Neil Gorsuch's LGBT Decision May Doom Affirmative Action in the Supreme Court
Why isn’t affirmative action in college admissions prohibited under the Civil Rights Act?

In 2020, the Supreme Court held that firing an employee for being gay or transgender violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employers from discriminating against a job applicant or employee "because of" that individual's "sex." While "those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority in Bostock v. Clayton County, "the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands."
For Gorsuch, the choice was clear: "When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it's no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."
Judging from October's oral arguments in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, Gorsuch may see affirmative action in college admissions the same way. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act says "no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
That language "is plain and clear just as Title VII is," Gorsuch told Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. "Title VII does not permit discrimination on the basis of sex, and Title VI does not permit discrimination on the basis of race." So why isn't affirmative action in college admissions prohibited under federal law?
"The term discrimination in this context is ambiguous," Prelogar replied.
"We didn't find it ambiguous in Bostock," Gorsuch said. "Why should we find it ambiguous now? Were we wrong in Bostock?"
"No, I'm not suggesting that," Prelogar answered. She was well aware that Gorsuch himself authored the Bostock opinion. But the Court has found the term discrimination to be ambiguous in the context of Title VI, she continued, urging respect for that precedent.
Gorsuch seemed to think there was no good reason to treat the word differently in two parts of the same statute. If his reading is adopted by the Court, it could help doom affirmative action in college and university admissions.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good! Affirmative action, whether you think it is good or bad, is undeniably discrimination; which is prohibited. If you believe AA is a good thing then with to codify it, don't try to “reinterpret” existing laws
Agreed. The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
"The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
What? Are you some kind of Nazi racist? /s
All economic discrimination is evil.
I don't know what "economic discrimination" is.
As for "discrimination" in general:
(To begin with, all the bullshit from its defenders notwithstanding, "affirmative action" is nothing but reverse discrimination.)
I'd ask: Are we talking about government or private discrimination?
Government discrimination (such as that practiced by University of North Carolina) is indeed evil and needs to end ASAP.
As for private discrimination, I don't have a problem with it. As I see it: It's your restaurant / business / whatever; you can serve / employ whoever you like. If you want to give a special preference to some identifiable group (like Harvard does), more power to you.
Economic discrimination is against the poor. Even when they try hard to better themselves with education, their past haunts them in the eyes of others. Kind of a caste system.
Says who? Most people would give extra props to a poor person who got higher not by connections but by work and intelligence.
●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started..........
See this article for more information————————>>>http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Agree, as well. For all anti-discrimination & affirmative action laws, if you replace one race with another race or “minority” with “majority” or “female” and “male” and the law suddenly becomes discriminatory, then the law was discriminatory from the start. This is still the case with the selective service registration law - I haven’t heard of any women’s groups marching to get this blatantly discriminatory law changed lately.
The ERA would tend to negate the selective service law. Most women are in favor of the ERA. Republican women are in favor of it too (75% polled).
Women who were drafted would not have to be infantry. In a rational army they would go where upper body strength wasn't as important.
First, Gorsuch wanted to turn us into A Handmaid's Tale by denying women the right to bodily autonomy in Dobbs and now he wants to return us to 1860 by re-enslaving blacks? How evil can one man be?
Ironically a judge is arguing not allowing abortion is a form of slavery.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/02/06/supreme-court-abortion-ruling-questioned-by-judge.html
So does that mean that the mother is the slave and the unborn child her owner?
Finally, a justification for killing it.
I think the argument is that the state would be the owner/master in that case.
Nope. The question - unanswered in our Constitution nor in any Federal law - is whether the unborn is a "person." Some believe yes, some believe no, but in law it is "undefined." If it is (as many believe) a "person," then to kill it is murder.
Take your political blinders off. If you want abortion, propose an Amendment specifying that an unborn is not a person until >xxxxx< weeks after conception. Then convince 3/4 of the States to agree with you.
You had 50 years. You failed. Perhaps you should consider more persuasive arguments.
No it's not.
In every state, the default assumption is "not a person". Being pregnant doesn't get you into carpool lanes, being pregnant doesn't mean you have to buy a second ticket for the bus or train, a "self only" health insurance plan covers pre-natal care, and so-on.
The exceptions --such as laws that give an extra murder charge if you kill a pregnant woman-- are all explictly defined exceptions.
You had 50 years to pass personhood laws/amendments. You failed. Perhaps you should consider more persuasive arguments, rather then laws that increase the maternal fatality rate.
You literally just agreed with him that it's undefined in law and you're too fucking stupid to realize it. It's hilarious. Special pleading about "defined exceptions" when you used a fucking carpool lane (a defined exception to traffic laws) as your basis. It's like watching a retarded kid sticking his coat buttons into the Coke machine and wondering why the soda won't come out.
It's also rather hilarious how invested you are in your Moloch-worshiping child death cult considering you're a faggot who will never breed.
Oh also, the people who just persuaded 9 judges to reverse the worst legal decision since Dredd Scott? They don't really need your help in crafting arguments.
Does that mean stopping a woman from getting an abortion is discrimination? It only happens to half the population.
The Supreme Court never said abortion was illegal. Only that the Roe case wasn't valid u der federal law. Some states have made it illegal, just like some states have made it expressly legal.
