Gorsuch Decision - Bostock v. Clayton County

[Anonymous No.15818746]

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?

[Anonymous No.15818845]

>>15818746
I mean homosexuality is inherently tied to sexual attraction, so it would be hard to avoid that element. Have you read the dissents? Alito's argument was compelling: homosexuality is a trait independent of sex. You can know a person is homosexual with no knowledge of their sex. I think that's a stronger argument than yours, as firing a woman for privately wanting to peg a guy is pretty tenuous to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15818884]

>>15818845
Right, that's my response, not one acknowledged by Gorsuch (the ruling keeps it broad with the "sexual attraction to" or "sexual relations with" instead of specifics). Haven't read the dissents yet.

But what is an analogy for the "actions done by a member of a different sex would not be questioned"? I'm sure there's something.

[Anonymous No.15818937]

>>15818746
I don't think he was fired for a particular sexual act. It could've been oral unless you're trying to revive sodomy laws

[Anonymous No.15818972]

>>15818884
I think if you include gender with action you can include race or being a human w gender. I'm not sure of a particular response but I think I don't think the issue is with the action but w the person w the action. While he seems to use that it seems one dimensional. Clearly the issue isn't sodomy itself but homosexuality. So you can criticize homosexuality without bringing up sodomy.
Perhaps crude but you could explore you not wanting kids w two dads or 2 moms

[Anonymous No.15818997]

>>15818937
I don't recall if the actual determining feature was ever mentioned, but several times throughout the decision, he notes that none of the employers disputed that the employee was fired for being homosexual or transgender. I believe they admitted as much because they believe it was not protected until title VII.

>>15818972
I'd argue that that makes it a much complicated, IMO. Rather than the simple, "fired for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex" -rule.

[Anonymous No.15819024]

>>15818746
>implying the Constitution doesn't mean whatever it needs to mean at any given time based on political expediency
>implying Anglophone political/legal thought is anything but a bad joke

[Anonymous No.15819046]

>>15818997
It's room to work with not a suggestion at all. If they tie actions to gender then what's the mechanism stopping it there and not trying it to race or species? At that point everything is treated similarly. While that's fine with most of the justices, you can ask how that doesn't contradict with male/female/trans segregation in sports, bathroom etc. You can say you can't peg the action to the gender but towards some principle, say of association. I'm open to discussion but you don't seem to be taking any suggestions seriously and are more interested in rooting your own horn.

[Anonymous No.15819070]

>>15818746
>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.
im dying. excellent post anon.

[Anonymous No.15819084]

is this some youtuber bullshit?

[Anonymous No.15819106]

>>15819046
I'll just add on that this is due to his liberalism or trying rights to individuals. I would critique that and locke with this example, show how his morals aren't based off this but instead some principles then show that's a contradiction that he did.

[Anonymous No.15819938]

>>15819024
Gorsuch, much like his predecessor Scalia, are avowed textualists and originalists, which is the most faithful and functional manner of interpreting law. That's why this is so tricky: on the surface, I thought Gorsuch dropped the ball. But his decision was found to be faithful to the text of the law as it was commonly understood at the time.
My concern here is that the reasoning allows for wider exploitations of anti-discrimination law, because it calls for individuals to be treated equally but does not define what "traits or actions" are causing a person to be treated differently from how a member of a different sex would be treated.

>>15819046
I'm trying to think of a good analogy to throw at Justice Gorsuch so it encourages him to respond to me with either a clearer explanation of his reasoning about how an individual should be protected by the law, or with a counter example that demonstrates how his decision doesn't open the door for abuse.

I appreciate your feedback. I don't mean to be defensive or combative. Just struggling to come up with what to write to him.

>>15819084
No, I'm a layman with a casual interest in American law and am wrestling with a decision of my favourite current SC justice.

>>15819106
I'm not sure I see the contradiction, though. The individual treatment seems to be well-established, both in its frequent mention in the statute itself (title VII) and presumably in other precedent-setting cases of civil rights law.

[Anonymous No.15820014]

From pg. 19: "But that much does not follow. We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex. But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second."

This, I think, is where I will find the analogy. "The first cannot happen without the second." Is it then possible to separate religious practice from religious belief? Say I believe in Allah. Would an employer be in violation of title VII if he a condition of employment was eating bacon and eggs with the boss each Monday morning, and those who refused would be fired? "You can't have the first without the second." You can't fire a person for not eating bacon without firing someone who's religion prohibits the eating of bacon by considering their religion."
Is this comparable?

[Anonymous No.15820069]

>>15818746
both you and that politically motivated pilpul ape are wrong

the civil rights act is unconstitutional anyway

anyway if you equally apply firing between insane trans faggot "men" and "women" there is no conflict textually
the action isn't dressing like a woman or man
the action is dressing like your biological sex
you could even fire them for modifying their bodies, not just their clothes
that is, if these retard monkeys could read the law and reason

christ we have some killing to do
help and do yourself

[Anonymous No.15820084]

>>15820069
>the action is dressing like your biological sex
Well, you've just conceded that sex was considered when a person was fired, which is one of the simpler tests applied.

