|
gently caress https://twitter.com/MSignorile/status/1181610037065768967 https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1181604598303399937 Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Oct 8, 2019 |
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
I bet  's ears perked up at that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
I hate them all so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
Will the court ruling against the LGBT invalide the protections in states that have them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1181604598303399937 Don't think Gorsuch is gonna be any help. Stickman posted:I hate them all so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
Celexi posted:Will the court ruling against the LGBT invalide the protections in states that have them? No, but it invalidates federal protections in circuits that have been relying on this interpretation, which means that if state protections aren’t there then lgbt folks are no longer protected. Not sure how many circuits this is? It’s also a tacit go ahead signal for all the lovely homophobes and transphobes out there, so expect to see an uptick in discrimination in states without their own laws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 18:45
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I hate them all so much. SCROTUS 2020: I hate them all so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
If this goes through and the Title VII protections are removed, could a company choose to fire people for not being LGBTQ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 00:00
|
|
|
Ardlen posted:If this goes through and the Title VII protections are removed, could a company choose to fire people for not being LGBTQ? Say it with me now: "It depends." Many states have state laws protecting from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. However, absent those, yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:gently caress "We can't rule that blacks are people, it'd cause a social upheaval" -Gorsuch siding with the majority in Dredd Scott
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 00:26
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Say it with me now: "It depends." also quote:(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or any department or agency of the District of Columbia subject by statute to procedures of the competitive service (as defined in section 2102 of Title 5 [United States Code]), or in they OA at one point they reference that title vii doesn't apply to something like 85% of all businesses, because it exempts all under 15 employees. those people can already fire you without state laws in place
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 00:46
|
|
|
85% of businesses isn’t 85% of employees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:85% of businesses isn’t 85% of employees. did i say it was
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 01:55
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Say it with me now: "It depends." Well we’ll see if state employment discrimination laws are actually unconstitutional because of “religious freedom” because they’re definitely next on the chopping block after public accommodations laws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 05:11
|
|
|
Celexi posted:Will the court ruling against the LGBT invalide the protections in states that have them? I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that it doesn't block a new anti discrimination law from being passed or demolish any other protections that exist. Title VII specifically says quote:It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. so it doesn't mention orientation at all. Far as I can tell the state-level laws are completely unaffected by this and the federal circuits using Title VII against LGBT discrimination were using a bit of legal mangling to get that. Looks like one of those "this law, as written, can't do this specific thing people are using it to do" things.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
If an employer fires a man because he's dating a man, but doesn't fire a woman because she's dating a man how is that anything but discrimination on the basis of sex? A man doing that specific thing is fireable, while the woman gets a pass. Same for trans people. You hire a man who turns out to be a woman, and you fire her as a result; how is that not discrimination on the basis of sex? (Keeping in mind that iirc "gender" isn't defined by law, but "sex" is.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 05:30
|
|
|
I think the interpretation here is that that isn't gender-based firing but rather orientation-based firing. A man fucks a man and that's homosexuality; a woman fucks a man and that's heterosexuality. As written (keep in mind it was written in 1964) you can argue that it's a bit of a mangling to extend it to sexual preferences in that "sex" in that context usually just means gender. You could argue that covers firing a trans person but it does sound to me like a homosexual firing is not covered by that law specifically. Note that it also doesn't cover disability. The ADA covers that. If it turns out we have a hole in discrimination coverage then hey let's have a new law that covers that gap. Even so I get the argument you're making; similar things struck down a lot of anti-sodomy laws as they were almost exclusively used against gay men.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 05:40
|
|
|
I don’t see how discrimination based on sexual orientation is any less based in gender norm discrimination. It’s just gender norms around romantic partnerships rather than gender norms tied to presentation of assigned sex or asymmetric expectations. In fact, you’d have to twist pretty hard for it not to be included under the same umbrella.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 09:04
|
|
|
Celexi posted:Will the court ruling against the LGBT invalide the protections in states that have them? If they've passed a law, no. If the protections are just based on courts extending it out from the Civil Rights Act, then yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 11:56
|
|
|
Piell posted:If they've passed a law, no. If the protections are just based on courts extending it out from the Civil Rights Act, then yes. for context:  (stolen from: https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws) so it's all those light-colored states with a gavel icon on them (which lack state-level protections and depend solely on federal) that stand to lose them
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 11:59
|
|
|
Mikl posted:If an employer fires a man because he's dating a man, but doesn't fire a woman because she's dating a man how is that anything but discrimination on the basis of sex? A man doing that specific thing is fireable, while the woman gets a pass. Logically, yes, but politicized cases have very little to do with logic. The justices all had opinions on his case before it was even brought.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 12:04
|
|
|
Namely, the Second and Seventh Circuits have ruled that Title VII applies to sexual orientation (the Eleventh ruled it does not). The Sixth Circuit has ruled that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, and the Fifth ruled that it does not. (jacksonlewis.com) E: Sort of beaten, but details on which is which (actual decisions are sparse). EE: I'm confused as to why the Eleventh Circuit seems to indicate decision-based protections? EEE: Also, the EEOC currently interprets Title VII as protecting against orientation and identity-based discrimination. If SCOTUS rules that it does not, could it provide standing for lawsuits against EEOC decisions? Does the EEOC interpretation currently cover federal employees? Stickman fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Oct 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 12:09
|
|
|
Stickman posted:EE: I'm confused as to why the Eleventh Circuit seems to indicate decision-based protections? The 11th has decision-based protections for gender identity (note: this was a masculine-presenting woman, but not explicitly trans, so it could change in that context) but not sexual orientation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 13:23
|
|
|
Mikl posted:If an employer fires a man because he's dating a man, but doesn't fire a woman because she's dating a man how is that anything but discrimination on the basis of sex? A man doing that specific thing is fireable, while the woman gets a pass. Because they'd also fire a woman who was dating a woman, but not a woman who's dating a man. They argue that the prohibited behavior isn't "dating a woman" or "dating a man", but rather "dating the same sex", a prohibition enforced equally on both men and women. That's at least plausible enough that a court could easily say it's discrimination based on sexual orientation (which isn't currently protected) rather than discrimination based on sex. Similarly, they argue that they're not firing a trans person for being a "man who turns out to be a woman", but rather for being someone who rejects their birth sex (regardless of whether that birth sex is "male" or "female"). Again, they argue it in the courts as firing employees for contradicting gender-neutral social norms, rather than simply firing employees for contradicting social expectations for their gender.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
What does everyone here think about this set of tweets?bowser posted:https://twitter.com/DavidAstinWalsh/status/1181699632772124673?s=19 Would SCOTUS (well, Roberts) really 5-4 overturn Nixon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 15:40
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:What does everyone here think about this set of tweets? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:Would SCOTUS (well, Roberts) really 5-4 overturn Nixon? I guess it depends on how devout you think Roberts is to his legacy as a justice vs. how much he wants to cement republican rule. A lot gets said about the legitimacy of the court, but it's not like the justices exist outside of social media: he sees how people already think of him and blatant partisanship is kind of expected. It might be too big of a win for his team for him to turn down.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:What does everyone here think about this set of tweets? No. And don’t listen to tweets from people unaware that Bush v Gore didn’t change the outcome of the election, just the timetable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:No. And don’t listen to tweets from people unaware that Bush v Gore didn’t change the outcome of the election, just the timetable. Though Bush v Gore does point out that the supreme court is free to create very strange "one time rulings". It is possible they leave US v Nixon in place but say for whatever reason that actually it is actually ok for these crimes to be done by a president, who despite being explicitly allowed to violate the law, totally is not above the law. That even preserves the court's power because any "republicans good, democrats bad" decisions would have to be decided by them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because they'd also fire a woman who was dating a woman, but not a woman who's dating a man. They argue that the prohibited behavior isn't "dating a woman" or "dating a man", but rather "dating the same sex", a prohibition enforced equally on both men and women. That's at least plausible enough that a court could easily say it's discrimination based on sexual orientation (which isn't currently protected) rather than discrimination based on sex. So it's just like how they would fire a black man who's dating a white woman, but not a white man who's dating a white woman. They argue that the prohibited behavior isn't "dating a white woman", but rather "dating someone of a different race", a prohibition enforced equally on people of all races. That's at least plausible enough that a court could easily say it's discrimination based on racial orientation (which isn't currently protected) rather than discrimination based on race. I don't mean to target you personally but it's important to not legitimize a position which derives entirely from bigotry. It isn't plausible to consider the same argument with sex swapped out for race or religion, and this is only up for discussion at all due to the personal prejudice and lack of integrity of conservatives rather than any kind of reasonable legal rationale.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
Apparatchik Magnet posted:No. And don’t listen to tweets from people unaware that Bush v Gore didn’t change the outcome of the election, just the timetable. also it's really easy to distinguish it by saying "technically, it was about whether a member of the executive, the special prosecutor, could subpoena the president" i also don't think John Roberts is going to overturn the spirit and related doctrine of Nixon either though. dude is not sacrificing his legacy and risking court-packing just to save someone he hates who is already about to lose power regardless Yashichi posted:I don't mean to target you personally but it's important to not legitimize a position which derives entirely from bigotry. It isn't plausible to consider the same argument with sex swapped out for race or religion, and this is only up for discussion at all due to the personal prejudice and lack of integrity of conservatives rather than any kind of reasonable legal rationale. 