And saying that not giving preferences based on skin color is slavery is an insult to people that were actually enslaved.
I was enslaved once, when people told me I couldn't have a baby just because I was a man and didn't have a womb. I still could have let the fetus gestate in a box!
A fetus gestates in the uterus, not the box.
Tell me you've never seen Life of Brian without saying you've never seen Life of Brian.
Chia Fetus™
You were going to hotbox it?
Democrats are not rational. Ever.
And you posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography was an insult to the victims of child sex trafficking, shreek.
No one is talking about enslaving blacks.
It's about dumping the idea that state-sponsored racial discrimination today, is an appropriate remedy for (now illegal) past state-sponsored racial discrimination.
If universities want to discriminate in admissions, they will have to do so on a *legally permissible* basis such as family-income (quotas for the number of students from families at-or-below a set percentage of the poverty line) - not based on race.
Given the uneven distribution of poverty in the US, such actions can still produce a 'more diverse student body' - with the added benefit that no one is actually being selected or rejected based on the color of their skin.
Or, they could set a maximum SAT score.
Or even attach devices to the heads of the smarter students that make it difficult for them to think. This could be scaled with the intellectual capacity of the student.
That is just dumb. Any college that wants to can ditch the SAT. It's not a good predictor of college success by itself anyway.
Nope. Roe was always unconstitutional; RBG herself said so. Right or wrong, the WAY they did it was an unconstitutional power grab.
You had 50 years to pass one simple Federal law or propose one simple Amendment clarifying exactly when the "miracle moment" happens transforming an egg and swimmer into a "person" under our Constitution.
You failed.
Be very clear. I am more Conservative than most Republicans. I favor unlimited abortion. Why? Because the vast majority of seekers are Democrats, and I believe in suicide - both personal and genetically - as an individual right. I want nothing to stand between Democrats and their desire to self-eliminate from our gene pool - the sooner, the better.
As for Conservative women who get an abortion? It's between them and God, if you believe in one.
Also, prohibiting discrimination does not re-enslave blacks. It takes a very special kind of mentally ill to think so.
You mean the left is the racist and sexist party even when they pick/entitle a different race or sex this year than they did last year?
No.?.? Who could've seen that! I'm completely dumbfounded... /s
The level of denial-ism the leftard carries is narcissistic.
Perhaps univerities should create a
separate but equaldiverse and equitiable admissions process for people of color.The cognitive dissonance of the Left's "equity" ideology is breathtaking. Racial discrimination is "ambiguous" when they want to engage in it.
There’s a lot to unpack here.
Were we wrong in Bostock?
Yes. Plainly, stupidly, obviously, motivatedly wrong. 100% whole cloth manufacturing, completely ass-backwards wrong. As in, if the situation in question were explicitly heterosexual, the county wouldn't just have been within their rights to shitcan Bostock, they would've been obligated to. But your brain is such mush and your spine so flimsy, you, at this point, are still looking back at what you did with no clue.
THANK YOU!
Congress made a number of attempts to enshrine gay rights in Title VII, but never managed to pass it. So Congress saw that the law did not cover gay rights as written.
For the Court to construct mental pretzels to justify their predetermined outcome is just wrong.
Make the note that discriminating against gay people is wrong, but at the same time all of the reasons listed in Title VII should not be "protected". An employer should be allowed to hire and fire people for whatever reasons. The primary result of Title VII today is to make it harder, if not impossible, to fire someone in one of the protected classes for GOOD CAUSE, because they run to the courts with some claim of discrimination. This makes it a rational position for employers to minimize hiring people in a protected class.
All laws based on race or sex are wrong, with the singular exception of recognizing genetic females as being generally different from and weaker than men. Separate facilities for men and women developed from millennia of hard life lessons, and should never be discarded simply because of the feelings of a few mentally ill.
The problem with this line of thought, is that the court (many years ago) had already ruled on this same situation involving heterosexuals (Price Waterhouse v Hopkins - a hetero female employee being denied promotion because her mannerisms did not conform to female gender stereotypes)...
And they ruled the same way they did in Bostock...
So if they are going to be consistent, and they've already held that you can't discriminate against a woman who 'acts too male' but is straight & identifies as female... It's kind of hard to rule the other way when the only thing that has changed is orientation....
So if they are going to be consistent, and they’ve already held that you can’t discriminate against a woman who ‘acts too male’ but is straight & identifies as female… It’s kind of hard to rule the other way when the only thing that has changed is orientation….
You're literally saying if you reorient the problem without changing course, you're being consistent.
You're also cherrypicking in your favor and ignoring any inconsistency your preferred cherries may breed, like a good ideologue.
Just because you continue to insist that the court is able to pluck will and enforce law from abject speculation doesn't make it legally tenable or morally correct. Buck v. Bell is still the law of the land too.
Sounds like you're crying because the court is being consistent and correct in their rulings.
Whether I'm crying or not, I'm not the one who just said that Buck v. Bell was a 'consistent and correct' decision.
They're not though. Gorsuch molested language to interpret "sex" to mean "who I like to fuck" and "what kind of frilly lace panties I like to wear to work" for no other purpose than appeasing faggots, and as soon as the same logic leads to a conclusion that doesn't appease faggots he will reverse himself, because he's an abject piece of shit just like you.
