They cowered to the shouting SJW mob, nothing else.

French notice:

There are still several reasons for this decision by the United States Supreme Court.
First, the state of public opinion: it is mainly opposed to these discriminatory dismissals. In fact, during the proceedings, nearly 200 companies, including very famous companies such as Disney and General Motors, had supported the complainants.

Then there is perhaps the context: the indirect impact of the great debate on inequality triggered by the death of George Floyd.

And then there is simply an act of independence. The demonstration that the judiciary is not under the orders of the White House, which is rather reassuring about the functioning of American democracy.

Liberty is good.

All of these things you're suggesting doing would simply make society better. Winning accommodations for all is a good thing, regardless of your status. Winning equal paternity/maternity leave is good for everyone. Winning discrimination protections for Jews, Muslims, etc. is good for society as a whole.

This recent SCOTUS is a nice start, but what about LGBT protection in housing and public accommodations? We need legislation addressing these areas. I don't like having to depend on just 9 people in America for some of these decisions.

Yeah. How dare they bend to the majority voice asking for equal rights. How fucking criminal.

...Meanwhile America has joined the rest of the civilized world decades later. Thanks for contributing your voice as always as an example of what not to do.

This case will be very easily applicable if the wording in the relevant laws are written with the phrasing "Based on sex". This was a pretty broad ruling in that it established that all you need for a case where the law says "based on X' is a but-for test. A but-for test is where you just change the sex, and if that would result in a change then it is illegal.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 16 2020 11:21pm

Yet a 'but-for' test precludes any exclusive traits or actions to a group. Which might seem okay at face value, but quickly poses issues. If a but-for standard is applied across the board on all laws, you can't have public rape shelters for women only, you can't discriminate against a nondisabled person for parking in a handicap spot, you can't bar non-veterans from accessing VA care, and you sure as shit can't have affirmative action.

The high court may have intentionally stopped short of applying that standard across the board, but logically its a plain inconsistency to not define classes and discrimination by the same standards when they derive from the same umbrella law.
An overly conspiracy-minded person might think Gorsuch just roped the liberals in the court into a precedent he'll cite to strike down affirmative action.

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 17 2020 07:20am

courts have a prosecutor acting on behalf of the state, who exactly do you think was offering arguments on behalf of the State that isn't directly under Trump's employ and control?

the Supreme Court isn't a tribunal sitting and listening to emotional arguments before they make a judgement call, we have due process, we're not Canada.