I've been out all day, no time to read the PDF or even think through it
but my Q is, did the justices tackle the question of "How does this same reasoning apply to other protected classes / right"
I'm talking about the "traits or actions {they} would not have questioned in members of a different sex." standard
I haven't even had time to construct a counterexample. Is there a good one? IE, can I start riding a wheelchair into my workplace and demand accessibility accommodations, and say if they don't they're discriminating against me for traits or actions they would not have questioned in a disabled person? Can I identify as Jewish? Heck, sticking with gender, can I demand equal paternity leave?

At first I was thinking that they were being activists, but the more I think about it, I think they have a very strong argument that they are following the letter of the law.

Let's say you have a gay man who kisses another gay man. Would they fire a woman for kissing a man? No, obviously not. That's a straight woman. Therefore, if they fire somebody for being gay, or doing something gay, they are clearly firing him based on sex because they would not consider the same act would not be fireable if a woman did it.

The same argument holds for trans individuals.

I'm listening to Lawful Masses read the opinion and it seems like they are going to argue on that line. I'm only about a minute in.

When I first heard that Gorsuch voted for this I was really surprised, because he's usually super autistic about laws-as-written and allows very little deviation, but the more I think about it the more this is in line with his character, because they are plainly following the law as written.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 15 2020 05:47pm

It appears that SCOTUS used the discrimination on the basis of sex aspect.

"Because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individual employees differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an employee for being homosexual or transgender also violatesTitle VII."

Does this effect "right to work" states at all? I mean you can't prove you fired someone because of their "sex".

Do we really care about this type of thing anymore?

In principle it does, but practically speaking they could make up any reason they want to lie about why they were fired.

Im asking, did they apply that same logic to other rights to see if its consistent and doesnt lead to a slippery slope. If actions or traits that would not be questioned for members of one class are questioned in someone in a different class. Like the "riding a wheelchair while not disabled" example. Did they think through such examples and dismiss them, or did they leave open a hole based on this reasoning?

I've been eager to hear your thoughts on this decision. I do think the majority's reasoning opens up interesting questions as it pertains to other federally protected classes.



I think this would be a fascinating case. I think it's an example of where the majority of society probably thinks that women deserve more time off because of suspected health/medical benefits (breastfeeding) and also an acknowledgement of the fact that the burden of childrearing is placed disproportionately on women.

However, in principle, is it equal treatment of the sexes? Probably not. Strictly by the letter of the law, maternity leave and paternity leave probably should be equal time.

Additionally, who cares what the majority of society thinks? The law is the law - at least to a textualist. It is interesting to see how everyday politics seems to slowly but surely influence which cases the SCOTUS picks up or even how they might rule and reconciling this with strict textualism.

Why do you think that this decision opens things like your wheelchair example? That's already been happening long before this decision.

I'd recommend checking out Arik Matatov and his story.

If you can find a way to push a baby out, then I don't think anybody would have an issue giving you paternity leave. Maternity leave is recovery after a medical procedure after all.