The problem isn’t being re-oriented. It’s the *exact same problem*: Any expectation that an individual live up to ‘typical gender stereotypes’ in the workplace is unlawful discrimination.
‘Women shouldn’t curse’ (Price Waterhouse) or ‘Men should only be sexually attracted to women’ (Bostock) does not matter – you can’t discriminate based on such things in employment matters.
As for ideology, you’d be surprised. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a prog.
You are also the only one who mentioned Buck v Bell until now…
If only your lies about the case represented reality, shreek. That wasn't the issue in Bostock, and where you like to stick your cock still isn't your "sex"
Principals, not principles. It all depends on the attributes of the person being discriminated against.
It all depends on whose socks get bored. I, for one, am pretty bored with all of the endless socks of Marxist Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer!
Fuck off, Shillsy.
We should arrange to have a truckload of manure delivered to his cave. That should keep him away from the comments for at least a week.
Hi Tulpa!
“Dear Abby” is a personal friend of mine. She gets some VERY strange letters! For my amusement, she forwards some of them to me from time to time. Here is a relevant one:
Dear Abby, Dear Abby,
My life is a mess,
Even Bill Clinton won’t stain my dress,
I whinny seductively for the horses,
They tell me my picnic is short a few courses,
My real name is Mary Stack,
NO ONE wants my hairy crack!
On disability, I live all alone,
Spend desperate nights by the phone,
I found a man named Richard (Dick) Decker,
But he won’t give me his hairy pecker!
Dick Decker’s pecker is reserved for farm beasts,
I am beastly, yes! But my crack’s full of yeasts!
So Dear Abby, that’s just a poetic summary… You can read about the Love of my Life, Richard Decker, here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/11/farmers-kept-refusing-let-him-have-sex-with-their-animals-so-he-sought-revenge-authorities-say/#comments-wrapper
Farmers kept refusing to let him have sex with their animals. So he sought revenge, authorities say.
Decker the hairy pecker told me a summary of his story as below:
Decker: “Can I have sex with your horse?”
Farmer: “Lemme go ask the horse.”
Pause…
Farmer: “My horse says ‘neigh’!”
And THAT was straight from the horse’s mouth! I’m not horsin’ around, here, no mare!
So Richard Decker the hairy pecker told me that, apparently never even realizing just HOW DEEPLY it hurt me, that he was all interested in farm beasts, while totally ignoring MEEE!!
So I thought maybe I could at least liven up my lonely-heart social life, by refining my common interests that I share with Richard Decker… I, too, like to have sex with horses!
But Dear Abby, the horses ALL keep on saying “neigh” to my whinnying sexual advances!
Some tell me that my whinnying is too whiny… Abby, I don’t know how to fix it!
Dear Abby, please don’t tell me “get therapy”… I can’t afford it on my disability check!
Now, along with my crack full of yeasts… I am developing anorexia! Some are calling me a “quarter pounder with cheese”, but they are NOT interested at ALL, in eating me!!! They will NOT snack on my crack!
What will I DO, Dear Abby?!?!?
-Desperately Seeking Horses, Men, or ANYTHING, in Fort Worth,
Yours Truly,
R Mac / Mary Stack / Tulpa / Mary’s Period / “.” / Satan
I see it replied. I wonder what it said? Oh, wait. No I don’t.
His traditional 200-line heckler's veto copypasta shitpost. You didn't miss a thing.
Isn't it amazing how Sqrsly who totally isn't sarcasmic's sockpuppet even though he's accidentally posted his Sqrsly copypasta from his sarcasmic handle several dozen times in a drunken stupor shows up to rush to sarcasmic's defense and uses sarcasmic's "Hi Tulpa!" catchphrase against someone who's been posting here for years and who he knows isn't Tulpa? Funny coincidence.
Like being happy cops shoot an unarmed woman at the Capitol, but raged when cops do anything else.
Well, also Saint Babbitt was unarmed, they say... To this I say...
What utter bullshit! A lion, tiger, or bear charges you, having NO weapons other than their body parts... Just as "un-armed" as Saint Babbitt... Are you, or are you NOT gonna shoot said predator, if you have a gun? If I beat the shit out of you, with my fists, shall I be forgiven, 'cause I was... unarmed?
My GAWD you (Saint Babbitt Worshitters) fascists are illogical!!!
READ the below and hang your tiny brainless, power-lusting shit-head in SHAME for always taking the side of Trumpanzees, power-luster-pig!
https://www.jpost.com/international/kill-him-with-his-own-gun-dc-cop-talks-about-the-riot-655709 also https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04/28/michael-fanone-trump-gop-riots/
‘Kill him with his own gun’ – DC cop talks about Capitol riot
DC Police officer Michael Fanone: I had a choice to make: Use deadly force, which would likely result with the mob ending his life, or trying something else.
“Pro-law-and-order” Trumpturds take the side of trumpanzees going apeshit, making cops beg for their lives! For trying to defend democracy against mobocracy! Can you slime-wads sink ANY lower?!?!
Well, rather punish the lawbreakers, instead of having them grab your gun, so that they can "kill you with your own gun"!