>help and do yourself
That's not very productive: to tell a conservative, originalist, white male to kill himself. I have a hunch you're half mexican. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.15820086]

>>15819938

Law without teleology is tyranny. The very fact that judges determine whether the circumstances fit the law requires that the purpose of the law be admitted, and that makes oringialism and textualism just so much sophistry. They change the purpose of the law to fit the needs of the elites of the time.

The law has never been anything but a trick to hide the protection of the elites behind the false front of justice. The elites never lose unless it is to another elite of greater rank.
Dick the butcher was right.

[Anonymous No.15820102]

>>15819938
If a person's sexual acts are defined by his gender why can't a guy enter female restrooms considering both enter them. Even better why can't an adult compete in little league or get an mlb deal if he wants? You can't refer law through the individual.

[Anonymous No.15820122]

>>15820084
sex is not "considered" because it does not effect the equity of the judgement
it would be applied equally to both sexes

politically motivated precedent or text, pick one
why is this so hard?

[Anonymous No.15820123]

>>15819938
Even more that guy who tried to get a gynecologist to look at him as trans. He can't be refused

[Anonymous No.15820129]

>>15820086
exactly the truth

"textualism" and "originalism" are just excuses for talmudic mutation of the law counter to logic and purpose

[Anonymous No.15820133]

>>15820086
Judges aren't supposed to judge whether circumstances fit the law, or to consider the purpose. They're supposed to apply the law as written, as long as the written law is constitutional.
>>15820102
Those are different questions. A man can enter a female rest room. An adult can't compete in a little league game because of the rules of the organization. Age is not outlined in title VII.

[Anonymous No.15820163]

Nigga believes in personal liberty. That's all there is to it, retard.

[Anonymous No.15820169]

>>15820133
Then churches can't ban married priests? Can this get rid of any rules laws that prohibit engaging in sex in any sense?

[Anonymous No.15820173]

>>15820163
Personal liberty isn't defined by the individual so it would just be 'liberty' he's for

[Anonymous No.15820181]

>>15818746
>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.
Wrong. It's not discrimination because the "traits or actions" are dressing as the opposite sex. Male dressed as female: fired. Female dressed as male: fired. It's not discriminatory at all. Gorsuch was probably blackmailed or something.

[Anonymous No.15820201]

>>15820122
They address that in the decision: you cannot make the judgement on whether someone is homosexual without considering his or her individual sex, regardless of whether you intend or do, in practice, treat the GROUP of men or GROUP of women the same. That you consider an individual's sex in dismissing them for homosexuality---which is a trait reliant on sex to determine---you've violated title VII.

>>15820123
What that a US case? Here in Canada we had similar case where a salon...hairdresser?... refused to give a transwoman a brazilian wax because she had too much balls and gooch.

>>15820129
But it's not counter to logic and purpose. As a matter of fact, the founding fathers had more to say about independence of the judiciary and separation of powers than almost any other broad constitutional theme. So how can you make that assertion?

>>15820169
I don't think that's the same thing. It's not fair to call the priesthood a regular occupation with an employer and an employee, as the text of the law applied to. That's a different space.

[Anonymous No.15820210]

>>15820173
In many ways it is, though.
>>15820181
You missed the whole point. The trait or action is the case is: "presenting as female." So, if a man who presents as female is fired for presenting as female, and a woman who presents as female would NOT be fired, then they've properly ruled that sex was considered in the decision to fire him.

[Anonymous No.15820215]

>>15820201
Yeah https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/05/transgender-activist-jessica-yaniv-shocked-gynecologists-dont-treat-men/

Plus can't you make a fuss everytime uni acception rates aren't 50/50?

[Anonymous No.15820216]

>>15819024
this

[Anonymous No.15820222]

>>15818746
These kids know there stuff lol

[Anonymous No.15820228]

>>15820210
>The trait or action is the case is: "presenting as female."
It's not. It's "presenting as the opposite sex." That's literally what the rule was. You're claiming the effect of the rule, which was that in this specific instance the person was fired for presenting as female. But that wasn't the primary cause, just a secondary cause. It's direct vs. proximate cause. The direct cause was "presenting as the opposite sex" which in this specific instance was female, but it didn't have to be. As stated, the inverse example would result in the same thing, thus there is no discrimination. I don't get why this is difficult to understand.

[Anonymous No.15820232]

>>15820014
>discrimination based on sex
that means a different outcome in the same circumstances depending on the sex of the person in question

if you apply the same action equally for persons of both sexes for the same cause there is no discrimination

"the first cannot happen without the second" does not apply.
Just because the perception of what is correct for a man and a woman differs does not mean there is discrimination.
A man dressing as a man and a woman dressing as a woman are analogous actions, they are the same, there are no legal grounds to say they are different.
There are no grounds in the law to insist that men and women must be judged by exactly the same standards. The law is only that they must receive the same outcomes in the same situations.
There are no grounds in the law to say that the action is "dressing like a man" rather than "dressing as your biological sex".

