SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Were just being hysterical.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Were just being hysterical.

ialto

Or, just being chicken little. Cause, you know, that's what I do. After all, how could I possibly think the sky is falling in America? How could I possibly come to such a conclusion.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Because there are lots of *******s like you who would still infringe on their civil rights even though it really is that clear. Just because everyone agrees that murder is clearly wrong does not mean that we don’t need laws against murder. Quite the contrary, and only a murderer would argue otherwise.

How exactly would I or have I infringed on anyone's civil rights? I've posted (and people have ignored) that I think the law should prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. But just because I think that, and just because I think the law should be that way doesn't mean that I think federal law currently is written that way, for reasons I've explained (but people again have ignored, or dodged.)

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

The point here is we have laws against sexual preference discrimination and sexual identification discrimination in addition to sex discrimination because:

1. Backwards people haven't caught on yet that sex includes sexual preference and sexual identification

and

2. Those same backwards people were always likely to discriminate on sexual preference and sexual identification and in fact even biological sex in the first place.

All of these laws exist because sexist morons make life miserable for the rest of us, just like we have laws against murder or theft. Laws constrain bad people. We keep making all these laws because there are still bad people. In this case, there is an entire political party and media Echo Chamber sucking up to bad people because it's very good business.

So basically the answer to "why do we have laws..." for all these sexist things is: Republicans.

I hope that's clear enough.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

The point here is we have laws against sexual preference discrimination and sexual identification discrimination in addition to sex discrimination because:

1. Backwards people haven't caught on yet that sex includes sexual preference and sexual identification

and

2. Those same backwards people were always likely to discriminate on sexual preference and sexual identification and in fact even biological sex in the first place.

All of these laws exist because sexist morons make life miserable for the rest of us, just like we have laws against murder or theft. Laws constrain bad people. We keep making all these laws because there are still bad people. In this case, there is an entire political party and media Echo Chamber sucking up to bad people because it's very good business.

So basically the answer to "why do we have laws..." for all these sexist things is: Republicans.

I hope that's clear enough.

See, this is why I still hang around in Cafe. It's to see what people come up with at their computer when they try to post an answer that includes insults with it.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

How exactly would I or have I infringed on anyone's civil rights? I've posted (and people have ignored) that I think the law should prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity. But just because I think that, and just because I think the law should be that way doesn't mean that I think federal law currently is written that way, for reasons I've explained (but people again have ignored, or dodged.)

The lawyers that argued the case in front of the supreme court seem pretty confident that the law is already written that way. Maybe you should read their argument rather than seeking one out on a message board.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

The lawyers that argued the case in front of the supreme court seem pretty confident that the law is already written that way. Maybe you should read their argument rather than seeking one out on a message board.

I doubt that all of the lawyers shared that confidence, or at least argued it, otherwise it's unlikely there would have been much of a dispute.

This is a message board. Are arguments or disagreements now banned here? Isn't that kind of the point of Cafe?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

I doubt that all of the lawyers shared that confidence, or at least argued it, otherwise it's unlikely there would have been much of a dispute.

This is a message board. Are arguments or disagreements now banned here? Isn't that kind of the point of Cafe?

Don't go spouting ideas and opinions about the Café that are completely within the realm of its design! That's not allowed here.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

I doubt that all of the lawyers shared that confidence, or at least argued it, otherwise it's unlikely there would have been much of a dispute.

This is a message board. Are arguments or disagreements now banned here? Isn't that kind of the point of Cafe?

Do you want people's opinions on what the law should be (we can all answer) or legal analysis of what the law is (guessing uno is the only poster who's answer would be worth taking the time read). Because your post sounds like you're asking for the latter, and forgive us for not taking the time to get into a debate where neither debater knows what they're talking about.

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

The lawyers that argued the case in front of the supreme court seem pretty confident that the law is already written that way. Maybe you should read their argument rather than seeking one out on a message board.

But here's the thing. They tried to argue in front of the court, but the judges were caught up on bathrooms and "what's in your pants?"

And Hovey, let me be clear with you: there are times I think you're trying to bait me into losing my sh-t, and I wish you would can it. Especially when I've explained multiple times that employers in the state of Michigan can fire me just because I'm bi/pansexual and transgender. Right now, as I pursue my MSW so I can get a license later, I'm also bearing in mind that employers can refuse to hire me because of my orientation and gender identity. I'm also looking for a part time job as a community living support specialist or daytime enrichment staff, and that's pretty weighty to keep in mind.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

The only person around here I distinctly recall baiting/trolling MT (mostly by deadnaming her) was Flaggy. If Hovey wants to play strict constructionist and argue that the law should be changed by the legislature to be explicitly inclusive, rather than interpreted that way by the courts, that's his business. I don't get the vibe that he's using this argument as a disingenuous way of continuing to allow discrimination against you in the way that Flaggy did, or Joe sometimes does.

 

[MissThundercat]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

The only person around here I distinctly recall baiting/trolling MT (mostly by deadnaming her) was Flaggy. If Hovey wants to play strict constructionist and argue that the law should be changed by the legislature to be explicitly inclusive, rather than interpreted that way by the courts, that's his business. I don't get the vibe that he's using this argument as a disingenuous way of continuing to allow discrimination against you in the way that Flaggy did, or Joe sometimes does.