What happened to the "back the blue" and "lawn odor" wings of "Team R" anyway?
PS, mob violence and mob property destruction are both always wrong... Except when MY Tribe does it! Think Boston Tea Party!
Me? Given my druthers, I'd rather have the thugs steal my TV and my expensive sneakers, than steal my democracy! My TV can be easily replaced! Democracy? Not so sure about THAT one!
She wasn't "charging" anyone, Cletus. Just standing there, smiling, as the racist DC cop murdered her in cold blood.
Democrats are bloodthirsty malicious thugs lusting for power. They should never be given any position of power higher than dustbin emptier.
Q: How do you stop a herd of Saint Babbitts from charging?
A: You take away their credit cards!
(Actually-factually, she has NO credit left in Her Holy Name, ass She gazes down benevolently on us mere mortals, from the Beyond the Beyond... She has already DEARLY PAID All of Her Sacred Blood to SAVE us ALL, yet we sneer derisively at all of the Sacrifices that She has made for us wayward sinners! THIS is what happens to Christ Figures, after all! It is standard Modus Operandi! See details at http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ . )
The right just can't seem to find fentanyl addicted junkies and child rapists to make heroes out of like you radical Marxists. They have to settle for unarmed air force veterans. Say hello to Saint Rosenbaum when you finally die from the liver cirrhosis and syphilis, sarcasmic. Maybe you can place your fingers in his Christ-like wounds.
What if the charging bear is in the trunk of your car and mauls someone while you're stopped at a traffic light, sarcasmic?
If she had broken a window to steal a TV in Seattle the previous June, you’d be all-about her being shot…
The fact that she broke one in the Capitol to let a pro-Trump mob gain access to potential victims? That suddenly makes her a 'good' rioter/victim-of-the-police….
Apparently you don't know the difference between protest and pillaging.
If she'd been shot stealing Pelosi's TV you might have had a point.
Saint Babbitt was pillaging, plundering, and lusting after STEALING our democracy! And in so doing, she was "merely" obeying YOUR Arch-Hero, Trump! "Hang Mike Pence", right, violent fascist?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/jan-6-hearing-trump-thought-pence-deserved-chants-to-hang-him-aide-says.html
Trump chief of staff said the president thought Pence ‘deserves’ chants of ‘hang Mike Pence’ on Jan. 6, ex-aide testifies
Yeah, that story turned out to be yet another lie. Meadows and Cipollone who were Hutchinson's purported sources said she was full of shit.
In fact she lied about everything that day, from where Trump was, to what he was doing, to who he was with. She couldn't keep her story straight and the J6 committee's own records showed she was lying:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/cassidy-hutchinsons-jan-6-testimony-comes-increased-scrutiny-rcna35994
It still earned her a hug from Liz Cheney though: https://twitter.com/greta/status/1542124333912424449
No collusion there, right?
This is so typical of you Shillsy, everything you post is outdated as fuck and has been proven fraudulent long ago. It's like your retarded ass quit paying attention years ago.
"...The fact that she broke one in the Capitol to let a pro-Trump mob gain access to potential victims? That suddenly makes her a ‘good’ rioter/victim-of-the-police…"
Notice we have a brand new TDS-addled pile of shit.
NPCs are easy to spawn, unfortunately.
Dave_A is an ancient shreek sock.
She didn’t break the window through which she was stepping with both of her hands visibly holding onto the window frame and clearly not carrying a weapon, shreek. Somebody else broke it. On video. The same video where she’s casually chatting with the four SWAT officers who were standing 10 feet behind her with M4 rifles when your magical negro hero shot her in the face. I guess it’s a good thing he didn’t leave his service pistol in the shitter on January 6th like he’d done twice before. He single-handedly stopped Ashli Babbitt from raping AOC!
“ Why isn’t affirmative action in college admissions prohibited under the Civil Rights Act?”
Because it embodies the concepts of Race as destiny, and the soft bigotry of lowered expectations. As such it is sacred to the Progressive Establishment , and they have not YET lost enough power to force its abandonment.
Good to finally see the progressive hypocracy and insanity starting to eat itself on a legal level.
It's a cannibal philosophy and the natives are hungry.
Ha! Butt I am a bigger victim than YOU are! So THERE! I will now proceed to systematically victimize you with My Superior Victim Status, Privileges, and Powers!
Being a homeless clinical retard with a felony record doesn't score many points on the victim index these days, sarcasmic. Have you considered cutting off your flaccid microchode? That's pretty hot right now.
Was SQRLSY inquiring about the option to eat their shit?
When you feel the need to put another word in front of "justice" (social, climate, etc.), it is never about justice.
Trumpian "justice" = = One-Party "Team R" rule, because all other votes are fraudulent!
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html
A list of the times Trump has said he won’t accept the election results or leave office if he loses.
Essential heart and core of the LIE by Trump: “ANY election results not confirming MEEE as Your Emperor, MUST be fraudulent!”
September 13 rally: “The Democrats are trying to rig this election because that’s the only way they’re going to win,” he said.
