Again, this is why you shouldn't spank your kids.
Again, this is why you shouldn't spank your kids.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Eh, it's a big leap they made to redefine the definition of "sex". We all know legislators didn't have transexuals and genderqueer people in mind when the legislation was made. Changing the damn legislation would have been much better to prevent yet another instance of good-outcome-but-still-problematic-judicial-legislation.Originally Posted by RandBlade
And the founding fathers weren't thinking of AKs when they wrote the 2nd amendment. So what?
Hope is the denial of reality
If they didn't mean it, they could always have tried to change it themselves as genderqueer rights started gaining more traction. As it is, the plain text pretty clearly says the one thing, which the Court recognized. You can dislike an "activist" bench but I think you also recognize, Dread, that one of the functions of the judiciary is to step in when the letter of the law says something but it's not being followed. When it comes to statutory and regulatory law (as opposed to conlaw) there is no room for "original intent" in the face of language issues in the text. When the way the law is being followed (or so-called "original intent) and the clear meaning of words begin to conflict, the judiciary HAS to go with what the law says and challenge the legislature to do a better job writing it if they want something different.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
It doesn't matter what they intended, it matters what the law says.
I think the word "sex" had a very clear definition at the time that is not the one being applied. Legislation often contains definitions of relevant terms, and I don't believe Title 9 has that for gender. In fact it seems pretty binary about sex.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ix...mendments-1972
Would love to have that actually amended versus "clarified" by judges.
And since our Constitution is formulated on the assumption that all Men are created equal, clarification just won't do.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Under the clear definition of the time they reached the correct ruling.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Ah but this time it's because of a justice insisting on not ruling from the bench
Congratulations America
What kind of linguistic engineering are you referring to?
That it's illegal to sack a woman for something she legally does if you wouldn't sack a man for doing the same thing.
Do you agree?
So Lewk and Dread both it seems aren't prepared to answer simple questions.
SCOTUS ruled on a simple literal interpretation of the law that makes sense. The law makes it illegal to discriminate based upon someone's sex and that is what this is about.
Would you think it is legal to sack a woman for playing golf in her spare time, because the boss thinks golf is a man's sport?
A law stating that it illegal to have homosexual relationships is homophobic not sexist because a woman can't sleep with a women while a man can sleep with a woman. I really don't understand why this is hard to grasp.
That's not what the law says. The law literally says that it is illegal to sack a woman for doing something that you wouldn't sack a man for doing. I really don't understand why this is hard to grasp.
If a boss thought golf was a man's game and would sack a woman for playing golf then is that legal? YES or NO?
PS there are no laws in the USA saying it is illegal to have homosexual relationships so that's moot. Maybe you should educate yourself but homosexual relationships are legal in all 50 states and already were before this case, not sure what you've not grasped about that either.
Well Lewk we are waiting? It isn't difficult. What does the law say?
Is it lawful or illegal to sack a woman for legally doing what you wouldn't sack a man for legally doing the exact same thing?
You really aren't grasping this. And the deliberate level of obtuseness is actually trolling at this point.
Can a man be sacked for wearing a dress to work?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
A view shared by that ultimate left-wing troll, Neil Gorsuch.
Hope is the denial of reality
No you are grasping. You are being obtuse.
You want the law to be enforced, WHAT IS THE LAW in your eyes?
Is it legal to discriminate based on sex? Yes or no?
Is it legal to eg sack a woman but not a man for playing golf in their time off because the boss thinks golf is a man's sport?
Is it legal to eg sack a man but not a man for knitting in their time off because the boss thinks knitting is effeminate?
Answer the damn question please. Or are you a coward who knows he's in the wrong in the law?
I disagree with the textualist approach as mentioned previously. I don't agree with every ruling conservative judges make. Don't even get me started on the Miller test.
Rand, you'll never get a direct answer from Lewk. The teacher-troll is confused about gender and sex, but likes to lecture about equality anyway.
The silence from both Lewkowski and Dread is thunderous. Actually to be fair Dread may not be online but the silence from Lewk is quite blatant. He clearly knows this was the right decision which is why he's too much of a coward to answer a simple question.
I'm also still curious if he's always as strict with his approach. Clearly the constitution also doesn't apply to modern weaponry, and TV ads aren't protected speech since there obviously were no TVs back then.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Lewk has taken the same view as the defendants in these cases, arguing that firing someone on the basis of their sexual orientation or transgender status is not the same as firing them on the basis of their biological sex. Gorsuch spends several paragraphs addressing precisely this objection: these employers could not have fired these employees for being homosexual or transgender without considering their biological sex, which the law expressly forbids—not only as it is written, but also as it has been reaffirmed over and over again in the decades since it was first passed.
If an employer has two employees—A and B—and knows that A is homosexual whereas B is heterosexual, without knowing either of their biological sexes, Lewk believes the law permits the employer to fire employee A for being homosexual—because the employer doesn't need to know A's sex to know that A is homosexual. What Gorsuch points out is that that's irrelevant; what matters is that it is in reality impossible to determine A's status as homosexual without taking A's biological sex into consideration in the process, irrespective of who does the determination. Biological sex is integral to the plain language definitions of these terms as they were all understood at the time the law was passed. The court applies the same reasoning to transgender status. The objection raised by the defendants—and by Lewk—is doubly irrelevant because it is evident that the employers themselves really did make the determination of their employees' sexual orientation & transgender status on the basis of sex, in order to arrive at the decisions to fire them.
Having had all good sense spanked out of him as a child, Lewk's view is that the purpose of the law in question—and the intent of the lawmakers—is to punish employers for specific forms of discriminatory intent while permitting other, unspecified forms. His defense is that the employers' intent was to fire employees for being gay or transgender—not for being men or women; they should therefore not be punished, because their intent was not discriminatory in a way prohibited by the law. In reality, the purpose of the law is to protect people from discrimination on specific grounds, which can to a great extent be irrespective of the specific—purported—intent of those engaging in discriminatory behavior. This, too, is dealt with at some length in the opinion. Gorsuch rejects this whiny-ass objection, partly by showing that the people's elected representatives have shown—through later legislation—that their intent is contrary to what Lewk and other culture-war losers like him want it to be.
In the opinion, Gorsuch is precisely as robotic as Lewk says he wants SCOTUS justices to be, so you can take Lewk's whining in this thread to be a pretty telling illustration of revealed preference: he doesn't want SCOTUS justices to be robotic interpreters of the law—he wants them to do what he wants, with all the creativity a creative religious fundamentalist can bring to bear.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think it's simpler that that. Lewk doesn't care about gay rights one way or the other. What he does care about intensely is making the libs cry. Since this ruling had the opposite effect, he opposes it. I'm starting to think this might be one of Dread's main preferences, too.
Hope is the denial of reality
Well yeah, that's what I was trying to convey, albeit with more wordsI don't think Dread actually thought this through. He might feel differently after reading the ruling, but, even then, he might not be able to resist the temptation to divert the discussion to some inane tangent about the motives of the enemy culture war foot-soldiers at his workplace and in his extended family. Who knows
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm betting he likes the SCOTUS decision that employers can refuse to cover birth control, based on religious or moral objections. Religious zealotry FTW, making libs cry a strong second place.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote