and only cars). I’m feeling I have to remove myself from a big part of intelligent discussion on this forum just to avoid negative vibes. That makes me sad.

facw > zipfuel 06/15/2020 at 15:30

1

Yeah a few years ago I had this conversation with a friend who didn’t it was that bad to not allow gays to be married (he thought it was bad, but not appalling ). I pointed out that within our parents’ adult lives there were many states where it would have been illegal for him to marry his Korean wife. Seemed to help him get it a bit.

Cash Rewards > facw 06/15/2020 at 15:38

0

I think that isn’t the argument. It absolutely is discrimination. The argument is that the law doesn’t say that, and it’s not the jurisdiction of the court to change the law to include sexual orientation. The proper course of action, legally, is for Congress to write and pass the   correct law, and courts uphold it.

Cash Rewards > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 06/15/2020 at 15:40

1

That makes me incredibly uncomfortable, as it sounds an awful lot like a justification for seizure of power by the executive branch. 

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > Cash Rewards 06/15/2020 at 15:42

2

I feel like that has been happening since 9/11.

Cash Rewards > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 06/15/2020 at 15:45

0

Yup

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Future next gen S2000 owner 06/15/2020 at 15:45

1

I think they got it right. The argument for this was that you cannot separate sexual identity from sex, so discriminating based on sexual identity IS discriminating against sex. Think of it this way, if you ban a male who identifies as female then you are not banning them based JUST on their sexual identity. That is, you are not banning them based on the fact that they identify as female, because you still are letting in females who identify as female. So, the fact that their sex is male is the reason you are banning them, thus discriminating based on sex.

Future next gen S2000 owner > MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s 06/15/2020 at 16:14

0

But isn’t that the cornerstone of the trans gender community . Gender is separate and distinct from sex and they are delinked to a certain extent.

I don’t know enough of the details to make a well formed argument.

Future next gen S2000 owner > facw 06/15/2020 at 16:18

0

I can see that, but in that case you wouldn’t be firing the person based on their sex but that of there partner. I think the intent, and the way the law was written, was only based on sex, not sexual orientation. Right or wrong, I’m not sure the original intent was to provide protection from discrimination based on being gay. If that was the intent, why wasn’t that added?

ZHP Sparky, the 5th > Future next gen S2000 owner 06/15/2020 at 16:57

1

You’re probably right that when the law was first written they most likely didn’t even consider things like someone being gay or transgender – but over time society and our thinking has evolved significantly to understand that being gay or transgender are irrefutably tied to your gender.

You’re gay only because you’re a man who is attracted to men (or likewise with women). You’re transgender only because you were born a certain sex but identify with another.

To say it has NOTHING to do with a person’s sex is overly simplistic and simply looking at words on a page and going “gay isn’t a sex!” It’s sufficiently linked to your sex for the law to apply.

At least, even Gorsuch seems to think so given that sided with the majority presumably not because of his personal beliefs but because even as a constitutional originalist he saw the merits of this position.

ttyymmnn > Chariotoflove 06/15/2020 at 17:03

3

Fair enough, and well said. My intent wasn’t to start a Trump bashing party, more of “one hand giveth while the other taketh away.”

I fully understand the argument about the specific roles of the branches here.   But what are the chances of any meaningful legislation being considered these days? The argument is always, “We shouldn’t write special laws for gays!”  because, s upposedly, the laws that protect straights protect everybody. If that were true, then no, t here should be no laws specifically for gays. It’s the same argument against the ERA—w e don’t need special laws for women. Ultimately , a despicable and legal form of discrimination existed yesterday , and now it doesn’t. And had it not been for two justices crossing an ideological divide do the right thing, the just thing, we’d be no farther ahead.

Manwich - now Keto-Friendly > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 17:09

1

Well let me balance that out with s ome bad news for you... some recent polling data:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

Happy Monday!

facw > Future next gen S2000 owner 06/15/2020 at 17:15

2

It’s still fundamentally a discrimination based on sex. The person doing the firing might be bigoted about sexual orientation rather than sex, but the effect is still to discriminate based on sex.

As for the original intent, the sex discrimination clause was added to the bill by a staunch segregationist who hoped it would hurt the bill’s chance of passing. So yeah, probably not the original intent, but for the most part, the courts act based on the written law. They may use historical context to aid with the interpretations of vague areas, but it’s not their role to make up for Congress’ failure of imagination. Congress of course can change this law at any time subject to the usual legislative rules (and of course the final fate of the Equal Rights Amendment, which would make revoking these rights unconstitutional).

Future next gen S2000 owner > facw 06/15/2020 at 17:22

0

Congress of course can change this law at any time subject to the usual legislative rules (and of course the final fate of the Equal Rights Amendment, which would make revoking these rights unconstitutional).

This so damn much.

Chariotoflove > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 17:55

1

And I didn’t mean to bash you specifically.

I actually believe we can get legislation like that enacted these days. And make no mistake, this decision did not make the discrimination go away, anymore than any previous laws ever banished de facto discrimination against race or ethnicity. But it does signal a change in perception, which is where lasting change comes from, and of course removes much of the legal safe harbor for discriminatory actions. 

ttyymmnn > Chariotoflove 06/15/2020 at 18:13

1

And I didn’t mean to bash you specifically.

I did not think that you did. But I do worry sometimes when I upset people here for whatever reason. I assiduously avoid direct confrontation, and there have been many times when I have closed my laptop rather than make a comment. I wish more people did the same.

No, the de facto discrimination did not suddenly end, nor will racial discrimination suddenly end with the George Floyd protests and whatever legislation may come out in the end. But I hope the spectrum of acceptance has gotten just a little bit wider.

Chariotoflove > ttyymmnn 06/15/2020 at 18:40

1

I think when you see two conservative judges rule as they did, it signals a definite change in the needle.

Mercedes Streeter > Future next gen S2000 owner 06/15/2020 at 18:58

1

“But isn’t that the cornerstone of the transgender community. Gender is separate and distinct from sex and they are delinked to a certain extent.”

Yes and no. Most of us tend to follow that gender is different than sex, however the two do tend to go hand in hand. When you medically transition, you’re using hormones and/or surgery to attain characteristics of the desired sex. Dysphoria is usually fueled by having the physical or even mental characteristics of the undesired birth sex. So the two terms are different, but still pretty tangled up.

Of course, the trans community does have a lot of infighting about... everything. How much sex plays in being trans is definitely one of those fights.

I do agree this is something that should have been settled in Congress, though sadly a bill like this would die the second it landed in the Senate.

zipfuel > I like cars: Jim Spanfeller is one ugly motherfucker 06/15/2020 at 19:44

1

Yeah, the kids in the mob that threatened the little rock 9 are in their 70s now.

The woman who got caught screaming hate on film seems to have had turned it around but that seems more due to the photo and notoriety. I doubt the kids just out of shot had such an epiphany.

MasterMario - Keeper of the V8s > Future next gen S2000 owner 06/16/2020 at 08:11

0

I see M iss M ercedes already responded, but I’ll hit on what I think the SC was saying. Their argument doesn’t hinge on whether the transgender community links sex and gender or not, but rather that those who are discriminating absolutely are linking sex and gender. You cannot ban one person who identifies as female and let another in if the only difference is the one is sexually a male and the other is sexually a female.