Trump’s constant re-telling and supporting the Big Lie (any election not electing Trump is “stolen”) set up the environment for this (insurrection riot) to happen. He shares the blame. Boys will be boys? Insurrectionists will be insurrectionists, trumpanzees gone apeshit will be trumpanzees gone apeshit, so let’s forgive and forget? Poor Trump was misunderstood? Does that sound good and right and true?
Trump was so committed to single-party rule that he used his Department of Justice to fabricate evidence against his political opponent and then colluded with foreign governments and domestic billionaires to "fortify" his election, that about right, sarcasmic?
It would be deliciously ironic to have the Court and Gorsuch overturn AA on the basis of Bostock when Gorsach's opinion was so completely wrong. Kavanaugh and Alito's dissents shredded Gorsuch's absurd logic, e.g. '....Kavanaugh notes that in the first ten federal appellate cases to consider the issue “all 30 federal judges agreed that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination because of sexual orientation...', i.e. the ordinary meaning of the word 'sex' does not include 'sexual orientation' (nor would it include 'gender identity' etc.).
On the other hand, I cannot disagree with his logic.
If you fire a man because he is gay, what are you firing him for?
Keeping this G-rated, kissing a man.
Would you fire a woman because she kissed a man? No.
Therefore, you are firing a man for doing a thing that you would not fire a woman for doing.
Thus, it is sexual discrimination.
I find no holes in this argument and I have heard no valid counterpoint to it.
The dissent merely shows that Gorsuch is smarter than 30 federal judges, especially when those judges were bound by precedent.
My initial reaction to Gorsuch's ruling was, WTF, but when I got to that argument, it's unassailable.
The argument is b.s. "Sex" is an immutable biological characteristic determined by chromosomes. Gorsuch's argument is about conduct, an entirely different category.
Gorsuch's argument is that the Price Waterhouse ruling's logic still governs:
If you can't refuse to promote a straight woman for being aggressive, using foul language & declining to wear traditional female attire - in a situation where men who do all of these things are promoted...
Then you can't fire someone for failing to comply with traditional sex-stereotypes on attraction/romantic-partnerships.
No, it does not. The Price Waterhouse case involved men and women actually being treated differently.
There is no evidence that men or women were being treated by differently by the company when it comes to the organization of a gay softball league: they would have been fired regardless of their sex.
So would someone trying to recruit for a straight softball league be fired? No?
Oops, that's treating people differently *based on sex stereotypes* (of which sex males should be attracted to).
Again, it's a direct continuation of Price Waterhouse logic.
It's the same because it's entirely different wasn't a good argument the first 20 times you tried it, shreek.
Arguments which presume the premise tend to be that way. It's called question begging. The problem is that question begging is a fallacy. Thankfully Gorsuch has fans like you who are sub-70 IQ literal clinical fucking retards, so he doesn't need to worry about that.
For his sexual preference. Sexual preference is a property of the brain alone, while sex is a chromosomal property. Sexual preference does not require sexual activity.
In fact, most employers who discriminate against a gay man will likely like to fire any and all people who simply express support for homosexuality, whether they are gay themselves or not. That ought to be legal even under Gorsuch's interpretation of the law, but the courts would still find in favor of the employee by their contrived and illogical interpretation of the law.
They had previously found in favor of a woman who sued over sex-discrimination based on her social behavior preferences unrelated to identity/orientation (She was too much of a tomboy for her accounting firm, ergo no promotion... But men who behaved the same way got promoted...)...
There wasn't really any wiggle room unless they wanted to overrule that prior decision.....
The situation is different. In the Price Waterhouse case, the woman was fired for conduct that men were actually engaging in.
In the gay softball league case, both men and women would have gotten fired for organizing such a league. It was the organization of the league regardless of the sex (or sexual orientation) of the person doing the organizing that the employer objected to.
I have heard no valid counterpoint to it.
Because it's nonsense that you agree with and you don't want to hear reason because you like the selective decision.
They didn't fire him for kissing men, they fired him for trying to start a gay softball league at work. If he'd gone around trying to recruit straight women for a straight softball league at work, the County wouldn't just have been able to shitcan his ass, they would've been obligated to fire his ass (or liable for not doing so).
Gorsuch's argument is essentially a defense of trans women playing in women's sports: discriminating against a gay man is the same thing as discriminating against a woman. That you claim not to see the abject illogical stupidity of that statement, even within the law, isn't demonstrative of any statement of law or logical fact. It's demonstrative of your ability to buy into and perpetuate any given narrative.
Ironically, that is a group that discriminates based on sexual orientation.
Therefore, you are firing a man for doing a thing that you would not fire a woman for doing.
The man and the woman in your example are not doing the same thing. The man is kissing a person of the same sex. The woman is kissing a person of the opposite sex.
But making that distinction is discrimination based on sex.
No, it's not. The same rules apply for members of either sex: they may kiss people of the opposite sex but not people of the same sex.
The case here involved organization of a gay softball league: the employer objected to that, regardless of the sex (or even sexual orientation) of the person doing the organizing.
they may kiss people of the opposite sex but not people of the same sex.
And that is discrimination based on sex. Not sure why you can't see that.
No, it is not discrimination based on sex: the rule applies to both men and women.
In any case, it is irrelevant to this case, since someone was fired for organizing a gay softball league, not for kissing anybody.