That's the bottom line.

[Anonymous No.15820248]

>>15820201
>you cannot make the judgement on whether someone is homosexual without considering his or her individual sex
Why not? It is a quality which is not inherent based on sex. That is to say, the quality is neither inherently male or female. Either group can be homosexual.

[Anonymous No.15820255]

>>15820215
You'd think so, except that women have been leading that fight for over a decade. In 2008 when I was at university, someone wrote a letter to the school paper saying that the drop-off in male enrollment could be a problem in the long-run (since many young men had abandoned education for quick money in the oil boom). All replies to the letter were calling him a sexist.

>link
Sure as shit...same fucking mongrel I was thinking of.
>"He was ordered to pay each of the three estheticians $2,000 each."
HA!

[Anonymous No.15820267]

>>15818746
Lawyer anon here. Don't even worry about this bullshit. All of it is made up, which is the funny part about statutory interpretation. You just sort of pick your interpretative philosophy and apply the same to your reasoning. All of substantive due process is made up. Commerce Clause rulings dating back to the 1930s are also ridiculous (See Wicker v. Filburn). The law isn't about arriving at truth based on the information available and judicial precedent. It's about starting at a conclusion and finding whatever you can to justify the same. It's backwards.

[Anonymous No.15820270]

>>15820248
attraction to the same sex. you can't figure out if that means attraction to men or attraction to women without finding out the sex of the person.

[Anonymous No.15820277]

>>15820255
That's my problem with it, you can't quantify the differences and make it work and if carried out fully it leads to weird bickering. That there's no law requiring 50/50 everything seems to be a drop

[Anonymous No.15820298]

>>15820228
I understand it, but I believe the decision adequately addressed it in two separate ways. In the first sense - the one about which we disagree - is that "fired for traits or actions which would not have been question in members of a different sex." The second manner is the more basic one: "Presenting as the opposite sex." This, in the court's estimation, constitutes a consideration based on sex, which it obviously does. This is the "you can't have the first without the second" line he uses. You can't determine if someone is presenting as the opposite sex without first considering and making a judgment on their sex.

>>15820232
>There are no grounds in the law to insist that men and women must be judged by exactly the same standards.
Except that that's the primary point they're making: you cannot make discernments based on sex without setting out those separate grounds for what's appropriate. The law says nothing about outcomes, if I'm not mistaken. But feel free to quote the clause under title VII that makes reference to outcomes.

>>15820248
It is, though. If one's sexuality has to do with attraction and/or sexual expression, how do you determine if one is homosexual or heterosexual without considering the person's sex?

[Anonymous No.15820305]

>>15820267
It's about interpreting the law as passed. Do you think that this is NOT a faithful textual analysis?

[Anonymous No.15820307]

>>15820267
Wicker v. Filburn is simply epic.
>By not selling things, you're effectively engaging in interstate commerce because it effects the market. Therefore Congress can regulate pretty much anything that could loosely considered "commerce".
Imagine viewing Constitutional Law as anything but a joke.
>It's about starting at a conclusion and finding whatever you can to justify the same. It's backwards.
Pretty much.

[Anonymous No.15820321]

>>15820305
>interpret
They don't interpret, they make a political decision and then find a way to justify it by searching the Penumbra of Rights, substantive due process, etc.

[Anonymous No.15820323]

>>15820270
But that's irrelevant. It's not inherently linked and it affects both equally. It's not something that's locked into one group. The sex of the individual is secondary and not taken into account. It literally does not matter whether or not you are male or female. There is no change in the policy.

[Anonymous No.15820330]

>>15820201
Again, you don't "consider" their sex. There is nothing in the text of the law that says or implies "considering" anyway.
It's a question of BASIS, that they dress like another sex is the BASIS, that they are a man or a woman is SECONDARY.
Unless it can be argued that the BASIS for them being fired was that they were a man or a woman, it's not illegal.
The BASIS is clearly that they are not adhering to normal behavior and are being disruptive.

And again, the civil rights act is totally unconstitutional for myriad reasons, at least you have to admit parts of it are wrong or the interpretation that leads to disparate impact doctrine is wrong, but in either case you have to admit the law is not respected by those trusted to uphold and judge it.

[Anonymous No.15820334]

>>15818746
Would STDs work? You don't want to hire ppl that get sick a lot

[Anonymous No.15820347]

>>15820298
I think you're confused as to what constitutes "discrimination." The first part is merely fact-finding. Your sex is x. Your sexuality is y. If there was in fact discrimination based on sex, you would be fired because of x. You're not fired because of x, but because of y. These things are completely distinct. Just because you need to know what x is to figure out what y is doesn't mean that you were fired for x. Why does it matter what method you use to gain evidence?

[Anonymous No.15820351]

>>15820307
Constitutional law is indeed an absolute joke. An academic exercise, if anything, and/or an assertion of ideological power.
>>15820305
Gorsuch, as a "conservative," had one responsibility: To deliver a victory for conservatism. He failed to do so. I don't bother with the high-mindedness of remaining "faithful" to whatever analysis he arbitrarily applies.

[Anonymous No.15820365]

>>15820351
The weakness of Trump was lack of allies. He did not have enough political knowledge to pick people who wouldn't betray him. Big mistake. And we all, as citizens, will pay the price. Or will we? Remember, the judiciary branch is the weakest branch after all...

[Anonymous No.15820369]

>>15820321
This decision, IMO, seemed almost purely based on text.

>>15820323
>>15820330
The decision addresses this as well by quoting a couple of precedent-setting cases in which, regardless of whether a group or class what, by policy, treated the same, if an individual's sex was considered in determining a course of action, then discrimination has occurred.

>>15820330
I'm not a proponent of the civil rights act, but it is the law and has been ratified and accepted as legitimate. So we have to make peace with that.

[Anonymous No.15820373]

>>15820347
The court argued (in this AND OTHER cases) that an employer cannot fire because of why without a consideration/judgment based on x.

[Anonymous No.15820377]

>>15820298
>reference to outcomes
maybe you should throw that question in the face of the system that upholds disparate impact doctrine

that's the precedent
there is no basis in the text or in precedent for this ruling, this is completely political legislation from the bench

the discernment is not based on sex, it is based on perception of norms, it's not because they are a man or a woman, it's because they are being disruptive to norms

the burden is on the appellant to prove there is a difference in outcome between men and women

where does the legislation say "consider"? They are just throwing this word in and made it law now. It's a classic case of creeping definition.

[Anonymous No.15820378]

>>15820351
What was his duty as an originalist and textualist?

[Anonymous No.15820385]

>>15820369
the precedent is counter to the text

that's all that needs to be said here
they are legislating from the bench to enact radical agenda

[Anonymous No.15820393]

>>15820377
From pg 18:
> To see why, imagine an applicant
doesn’t know what the words homosexual or transgender mean. Then try writing out instructions for who should check the box without using the words man, woman, or sex (or some synonym). It can’t be done. Likewise, there is no way an employer can discriminate against those who check the homosexual or transgender box without discriminating in part because of an applicant’s sex.
That's the argument they're making.

>Disparate impact doctrine
That's fucked up.

[Anonymous No.15820396]

>>15820365
Supposedly. The Supreme Court has done more to preserve liberalism - or whatever it is - than both the Executive and Congress. It has upheld Obamacare, DACA, the expansion of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and so on. It doesn't deliver "conservative" victories. Rather, it overturns conservative policies and laws and ensures that liberalism continues its march forward. At the end of the day, though, I think Trump's Supreme Court picks knows with whom power rests as well as the trajectory of history. And they are there to follow.

[Anonymous No.15820397]

>>15820385
How can it be legislating from the bench if it is faithful to the text of the law?

[Anonymous No.15820403]

>>15820369
>So we have to make peace with that.
no we don't

that law has been singlehandedly tearing society apart and destroying the economy

it's an absolute affront to justice and order
it's absolutely worth civil war

you realize the 2008 financial crash happened because the govt, media and banks colluded to give 'minorities' loans with no standards and lever these loans they knew were toxic to raid and pillage the middle class, all under the justification that the civil rights act justifies disparate impact doctrine which justifies "affirmative action" loans aka just giving free shit to minorities because of their race regardless of any consequences

it's literally a trillion dollar industry abusing the civil rights act to redistribute wealth, that is on the years it isn't causing a financial meltdown that results in multiple trillions of wealth redistribution directly from the central bank

seriously you are a cattle beast if you think this can stand

[Anonymous No.15820406]

>>15820378
To arrive at a conclusion and justify said conclusion with whatever he can find. Like all attorneys and judges do.

[Anonymous No.15820412]

>>15820369
textualism is an interpretative philosophy designed to deliver certain political outcomes. at other times, other modes of interpretation are used to deliver different political outcomes.

[Anonymous No.15820419]

>>15820397
The text of the law doesn't mean anything. The Constitution doesn't mean anything. Again, it's all just a mask for political decisions to be made with the mask of "Constitutionalism". It was politically expedient for Gorusch to support this law, because he can see which way the wind is blowing, and also so that he can go to the right cocktail parties and his kids can get into the right schools. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.15820423]

>>15818746
Ig last attempt but can't you ban sex talk completely as inappropriate because consenting castration, no matter what the gender, is inappropriate

[Anonymous No.15820426]

>>15820397
read the text

(1) (A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if-

(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.....

basis is the key word here
I can't believe I've dignified this mexican donkey show we call the legal system by arguing against it, they just make up precedent and never get checked, it deserves zero respect and all the violence in the world set against it

[Anonymous No.15820427]

>>15820369
>In Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542, a company was held to have violated Title VII by refusing to hire women with young children, despite the fact that the discrimination also depended on being a parent of young children and the fact that the company favored hiring women over men.
>in Phillips, the employer could have accurately spoken of its policy as one based on “motherhood.”
This should have been the main case cited too. Look at it closely.