eke out fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Oct 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
Yashichi posted:So it's just like how they would fire a black man who's dating a white woman, but not a white man who's dating a white woman. They argue that the prohibited behavior isn't "dating a white woman", but rather "dating someone of a different race", a prohibition enforced equally on people of all races. That's at least plausible enough that a court could easily say it's discrimination based on racial orientation (which isn't currently protected) rather than discrimination based on race. Look, what I described is the actual argument used by the actual discriminators in these actual cases. So there's no need to worry about me "legitimizing" them, because John Roberts's opinion is going to have a much bigger impact on the argument's legitimacy than anything I say. And we already know he finds the argument plausible, because he said as much in his dissent to Obergefell four years ago. The same argument with sex swapped out for race was the legal argument used to justify anti-miscegenation laws for about eight decades before the Supreme Court finally struck it down on Equal Protection Clause grounds in Loving v Virginia. It's not just some hypothetical thing - it's an important argument that's still regularly used in court cases. Conservatives also relied on similar arguments in defending anti-homosexuality and anti-gay-marriage laws before the courts until those were finally struck down as well. And let's not forget that several Supreme Court justices actively endorsed those arguments in Obergefell just four years ago - which was a 5-4 decision delivered by a judge who has since been replaced by Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
You're absolutely right about the situation, so why bother explaining the details of the bullshit fig leaf "argument" to that poster, who already hit on the fundamental legal issue under consideration? The real problem is the unaccountable band of idiots with the power to rewrite the law on a whim, so it's truly immaterial what poor justification they give for their premeditated decision. edit: It's still an important issue in lower courts in the sense that some lower courts have correctly applied this reasoning to decide that discrimination based on orientation is fundamentally based on sex, and some courts reach a literally incorrect decision in a move designed to enshrine their bigotry into law. The geographical distribution of these courts isn't exactly an accident, and it has little to do with the content of the argument from the other side. Yashichi fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Oct 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Overturning Nixon effectively gives the Executive total immunity from Congressional inquiries. Considering how tightly the GOP is circling the wagons due to Trump's very blatant quid pro quo phone call with the Ukraine's president, and justices like Rapey McBeerBaby openly stating their love of an all-powerful executive (and that Nixon was wrongly decided) I don't hold out much hope that this SCOTUS would rule against a GOP administration that is very obviously guilty of serious crimes (even though McConnell would kill any impeachment in the Senate until Trump's polling under 30% with Republicans). The idea that hope lies with John "my dream was to burn the VRA and piss on its ashes" Roberts is horrifying beyond belief. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Oct 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
This was the end game of loving over Garland. All it takes is 5-4 for Presidential Immunity and everyone will just throw up their hands and go OH WELL I GUESS JUSTICES ARE INFALLIBLE! Sadly, it works: see Florida in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 05:07
|
|
|
The Court won't overturn noted good 8-0 decision US v. Nixon because they can dig Trump out of trouble without overturning it. Like, they can just say US v. Nixon applies, but here the facts of the case are such that Trump is entitled to executive privilege. Or they can just sit on their hands knowing that there's no scenario where this senate will remove Trump regardless of what crimes he does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 14:20
|
|
|
and the claw won! posted:Or they can just sit on their hands knowing that there's no scenario where this senate will remove Trump regardless of what crimes he does. Bingo. No reason to make a stupid decision when the turtle protects any Republican president from consequences better than they could anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because they'd also fire a woman who was dating a woman, but not a woman who's dating a man. They argue that the prohibited behavior isn't "dating a woman" or "dating a man", but rather "dating the same sex", a prohibition enforced equally on both men and women. That's at least plausible enough that a court could easily say it's discrimination based on sexual orientation (which isn't currently protected) rather than discrimination based on sex. This doesn't sound like any better of an argument than the defense in Loving v Virginia that what was being banned was "marrying outside one's own race" and not "marrying a black woman" or "marrying a white man". Although that probably doesn't matter to the post-Kennedy Roberts Court. E: whoops beaten on this
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Stickman posted:I don’t see how discrimination based on sexual orientation is any less based in gender norm discrimination. It’s just gender norms around romantic partnerships rather than gender norms tied to presentation of assigned sex or asymmetric expectations. In fact, you’d have to twist pretty hard for it not to be included under the same umbrella. That strikes me as a stretch, honestly. It doesn't talk about gender norms or behavior; it's all about a few specific classes of discrimination that were in the public discussion heavily at the time. It was about things like specifically refusing to hire women at all or paying them less because they're women. A company that didn't give a crap what you were so long as you weren't gay isn't doing any gender discrimination at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 03:06 |
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That strikes me as a stretch, honestly. It doesn't talk about gender norms or behavior; it's all about a few specific classes of discrimination that were in the public discussion heavily at the time. It was about things like specifically refusing to hire women at all or paying them less because they're women. A company that didn't give a crap what you were so long as you weren't gay isn't doing any gender discrimination at all. A company that didn't give a crap about what religion you were so long as you weren't wearing a yarmulke isn't doing any religious discrimination at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2019 02:46
|
|