Even if you think that firing someone for being a homosexual should be illegal and can be crammed into the law, firing someone for supporting homosexuality would not be.
No, the rule applies in opposite ways to men and women. Bizarre that you can't see that. Maybe you're just screwing with us.
No, it doesn't, you're fabricating a counterfactual to rationalize giving special privileges to faggots. If the same company would have fired a dyke for doing the same thing they fired the faggot for, the discrimination is not based on their sex, it's based on something else. Sex is the dangly bits betwixt your legs that sprout based on your X and Y chromosomes. Hope the helps, you scientifically illiterate fucking moron.
There were plenty of companies with rules against fraternization among employees and would terminate both if caught "kissing" even off company property.
Bostock merely builds on Price Waterhouse.
Having already ruled that it's impermissible to discriminate based on nonconformity to sex stereotypes in a case involving a straight woman, the court was kind of boxed into a corner (which is what the litigants intended when they brought Bostock in the first place).
Having already ruled that it’s impermissible to discriminate based on nonconformity to sex stereotypes in a case involving a straight woman, the court was kind of boxed into a corner
No. Price Waterhouse was about sex stereotypes. But the notion that individuals should be sexually attracted only to persons of the opposite biological sex applies equally to men and women. Heterosexuality is neither a male nor a female stereotype. It is not a sex- specific stereotype at all.
Price Waterhouse was a case where men and women were objectively treated differently: a woman was punished for something a man was not punished for.
In this case, anybody who organized a gay softball league would have been fired, regardless of sex or even sexual orientation.
In fact, employers have perfectly legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not wanting employee organizations based on identities of any form: they might reasonably object to a black softball league, an Asian softball league, or a gay softball league.
Well, there is in fact an argument for firing someone who organizes a gay softball league within a business - it's discriminatory.
It is not discriminatory based on any of the protected characteristics, therefore it is legal discrimination.
"When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it's no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."
As if the plaintiffs are at all interested in equality...
Gorsuch is interested in the text of the law, not the impact.
Which isn't a bad thing.
Given his tortured reasoning, he is obviously not interested in the text of the law. The text of the law is clear: discrimination based on sex is prohibited. Firing someone who attempts to organize a gay softball league is not discrimination based on sex, since people of either sex would have been fired for it.
Correct. It's Congress' role to fix the text - not the courts.
There are aspects of the CRA that need clarifying and fixing.
But the fact that "sex" does not mean "sexual orientation" isn't one of them.
By redefining "sex" to mean "who you like to fuck"? I guess you mean "interested" in the same sense that you're "interested" in 8 year old little boys, huh shreek?
The fundamental problem with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was in compelling people to deal with each other against the will of one of the participants. Once you accept compelled activity, you have opened a Pandora's box of injustice.
There is no way to create a just outcome from a fundamentally unjust principle. Both forcing colleges to accept certain applicants and forbidding colleges to deny certain applicants will necessarily harm the innocent.
Without compelled activity how do you solve the underlying problem?
Affirmative action is obviously wrong, but *negative* actions - prohibition of discriminatory behavior - is entirely within the scope of government power.
Forcing colleges to eliminate race from their admission criteria does not in fact prevent them from, for example, establishing a family-history-of-poverty quota. Which is a legal method of achieving diversity without racial discrimination.
Compelled activity has clearly failed to "solve the underlying problem" and likely been counterproductive.
How do you solve discrimination? Markets do that for you: any employer who discriminates irrationally pays a price.
It is within the scope of authoritarian government powers. In a free society based on free markets, prohibition of discriminatory behavior is unacceptable and illegitimate.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh shreek ,never change you fascist fucking piece of shit.
"How can I solve the problem of being horny if I can't rape an 8 year old little boy?"
Or, stated in fewer words: You can't legislate morality.
"Morality" has nothing to do with it.
Businesses have all sorts of rational reasons for discriminating based on sex, race, ethnicity, etc. For example, a Korean laundry may prefer to hire other Koreans because they understand the culture. A business may prefer to hire only women because they make other women feel more comfortable.
Irrational discrimination, on the other hand, has simple economic consequences: businesses lose out on good employees. That's why businesses generally don't do it. The idea that good government protects minorities from immoral, irrational discrimination is utter nonsense. It was the US government that imposed racial segregation and discrimination on US companies, against their will.
The CRA is an attempt at social engineering and to impose those costs on businesses, and to pretend that prior discrimination was the fault of businesses rather than the fault of progressives/Democrats.
Lady Justice is always depicted as being blindfolded. If the law requires the blindfold be removed so Justice can determine the race of the individual, then it's "discrimination". Simple. The law needs to be blind.
The most basic premise of the law is that you should be able to read and understand the law and apply it consistently. This was why the code of Hammurabi was so important, because it was written in stone on the side of a building instead of being created and applied on the spot by the king, priest, or magistrate.
With the way our law has been interpreted, you cannot read the law and come to the conclusion that things mean that. There is no possible reading of the civil rights act that allows affirmative action because the words are simple and unambiguous. It's high time the court accepted this simple and clear language as being simple and clear.
the words are simple and unambiguous
Like "Congress shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed"?
It’s high time the court accepted this simple and clear language as being simple and clear.