Like I said, there are times I think it. I'll keep this in mind the next time I engage.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

The only person around here I distinctly recall baiting/trolling MT (mostly by deadnaming her) was Flaggy. If Hovey wants to play strict constructionist and argue that the law should be changed by the legislature to be explicitly inclusive, rather than interpreted that way by the courts, that's his business. I don't get the vibe that he's using this argument as a disingenuous way of continuing to allow discrimination against you in the way that Flaggy did, or Joe sometimes does.

This is exactly right.

I first posted on the subject in response to a post someone made (I don't even remember who) that if the Supremes decide that the statute as written doesn't cover gender orientation discrimination, they made a political decision. My argument was that I don't necessarily agree with that because I think there are arguments that can be made that the statute as written doesn't cover it, as evidenced by the fact that many states and cities have written their own statutes to include both sex and sexual orientation as separate categories.

I've said repeatedly I don't think sex orientation discrimination is appropriate or should be allowed.

 

[First Time Long Time]

ialto

Or, just being chicken little. Cause, you know, that's what I do. After all, how could I possibly think the sky is falling in America? How could I possibly come to such a conclusion.

You still don't get it. But instead of attempting to figure it out... You decided to "ignore" so whatever.
Things are bad...not one person denies this...where you chicken little...is claiming democracy is dead over everything Trump does.
You won't read it so I apologize to everyone else...but ce la vie...

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

This is a message board. Are arguments or disagreements now banned here? Isn't that kind of the point of Cafe?

That this is a place of free discourse doesn't mean it's a place where people won't get called out when they make specious or insincere arguments.

For the record I take your posts as entirely sincere. I believe you are honestly ignorant and not a cynical troll.

 

[Kepler]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

My argument was that I don't necessarily agree with that because I think there are arguments that can be made that the statute as written doesn't cover it, as evidenced by the fact that many states and cities have written their own statutes to include both sex and sexual orientation as separate categories.

I answered that argument but you never engaged with my answer.

Here is my argument stripped of all fancypants language:

1. "Sex" in the original meaning of the statute covered biological sex. The statute reflected that we view it to be unfair to discriminate against somebody because of attitudes related to sex.

2. We have come to understand that "sex" encompasses sexual preference and gender identification because we understand sex better now.

3. The law therefore does logically cover sexual preference and gender identification. Sex always included these things -- we just didn't know it yet. No additional laws ought to be needed.

BUT

4. Some people sincerely still do not understand that sex includes sexual preference and gender identification.

5. Some powerful entities, who know better, are interested in appealing to those people for votes and dollars and attack sexual preference and gender identification in order to fill their pockets.

THEREFORE

6. In the interim in which the Courts come to unambiguously disallow this discrimination we continue to pass laws specifically protecting these people because they are put at immediate risk by a powerful, albeit gradually dying off, political movement.

 

[rufus]

See, this is why I still hang around in Cafe. It's to see what people come up with at their computer when they try to post an answer that includes insults with it.

And you just did an excellent job.

 

[rufus]

This is exactly right.

I first posted on the subject in response to a post someone made (I don't even remember who) that if the Supremes decide that the statute as written doesn't cover gender orientation discrimination, they made a political decision. My argument was that I don't necessarily agree with that because I think there are arguments that can be made that the statute as written doesn't cover it, as evidenced by the fact that many states and cities have written their own statutes to include both sex and sexual orientation as separate categories.

I've said repeatedly I don't think sex orientation discrimination is appropriate or should be allowed.

They made an interpretive decision. That's what the Supremes do, interpret the meaning of the laws as written and how they've been enforced over time.

Some people call that "judicial activism". Usually when they don't like the way the court interpreted the law.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

They made an interpretive decision. That's what the Supremes do, interpret the meaning of the laws as written and how they've been enforced over time.

Some people call that "judicial activism". Usually when they don't like the way the court interpreted the law.

Right. And Hovey's first post on the topic he argued with me that the Court was in effect "writing the law" of which I said, I'm not aware of any Court writing a law. I heard *crickets* after that.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Right. And Hovey's first post on the topic he argued with me that the Court was in effect "writing the law" of which I said, I'm not aware of any Court writing a law. I heard *crickets* after that.

This was my first post on the topic.

I haven't read too much on this case, but isn't it a case about whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is included in the broad "sex discrimination" statutes passed by Congress 50 years ago?

Personally I think the law should ban such discrimination. Not only is it wrong to engage in such discrimination, it's stupid. Thus, it won't bother me if the Supreme Court says it's included.

But that said, it also seems to me that in light of the fact that what, maybe half the states, and hundreds of cities nationwide have taken the step to specifically identify sexual orientation discrimination as prohibited conduct in addition to "sex discrimination" suggests that both judicially and legislatively in this country pretty much everyone concluded sexual orientation discrimination is not included in Title VII?

I know I'm in the minority here, but I don't think a decision by Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or anyone else on that court concluding that sex orientation is not covered in the old definition is a sign of partisanship. People on this board, including you, have talked about how this state or that doesn't identify sex orientation as a protected category in the human rights statutes in the state where they reside. Yet I'm going to guess most of those states have a "sex discrimination" statute. It seems like it is a legislative solution. Just my two cents.