>(1) in 1966 Martin informed Mrs. Phillips that it was not accepting job applications from women with pre-school-age children; (2) as of the time of the motion for summary judgment, Martin employed men with pre-school-age children
IF it had barred both sexes with pre-school-age children, then it wouldn't be discrimination. "Motherhood" is a trait INHERENT to females. Homosexuality is not inherent to either sex.
Look at the other case cited:
>In Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, an employer’s policy of requiring women to make larger pension fund contributions than men because women tend to live longer was held to violate Title VII, notwithstanding the policy’s evenhandedness between men and women as groups.
The life expectancy of women is, once again, a trait INHERENT to women.

The third case doesn't seem to be very relevant here so I don't know why they cited it. Of course the sex of a sexual harasser doesn't matter, it's still harassment. It's clear that the Act is meant to protect against discrimination based on sex or inherent sexual characteristics. Sexuality is NOT inherent.
>but you need to know sex to know sexuality
It's not relevant at all. Think of it like this:
On a job application of a person with an androgynous name, you are able to find out that that person is homosexual. You, without knowing what the person's sex is, decide not to hire him or her. How is sex being used in this instance? The method of obtaining information is secondary.

[Anonymous No.15820428]

>>15820369
>I'm not a proponent of the civil rights act, but it is the law and has been ratified and accepted as legitimate. So we have to make peace with that.
This is why the Anglosphere keeps degenerating. Legal precedent, procedural values, and "Tradition" (lol) are venerated for their own sake with no consideration as to the ends towards which laws and traditions serve some set of desired ends. Of course we have no desired ends except autonomy and equality, which hardly count as ends.

[Anonymous No.15820429]

>>15820086
Very nice.

[Anonymous No.15820432]

>>15820396
I agree, but that's a shortcoming of our legislators, not an independent court.

>>15820403
How do you remove the independence of the judiciary in order to undo these things? If the SC is not independent, it just becomes an appointed branch of the legislature.

I don't disagree with your characterization of American history since the 1960s, but how do you revamp the SC without turning it into a second legislative branch? Laws written by 9 unelected life-time appointments?

>>15820406
Which is what happened here. The point may be that the law is flawed, rather than the court.

[Anonymous No.15820434]

>>15820428
>with no consideration of the ends that laws and traditions are meant to serve
Oops

[Anonymous No.15820438]

>>15820423
Because it gets in the way of worker safety or I'm sure there's a precedent about appropriate speech at the work

[Anonymous No.15820440]

>>15820432
You take the entire Anglo political-legal tradition and burn it. Then you start over. It's simple really.

[Anonymous No.15820447]

>>15820432
So >>15820423
You're not banning gay but banning sexual talk period in the workplace

[Anonymous No.15820459]

>>15820427
I agree that they could've been consistent by treating father and mothers of school-age children the same. Homosexuality, however, isn't the trait or action. Something else must be. And since homosexuality is not inherent to either sex, that must not be the action that is determining the firing.

So that's why I'm so curious about how "neither party disputed that the person was fired for being gay or transgender." How could that be a determination, or do they simply have incompetent lawyers?

>...with an androgynous name, you are able to find out that that person is homosexual.
How?
>Without knowing what the person's sex is, decide not to hire him or her. How is sex being used in this instance?
It's not. But nor is his sexuality being used.

[Anonymous No.15820467]

>>15820396
The Supreme Court was the main conservative institution in the 1800s. How the times change.

[Anonymous No.15820480]

>>15820428
I get it, but it's a much greater evil to throw away the justice system, which despite everything, has been remarkably robust, than to work with the system to improve it.

Legal equality and an independent judiciary is a critical factor in a functional society. To abandon it is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

>>15820440
And you will see hell on earth that, in this day, isn't yet fathomable. Have you ever gone on vacation to Saudi Arabia or Yemen? If not, why not?

[Anonymous No.15820481]

>>15820459
I've just figured out the perfect strategy. On the job application, ask whether or not someone is homosexual, but do not ask for the sex of the individual. If the person says yes, then you have successfully determined that the person is homosexual without inquiring upon his or her sex. In this case, how is there sexual discrimination?

[Anonymous No.15820491]

>>15820393
>imagine an applicant doesn’t know what the words homosexual or transgender mean
that has nothing to do with it, it doesn't have to be on an application, why is there suddenly a burden on the employer to explicitly specify every aspect of their criteria for an acceptable candidate?
they aren't making an argument, they're constructing an arbitrary narrative to support their absolutely fallacious assertion that sex being "considered" is illegal

so if a woman gets fired for having terrible hygiene and her rancid cunt smelling like cheese and fish causes everyone in the office to retch and puke every day that's illegal under fucking title 7?
It's illegal because you "considered" she had a vagina since you fired her because her vagina smelled like the product of an italian garbage disposal left to ferment in the sun?
Even though earlier that month you fired a guy because he reeked of smegma?