You appear to be confused as to the purpose of the courts. Their job is not strike down legislation that goes against the clear language of the Constitution. No. Their job is to justify legislation by interpreting clear language to mean the opposite of what it says.
Once you accept that then it all makes sense.
True to your name there, good friend!
^ this is 100% correct. Every once in a while you get a justice who doesnt think that way but they are an outlier and the system closes ranks anyway (See California's judge Benitez)
"Why isn’t affirmative action in college admissions prohibited under the Civil Rights Act?"
A14 is probably all we need.
The written word says that people cannot be discriminated against on the basis of sex, not "sexual orientation". Sexual orientation is not sex.
Sexual orientation is not sex.
And the conflation that it is is about as mysogynistic and anti-impartial as the law could possibly get.
Sexual stereotypes are 'sex' according to the Price Waterhouse case.
What Gorsuch found, was that expecting employees to abide by 'straight' sexual stereotypes equates to unlawful sex discrimination, just like expecting a female employee to 'behave in a feminine manner' does...
And where exactly did the company "expect employees to abide by 'straight' sexual stereotypes"? What does creating a "gay employee softball league" have to do with "abiding by stereotypes"?
Nor will it ever be. After all, if there is no objective meaning of "woman," how can you claim to identify as one?
Sure there is an objective meaning of the word “woman”: a human being without a Y chromosome.
How DARE we use the plain words of the authors against the authors?! Logic is a tool of oppression and Gorsuch must be one of the oppressors or he would not insist on equality under the law! We demand a Humpty Dumpty Court immediately! “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” If the law we imposed on everyone does not selectively help one of our key demographics, then why would we have passed it?
For Gorsuch, the choice was clear: "When the express terms of a statute give us one answer and extratextual considerations suggest another, it's no contest. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit."
We need 8 more like him.
Thank god for Trump .
Pure textualism is b.s. Human language is ambiguous, and some of those ambiguities need to be resolved by looking at the background of the law in question. That won't change until we require lawmakers to write laws with mathematical precision.
In any case, in this case, Gorsuch's conclusions are wrong either as a textualist or as an originalist.
Pure textualism is b.s.,
Not for statutes it's not. In 99% of the cases this would limit the reach. In this one case, it happens to expand the reach but the big win here is the strict adherence to the text of the statue and going forward this may be applied with great results.
The discimination laws should all be scrapped anyway. it completely violates every man's natural right to free association.
Gorsuch's application is plainly wrong in this case. "Discrimination by sex" plainly means that if you change the sex of the plaintiff, would the company have acted differently.
The company fired a man for trying to found a gay softball league. Would the company have fired a woman for trying to found a gay softball league? Of course it would (or at the very least we have no evidence that it wouldn't).
Of course, the fundamental problem is that the CRA didn't actually define its terms, so the meaning of the term "discrimination" has expanded more and more from its plain meaning, so that Gorsuch reached his absurd, non-textualist conclusion. The CRA should have clearly defined what it mean by "discrimination", a clear test for what constitutes discrimination, what the necessary evidence for discrimination is, and how the protected characteristics are determined.
You do realize that if you have to twist the facts of a case to "win", then you deserve to lose, right?
This kind of twisting is as bad as "we didn't refuse to hire her for being a woman, we refused to hire her because, as a woman, she could get pregnant."
I’m not “twisting the facts”. The fact is that the guy was fired for trying to found a gay softball league. His sex or sexual orientation have literally nothing to do with that action.
Being a woman very much has something to do with getting pregnant.
Pretty sure he realizes that. That's why he called out Gorsuch for twisting the facts of the case and bastardizing the meaning of the word "sex" in order to reach the predetermined conclusion he wanted.
Paraphrasing Randy Barnett in Restoring the Lost Constitution 'If you're not going to use words in a consistent and clear manner, why bother writing anything down to begin with?'
No law is written down "in a consistent and clear manner". The English language is not capable of doing that.
We could write down laws in a consistent and clear manner: linguistics and mathematics have the tools for that. It is Barnett's profession who refuses to do so, because it is not in their interest. In fact, lawmakers frequently use words like "customary" or "usual" or "due".
Lawyers like Barnett don't even realize how far they are from anything objective, consistent, and clear.
It's far more likely that we will get more libs in the future, because Trump has destroyed the GOP's ability to assemble a viable presidential coalition.
Maybe a-lot-more if the crazy-train types (Oz, Masters, etc) keep winning primaries, and the Dems get the Senate votes needed to pack the court.
That must explain why millions of women and minorities are leaving the Democrat party and registering R.
"It’s far more likely that we will get more libs in the future, because Trump has destroyed the GOP’s ability to assemble a viable presidential coalition..."
See wwhat TDS does to TDS-addled piles of shit?
And if that happens, Americans will face Venezuela-style consequences.
I didn't realize Trump illegally changed election laws in every key battleground state under the pretext of a fabricated public health "emergency" and then bragged about it to Time Magazine, shreek. Man, that guy was devious as fuck.
>> urging respect for that precedent.
"please continue to rule antithetically to the law for the sake of ruling antithetically to the law."
Fingers crossed, the Lord willin' and the creek don't rise.
