/lit/ - Literature

What books should be required reading for all adults?

Need some help, anons. I am a great admirer of Neil Gorsuch, having read his book on originalism and textualism around the new year. When I heard that he had ruled somehow that "sex" as used in article VII of the 1964 civil rights act protected gays and transsexuals, I couldn't imagine how he had achieved that while maintaining a textual and originalist analysis. So I decided to write him a letter.

As I began to compose the letter, I was reading his decision top to bottom. And as I did so, I realized that his analysis was correct and firing a person for being transgender or homosexual does require that the person's sex is used to cause the discrimination. Let me explain:
"Fired for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex." This is the precedent and principle.
Man presents as woman = fired. Why? Because the "traits or actions" (presenting as a woman) would not be questioned in members of a different sex. He would not have fired a woman for presenting as a woman.
Likewise, a homosexual male has sex with men. A woman can not realistically be fired for the simple act of having sex with men.

These examples prove that sex is a determining factor in the decision to fire, as someone of a different sex would not be treated in that manner for the same action.

HOWEVER...I feel like this reasoning, while consistent and textually faithful, is subject to extrapolative reasoning which would render the entire law meaningless. But I can't think of an example to demonstrate this without delving into the specific mechanics of homosexual sodomy.
"A man is fired for getting fucked in the ass, but a woman wouldn't." But if you say, "A man is fired for fucking a man in the ass," it would not be discrimination because I would not want a woman in my employ who fucks men in the ass either, so I am treating both sexes the same.

Are there any non-sexual intercourse-based examples that reveal a flaw or loophole in the logic?

>>15118831
Couldn't even get the right font. Oh well.