[Anonymous No.15820492]

>>15820459
>So that's why I'm so curious about how "neither party disputed that the person was fired for being gay or transgender."
I should answer this too. They agreed to it, since they wanted to force the court to answer that specific question instead of arguing about whether or not gayness/transgenderism was the "real" reason for the firing.

[Anonymous No.15820510]

>>15820480
>remarkably robust
Top kek, as they say. The entire country is being eaten alive by Civil Rights jurisprudence. What's your plan for abolishing the accumulated body of Civil Rights law?

>Legal equality and an independent judiciary is a critical factor in a functional society. To abandon it is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
An "independent" judiciary certainly isn't - America isn't functional and it may not even be a society, but instead, a pure economic zone - and the judiciary has played a critical role in bringing about that state of affairs. An independent judiciary can't even exist anyway! You're just accepting the conceits of Anglo Liberalism as meaning anything at all. Face it, it's shit and needs to be tossed out before it destroys us.

[Anonymous No.15820516]

>>15820480
>And you will see hell on earth that, in this day, isn't yet fathomable. Have you ever gone on vacation to Saudi Arabia or Yemen? If not, why not?
Saudi Arabia is more functional than the US relative to the quality of its population...

[Anonymous No.15820525]

>>15820481
Right. That works before employment occurs. Each of the cases were cases of firing someone after their sexuality/transgenderism became apparent, which means the employer could not have been insulated from the sex.

>>15820491
Your example is rather absurd since hygiene and stench is independent of sex as well. An equally bad-smelling individual would be treated the same. I don't think the court would see that as discrimination for that very reason.

>>15820492
Fair enough. But they've now answered it with a strict textualist interpretation.

[Anonymous No.15820532]

>>15820510
That's a secondary issue, sure. A harsh critique of capitalism, in my humble opinion. But the fidelity of the federalist papers and the constitution which they defended is, in my opinion, more robust than most other western legal systems.

>>15820516
Holy fuck. Go home you authoritarian kike.

[Anonymous No.15820535]

>>15820480
>hell on earth
yes that is exactly the solution
we are beset with hordes of degenerates and they are the root of the problem, they enable these tyrants

[Anonymous No.15820542]

>>15820525
>after their sexuality/transgenderism became apparent, which means the employer could not have been insulated from the sex.
This is an incredibly weak argument. I just proved that it's possible to fire someone for homosexuality without considering sex, which was the entire crux of the argument. That the sex and the sexuality were so inextricably linked that they cannot possibly be regarded separately. You just showed that it's literally the method of fact-finding rather than the conclusion itself that somehow makes it "discriminatory" which is impossible.
The case was wrong. You don't need to know sex to know sexuality.

[Anonymous No.15820544]

>>15820525
So being a disgusting ugly freak isn't "independent of sex"?
Their ruling literally supports what I said.

[Anonymous No.15820557]

>>15820525
>hygiene and stench is independent of sex as well
Not if it's a sexual organ emitting the stench. If fact-finding is discriminatory then it's impossible to figure out where the stench is coming from without acknowledging the person's sex, thus it violates Title VII. This is your reasoning and the reasoning of the court.

[Anonymous No.15820571]

>>15820532
>But the fidelity of the federalist papers and the constitution which they defended is, in my opinion, more robust than most other western legal systems.
What evidence do you have to believe this in light of Penumbra theory, substantive due process, Wickard v. Filburn, "right to privacy" doctrine, Civil Rights law etc.? It's robust in promoting leftward drift I guess, but that just makes things shittier over time. What does it say about American's "robust system" that we can guess how the Court will rule based on the political tilt of the Court at any given time - as in, there will always be at least 5 left-wing judges at any given time.

>Holy fuck. Go home you authoritarian kike.
>authoritarianism
This is just an Anglophone curse word. Authoritarianism is when the government says "Don't do X". Liberty is when a clique of billionaires finances a 501(c)3 Foundation to sponsor academics, journalists, and civil servants who will engage in manipulation of procedural outcomes in such a way so that you will suffer informal extra-legal punishment for doing X, while it technically remains legal because "muh liburtee". Kek.

[Anonymous No.15820577]

>>15820535
Fine. Then you best stop complaining about what's coming.

>>15820542
I understand your example, but it's a completely different set of circumstances than the one decided on by the court, so they don't prove or disprove anything, except the superficiality of the legislation in the first place.

>>15820544
Sorry, I don't follow your argument here.

>>15820557
How does the employer determine the source of the stench?

[Anonymous No.15820585]

>>15820571
Because the alternative is so much worse, because textual and originalist interpretations simply disappear and you're left with NOTHING but activist judges legislating from the bench. That's why.

>authoritarianism is just...
You're the one calling for the abandonment of an independent judiciary. You think a clique of billionaires dominates America now...ask yourself what it looks like when a judiciary is merged with the legislative branch.