Preloga seems to be willfully inconsistent and illogical in this: "No, I'm not suggesting that," Prelogar answered. She was well aware that Gorsuch himself authored the Bostock opinion. But the Court has found the term discrimination to be ambiguous in the context of Title VI, she continued, urging respect for that precedent.
So she wants precedent respected (she can go on with a vague meaning of discrimination, thus allowing discrimination) or she wants precedent respected with a clear, plain meaning use of discrimination. Which is it?
Obviously, she is challenging Gorsuch - urging him to uphold the subjective interpretation of all laws over the simple text, so that the SCOTUS can continue to legislate by fiat.
I mean, that the precedent is muddled is 100% the SCOTUS's fault, as they've repeatedly said racial-based preferences in college admissions is both *not* a violation of the CRA and that it is a violation of the CRA.
Gorsuch knows better, and he also knows that no lawyer standing in front of the SCOTUS is going to call out the SCOTUS for it's role in muddling the waters. While it may be the purview of the SCOTUS to overrule SCOTUS precedent and say the SCOTUS got it wrong, it is very rarely appropriate for a lawyer to tell the SCOTUS the same.
It's eminently appropriate for a lawyer to tell SCOTUS that it erred if it erred. Essential even. You can't make an argument without actually making it. And let's not pretend you stand on such ceremony when you were blowing the kazoo up your faggot lover's faggot bunghole when Tony Kennedy went on a 7 page diatribe against religion while upholding faggot marriage.
You can always tell who is trying to mislead readers by noting how they use the term "affirmative action". AA is an effort to ensure minorities are included by (for example) ensuring jobs are promoted in minority targeted media and selective school requirements are coordinated with schools in majority black districts. These policies are not at issue.
The issue is schools and businesses offering race preferences for admission and employment. People who characterize opposition to this obviously illegal practice as opposition to affirmative action are trying to substitute AA because it make opponents seem more extreme. This is how propagandists work.
They are doing that only because government forces them to.
They are doing that only because government forces them to.
That's not true. Government racially discriminates itself. But other institutions do the same for many reasons including because they think it is good to racially discriminate or that they want to appeal to / mollify others who think racial discrimination is good.
Not to mention a few gabillion dollars hingeing on ESG and sustainability goals compliance.
"These policies are not at issue. "
Craziest internet post of the day. They most certainly are, which is the topic of the article. These policies are, bluntly, the very definition of discriminatory and unconstitutional.
They most certainly are, which is the topic of the article.
When someone makes such a vague and obviously false statement it's difficult to understand what they are thinking which misleads them. So I'll just note this:
Facts of the case
Petitioner Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued the University of North Carolina (UNC) over its admissions process, alleging that the process violates the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as a factor in admissions.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-707
People can note there is nothing in this case regarding how the institution invites potential students to apply, which would qualify as affirmative action. It deals only with how they grant race preferences to determine who is admitted.
Not exactly true.
"Affirmative Action", as a term, has been applied to many different policies over the decades. At one time it has meant quotas for employment, at others it has meant Texas's "10% rule".
That's what makes it such a great term for sound-bites. It can mean whatever you want it to mean, so as long as you have a good grasp of your audience, you can get them to agree with you wihtout having to actually say what you mean.
This is also why in the actual court filings you don't see the term used unless it is defined.
"You see, there's good discrimination and bad discrimination. Whatever we make you do is good discrimination, by definition, so it's ok."
Gorsuch very snarkily wrote about "unintended consequences" in his Bostock opinion, which I knew he was teeing up to use in future opinions. In fact, Bostock very much seems like it was written so that Gorsuch and friends could use it in the future to further conservative causes. These people are textualists when it is convenient for them to be. (For one mere example, the Constitution does not say that money is the same as speech, like these self-proclaimed textualists said it does.)
Nobody ever suggested that money is speech, Tony. They stated the plain and obvious truth that a film whose subject is a politician is speech, and that stifling that film on the eve of an election to shield said politician from negative publicity was blatantly unconstitutional, which it is. Hope that helps, you retarded faggot.
Because, for decades now, the SCOTUS has said that it isn't.
Full stop.
This is not a new question. The court addresses it roughly ever six-to-eight years, and has been for decades.
They have repeatedly refused to say that Affirmative Action in college admissions is illegal. They have repeatedly given thumbs up or thumbs down to some specific process, and said "see you in a few more years". Hell, the most recent time they gave approval was 2016 or so.
This is 100% a self-created problem for the SCOTUS. Gorsuch is just acting like a smug prick because he knew the lawyer would never say "well, it's not illegal because this court said it wasn't."
Yes, of course. It's Gorsuch's fault that he asked an attorney arguing a case to defend their position because the attorney didn't want to give the obvious answer.
VI does not permit discrimination on the basis of race." So why isn't affirmative action in college admissions prohibited under federal law?
"The term discrimination in this context is ambiguous," Prelogar replied.
"We didn't find it ambiguous in Bostock," Gorsuch said. "Why should we find it ambiguous now? Were we wrong in Bostock?"
"No, I'm not suggesting that," Prelogar answered. She was well aware that Gorsuch himself authored the Bostock opinion. But the Court has found the term discrimination to be ambiguous in the context of Title VI, she continued, urging respect for that precedent.
Gorsuch seemed to think there was no good r
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM