Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A thread for New (TM) [SCOTUS] decisions and arguments.

1151617181921»

Posts

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Gorsuch's angle on this is really interesting to me for the LGB portion of the case:

    If you're a woman and you're romantically or sexually interested in men, that behavior is fine, but if you're a man and that's true, it's a problem? Framed that way, you don't even need to wonder whether the law intends to protect sexual orientation because it's just plain old gender discrimination.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Gorsuch's angle on this is really interesting to me for the LGB portion of the case:

    If you're a woman and you're romantically or sexually interested in men, that behavior is fine, but if you're a man and that's true, it's a problem? Framed that way, you don't even need to wonder whether the law intends to protect sexual orientation because it's just plain old gender discrimination.

    My recent light reading has pointed out this was like from the very first gender discrimination cases. Like they were nominally about women who didn't act very feminine but also codes and some things not talked about openly at that time.

    Phoenix-DFencingsaxBrodyBlackDragon480CouscousjdarksunMoridin889ToxMartini_PhilosopherN1tSt4lkerKayne Red Robeboogedyboo
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Gorsuch's angle on this is really interesting to me for the LGB portion of the case:

    If you're a woman and you're romantically or sexually interested in men, that behavior is fine, but if you're a man and that's true, it's a problem? Framed that way, you don't even need to wonder whether the law intends to protect sexual orientation because it's just plain old gender discrimination.

    Yes, which is how it has been interpreted to provide those protections. The question is how many Justices are able to understand basic reality, and odds are good it will only be either 4 or 5.

    MillMegaMek
  • The SauceThe Sauce Fleur de Alys Registered User regular
    That's the same angle for the T portion, too.

    It's gross, but the attorneys are arguing from the angle of discrimination based on birth sex.

    I hate it, and it might work.

    Triptycho: A card-and-dice tabletop indie RPG currently in development and playtesting
    Gnizmospool32
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    They shouldn't need to legally settle the issue of whether its based on current or birth sex, its gender discrimination either way you look at it.

    FencingsaxPolaritiemonikerShadowfireBrodyBlackDragon480GONG-00Martini_PhilosopherMillMoridin889MegaMek
Sign In or Register to comment.