[Anonymous No.15820590]

>>15820577
>it's a completely different set of circumstances than the one decided on by the court
The court's reasoning was that it's impossible to regard sexuality without sex. I showed that it was. Thus they're ASSUMING that the employer was using sex without evidence of it. If it's possible to unlink it then there needs to be a chain of reasoning that links it. Their whole point was that the employer couldn't do it at all no matter how hard they tried, but I say that it is possible to make the distinction in the mind.

[Anonymous No.15820591]

>>15820428
>This is why the Anglosphere keeps degenerating.
It's the same everywhere in the world
and it's not because of the law, it's because of the jews bribing every institution including the judiciary.
You cannot have good law if there is no will to make and uphold it.

This is the main thing rabbis have done in judaism for over 2000 years: twist and twist the meaning of the written word to authorize the next expedient in their agenda.

The talmud is literally a record of the jews bullshitting the torah and previous opinions and rulings.
Their religion is literally deceiving the "god" they pretend to worship.

The insane surge in corruption of law in our societies is simply a product of all incentive to uphold its spirit being removed by jewish influence.
The jews started by controlling gold, now they control all the resources by controlling the very concept of money through central banks.
They constantly bribe every institution to betray the people.

The only solution is the people destroying the jew and the institutions and starting anew.

[Anonymous No.15820605]

>>15820590
>I showed that it was
But in a completely different set of circumstances than the ones the occurred in the cases decided on. What they determined was that it was impossible for the employer NOT to consider sex when decided to fire THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO BROUGHT CASES FORWARD IN THIS MATTER.

[Anonymous No.15820610]

>>15820585
I don't want any judges legislating at all. I want judges to be employees of the State who will oversee legal proceedings, and who can be fired for poor performance. I want to say goodbye to the Anglo-Saxon tradition of reserving a special law-making role for the judiciary in society.

>
You're the one calling for the abandonment of an independent judiciary. You think a clique of billionaires dominates America now...ask yourself what it looks like when a judiciary is merged with the legislative branch.
I'm not an opponent of authoritarianism, I'm mocking people who deride it because effectively all societies are authoritarian - Anglophone countries are just dishonest about it.

[Anonymous No.15820619]

>>15820605
I'll make it easier for you:
>When an employer fires an employee because she is homosexual or transgender, two causal factors may be in play—both the individual’s sex and something else (the sex to which the individual is attracted or with which the individual identifies).
>There is simply no escaping the role intent plays here: Just as sex is necessarily a but-for cause when an employer discriminates against homosexual or transgender employees, an employer who discriminates on these grounds inescapably intends to rely on sex in its decisionmaking.
This was proven wrong. It's not a but-for cause because it can be split.
One more important point. The Supreme Court rules decisions that will apply to ALL cases, not just one specific case. This is why they always have to use hypotheticals. I can't believe the attorney didn't come up with the hypothetical I did after 10 minutes of thinking. It's ridiculous.
>it was impossible for the employer NOT to consider sex when decided to fire THOSE INDIVIDUALS
And the reasoning was because of the "but-for cause," which I showed was not true. The argument should fall apart from there but you just refuse to let it. Why?

[Anonymous No.15820646]

>>15820610
Who fires them? The executive branch?

And paint me a picture of an ideal society that is more functional and just than America's or some western European democracies.

>>15820619
>It's not a but-fo cause because it can be split.
Not in a termination case. Perhaps in a refusal to hire case.

[Anonymous No.15820666]

>>15820646
You're not understanding. The idea is that they are not conceptually distinct, but I'm saying they are. You can, in your mind, distinguish between sexuality and sex if you try. The court is saying that you can't, in ANY case. Their whole argument is built upon an assumption which I proved wrong.

[Anonymous No.15820671]

>>15820666
I don't think that's how they built their argument. It's impossible to employ AND THEN TERMINATE someone without knowing their sex, and knowing their sex will inevitably factor into someone who's fired for being gay or transgender.

[Anonymous No.15820681]

>>15820481
>>15820619
why does it need to be a voluntary answer from the employee?
the employer could just fire them because he thought they were a tranny or faggot and say sex had nothing to do with it

but that doesn't stop the jewish judiciary from making their retarded assertion that "considering" sex is relevant and that the basis of the decision doesn't matter because the special protected characteristic is tangential to the characteristic the freak was fired for

[Anonymous No.15820683]

>>15820671
>without knowing
There it is. It doesn't matter whether or not you know the sex, it's whether you CONSIDER it in your decision. Sex wasn't considered. What do I have to say for you to get that? Or maybe you're pushing an agenda and that's why you don't care about the truth?
Show me the evidence that the employer considered sex. You can't show me any because they didn't. They only considered sexuality.
See, if mere knowledge of a person's sex is inherently discriminatory then you can't fire anyone for ANYTHING because you "know their sex." It's just irrational.

[Anonymous No.15820684]

>>15820671
define "factor in" and explain why it's legally relevant

it's not, there's no support for this in the text or even precedent, which is all the more outrageous

[Anonymous No.15820690]

>>15820681
It doesn't have to be. My point was that the "but-for cause" argument doesn't hold water by showing a way to reach the conclusion without using sex at all, which Gorsuch says is an impossibility. This means that you CAN consider sexuality without sex, and thus the employee needs to show evidence that the employer was using sex for discriminatory purposes. The employer's lawyer was retarded. I wish I could talk to him or Gorsuch. This is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.15820725]

>>15818746
In cases invovling such purely social causes that really have no bearing on the world beyond makeing life a little better for a small group of people, the newest judge is always the swing vote that goes against their side. Been going on for fairly long, mainly used to undo the damage and fear the other side caused during their fear mongering campaign to prevent that judge from getting the seat. It is pretty much a dog and pony show to demonstrate that they hold the law above their own politcal beliefs.

Until a new judge gets seated Gorsuch will be doing this on most any cases where going against his side has no real consequence beyond anger.

[Anonymous No.15820732]

>>15820683
The argument made in the decision was that you cannot deem someone a homosexual or transgender WITHOUT considering their sex. I'd even go so far as arguing that, even with the blind tick on the application by the candidate himself, the candidate cannot state his or her homosexuality or transgenderism WITHOUT CONSIDERING HIS SEX. That's the point.

The point is that you cannot even define someone a homosexual, regardless of who makes the declaration, without considering sex. A person who admits that they are attracted to women does not inherently admit a sexuality without considering sex. So it matters not whether the candidate, the employer, or some other entity declares the true sexuality of the candidate, the fact is that the determination cannot be done without considering sex.

>>15820684
For reasons explained above: the same traits or behaviour, if done by someone of a different sex, would not be called into question; say, presenting as a woman or sucking a dick.

[Anonymous No.15820735]

>>15820725
Did Scalia have that phase early in his career? I hope not.

[Anonymous No.15820760]

>>15820732
This is just intellectual dishonesty at this point. Knowledge of sex is not inherently consideration of sex. There's no evidence of sex being considered in the decision. It's not a relevant factor. This is pilpul based on epistemology. It's all wrong. The method of obtaining knowledge should be irrelevant. Experience vs. theory doesn't matter, what matters is the conclusion.
Look at the text of the statute. You're not being fired for being a man, you're fired for being gay. There's nothing more to it.

[Anonymous No.15820765]

>>15820725
>Until a new judge gets seated
...
You mean Kavanaugh?

[Anonymous No.15820785]

>>15820760
I'll simplify it more:
>employers admitted to terminating someone for being gay/transgender
>text of statute says that sex cannot be a factor in determining whether to fire someone or not
>justice explains how the employers could not have possibly fired the (SPECIFIC) individual employees for being gay/transgender without ALSO considering their sex, as someone of a different gender displaying the same traits or actions of those individual employees would not have been fired.

[Anonymous No.15820831]

>>15820785
>the employers could not have possibly fired the (SPECIFIC) individual employees for being gay/transgender without ALSO considering their sex
Yes and this was not proven but instead assumed.
>someone of a different gender displaying the same traits or actions of those individual employees would not have been fired.
Incorrect because the trait was homosexuality.
I think the real problem is that you haven't read Sense and Reference. Just because it happens to point to one thing in this instance doesn't mean it will point to the same thing in every instance. EG if I say "father" it will point to different people depending on who it is.
After you're done, read Naming and Necessity.
In other words, the quality of being homosexual changes depending on who it is applied to. Sex is not factored in because the quality flips every time the sex does, thus the process is automatic and not dependent on it at all.

[Anonymous No.15820845]

>>15820735
Probably, but I was only 5 years old when he got his seat, I was more interested in the Dukes of Hazzard and Grizzly .Adams.

>>15820765
Haha, I forgot about him, have not been paying much attention to the supreme court lately. I suppose it could still be the case, the left is still pretty sore about all that went down with Gorsuch and his seat. This whole case was a foregone conclusion.

[Anonymous No.15820854]

>>15818746
Anglo lawyers are worse than kikes.

[Anonymous No.15820915]

>>15820831
>Yes and this was not proven by instead assumed
In what sense? They knew the gender of the employee and without knowing that, could not have "fired them for being gay or transgender."

>Incorrect because the trait was homosexuality
Is this confirmed? I thought the trait was "presenting as a woman."

The philosophical docs you recommend seem way beyond my scope.

>>15820854
Why don't you go ahead and read some Ginsburg decisions and compare to Scalia's or Gorsuch's.

[Anonymous No.15820922]

The worst part is that conservatives still try to "play fair" while liberals just do whatever their party wants without regard to the law. Conservatives need to stop being cucks and realize that this is war.

[Anonymous No.15820956]

>>15820922
Ideological war from the bench... I hear you, but I feel like that's a pursuit of mutually-assured destruction.