Quote (IceMage @ Jun 15 2020 12:10pm)

Uh... Trump chose which position his administration took in the case. Are you confused about that or what?

It's just amusing because one of the major justifications for supporting Trump(judges, religious liberty) doesn't seem to be producing good outcomes. I guess tax cuts and triggering the libs is all that's left. :thumbsup:

Quote (ThatAlex @ 15 Jun 2020 12:00)

Gorsuch made a texualist opinion - that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protected LGBT works because it protects sex. It's interesting that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were not on the same page on this decision. I suppose Gorsuch really is the A team pick to Kavanaugh's B team. Sad!

Still, I don't think it is enough. We put a lot of faith in these 9 people to interpret the law one way or another. We probably need additional legislation to protect LGBT people - in housing, schools, and other areas of public life. But you know as well as I do that legislation wouldn't get through the Republican Senate.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Jun 15 2020 12:20pm)

Is Trump a party to this case? Unless he is a party what do you mean he chose a position, did he send lawyers or money to one of the sides? He has no position here. The two parties here are a funeral home and a potential worker in Detroit.

Trump did pass some religious liberty protections, there's plenty of proof of that with a simple google search.

Quote

Lawyers for employers and the Trump administration argued that the common understanding of sex discrimination in 1964 was bias against women or men and did not encompass discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. If Congress wanted to protect gay and transgender workers, they said, it could pass a new law.

Lawyers for the workers responded that discrimination against employees based on sexual orientation or transgender status must as a matter of logic take account of sex.

Quote (IceMage @ Jun 15 2020 12:25pm)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/gay-transgender-workers-supreme-court.html



Google is hard.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Jun 15 2020 12:31pm)

You were just criticizing Trump for not doing anything for Christians and now you link an article saying his position on this was the pro-Christian position and his his lawyers argued on behalf of the christian employer?

So what was the point of your initial post considering by your own source his lawyers fought on behalf of the pro-christian side?

Quote (IceMage @ Jun 15 2020 12:35pm)

No, I was attacking the position that Trump's unique terribleness as president is worth it because of judges/religious liberty. That position doesn't survive scrutiny, especially since one of his appointed justices just wrote the majority opinion in a case that goes against religious liberty.

Quote (ofthevoid @ Jun 15 2020 12:42pm)

One ruling that's outside his control doesn't somehow invalidate his pro christian positions and executive orders prior to that. The point that the pro christian side failed here therefore we should vote for the side that's exponentially more damaging to religious rights is pretty trash tbh.

Quote (IceMage @ Jun 15 2020 12:45pm)

It certainly damages the argument that supporting Trump is justified because of the judges.

And I never made the second argument.