Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[da_nang]

But it's not a loophole. It's logically impossible to fire your gay or trans employees without tripping this line unless you also fire your straight employees (or all men/women, which is separately illegal, in the case of firing trans employees). Gay men and gay women aren't attracted to the same people.

If you fire men because they like men, then you'd have to fire women who like men, yes, but "like men" is androsexuality, not homosexuality.

"Like men" = androsexual
"Like women" = gynosexual
"Like the same sex" = homosexual

So if you fire a homosexual man, you must also fire a homosexual woman.

I'm not sure how else to put it. It seems crystal clear to me.

EDIT:
MF(X) := "Male X is fired"
FF(X) := "Female X is fired"
S := "Sexual discrimination"

S ↔ (MF(X) ∧ ¬FF(X)) ∨ (¬MF(X) ∧ FF(X))

Can we agree on the above?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I have no idea what you're taking about still, so I'm just going to chalk this up in the "too galaxy-brained for a homophobe to ever think of" column.

[Lord Shonus]

The reasoning is "we would not fire a woman for liking men, so firing a man for liking men is blatant gender discrimination". I'm pretty sure that weasel-wording your way out of that is a logical impossibility, and the associated "we will not fire a man for liking women..." is also ironclad.

[Sindain]

I'm no lawyer and I've only been looking at this for like 10 minutes, but it seems to me like the ruling pretty explicitly mentions and rules out da_nang's loophole.

Finally, an employer cannot escape liability by demonstrating that it treats males and females comparably as groups. Manhart is instructive here. An employer who intentionally fires an individual homosexual or transgender employee in part because of that individual’s sex violates the law even if the employer is willing to subject all male and female homosexual or transgender employees to the same rule.

Thats from page 3, first paragraph of the thingy da_nang linked.

[da_nang]

Finally, an employer cannot escape liability by demonstrating that it treats males and females comparably as groups. Manhart is instructive here. An employer who intentionally fires an individual homosexual or transgender employee in part because of that individual’s sex violates the law even if the employer is willing to subject all male and female homosexual or transgender employees to the same rule.

Which reinforces what I said earlier: Gorsuch screwed up the logic. He's contradicting himself here given his previous reasoning.

It's like if I put "being homosexual" on a man's reason for termination, and he complains I "didn't fire a woman who likes men", I could simply say "I didn't fire you for being androsexual, I fired you for being homosexual." He's confused about what the reason for termination is. If he instead says I "didn't fire a homosexual woman", then he'd win the lawsuit.

[Lord Shonus]

By explicit text of the ruling, this argument will fail. You are seeing a loophole where none exists.

[da_nang]

The explicit text is self-contradicting; its argument doesn't follow from the premises.

As Gorsuch have stated before, "if changing the employee’s sex would have yielded a different choice by the employer—a statutory violation has occurred."

Assume the employer is a homophobe.

Case 1: A man was fired for being homosexual.
Change the sex: A woman was fired being homosexual.

If both of those are true, then changing the sex of the employee does not change the outcome.

Case 2: A man was fired for liking men.
Change the sex: A woman was not fired for liking men.

Here, changing the sex does yield a different outcome. But the stated reason for firing the individual is different, since "liking men" alone does not make one a homosexual. Case 1 and Case 2 must thus be different and in only one of them is there sexual discrimination.

Gorsuch fucked up, simple as that.

[Iduno]

More importantly, you can't fire someone if you say you're firing them because they're gay/trans/a different skin color/whatever.

You can, however, fire the same person "for reason" perfectly legally. Right to work is already a loophole that covers this situation.

[Rose]

Yeah, but if you get fired a week after you come out at work, you can point at it and say look! They're discriminating!

[Zangi]

Nah man, jimmy made a sexual comment that made their coworkers very uncomfortable, we don’t tolerate that.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I realize I'm usually the voice of scathing cynical sarcasm in this thread, but can you all just take the goddamn unexpected victory? This makes things better, not worse. It doesn't fix the fundamental problems of US labor law, but it was never going to. SCOTUS easily could have issued a ruling that says "yeah it's a 1st amendment protection to discriminate against those freaks", and that was exactly what most people expected them to do.

Now, if you have a recording of your former employer going on a rant about how he'll never have any god damn ho-mo-sexual-als in his shop, it means something in a courtroom when it didn't in most of the country yesterday.

[Doomblade187]

*gives MSH a hug*

[MrRoboto75]

*gives MSH a hug corona*

[Naturegirl1999]

*gives MSH a hug*

[Dostoevsky]

Hey, let's get some more bad news in here.

You may have already heard that the White House issued legal opinions claiming that they shouldn't follow oversight provisions of the CARES Act; now there's a further layer that some members of congress (including those who voted against oversight) are getting aid money.

Here's a Politico story.

I also would be entirely unsurprised if money made its way to Trump-connected businesses as well, of course. Sigh.