5 ms·

Yeah, the explanation is that “sex” means “sex” and it doesn’t mean “sexual orientation” or “transgender status”. This seems pretty obvious. Why did 6 vote for

Yeah, the explanation is that “sex” means “sex” and it doesn’t mean “sexual orientation” or “transgender status”. This seems pretty obvious. Why did 6 vote for seems more questionable, the Supreme Court is a judicial branch, not a legislative one.

SkyBelow 6y ago
Because the notion of sex is implicit in some sexual orientations. If you fire a man for loving some individual, but not fire a woman for loving the same individual, then that is discrimination on the basis of sex. The question that I think is still untested is what happens when you consider someone asexual or bisexual, as that isn't as simple a case to handle as just flipping the genders. If you fire a man for loving two people and fire a woman for loving those same two people, it doesn't appear you are discriminating based on sex. But given that such a relationship would also be considered poly-amorous bisexual and not monogamous bisexual, and given that the likelihood of having a business that only fired people for poly-amorous bisexual relationships and not for monogamous homosexual relationships is extremely small, I'm guessing it will be some time before it is tested in courts.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  Page 17 of the dissent analyzes your example.
Pfhreak 6y ago
Clearly, it's not "pretty obvious" or there wouldn't be this case or ruling.
rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
Can you define homosexuality without invoking sex? Can you find a way to say "this person is straight" or "this person is gay" without bringing that individual's sex into the equation? That's basically the argument. Discriminating against a woman who is in a relationship with a woman is discrimination against (certain) women, because if she were a male, in a relationship with that same woman, she would be treated differently.
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  This sounds like a gotcha rather than an argument. Does this ruling mean gendered dress codes are now illegal in the US?
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
    It has been since the late 80s, yes, when a similar ruling was made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins
    - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
      This is not about dress code. Otherwise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen_v._Harrah%27s_Operating_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen_v._Harrah%27s_Operat.... would have a different outcome. It sounds like a Bergeronian dystopia to deny sexed nature of humans and claim that every sexed treatment is discrimination.
cowboysauce 6y ago
You don’t need to mention sexual orientation at all. It’s illegal to fire a woman for being married to a man. If it’s legal to fire a man for being married to a man then you’re discriminating based on sex. The sexual orientations of the people involved are irrelevant.
dointheatl 6y ago
"Are employees allowed to wear dresses and high heel shoes to work?" "Well, that depends." "What does it depend on?" "..."

SkyBelow 6y ago

Because the notion of sex is implicit in some sexual orientations. If you fire a man for loving some individual, but not fire a woman for loving the same individual, then that is discrimination on the basis of sex. The question that I think is still untested is what happens when you consider someone asexual or bisexual, as that isn't as simple a case to handle as just flipping the genders. If you fire a man for loving two people and fire a woman for loving those same two people, it doesn't appear you are discriminating based on sex. But given that such a relationship would also be considered poly-amorous bisexual and not monogamous bisexual, and given that the likelihood of having a business that only fired people for poly-amorous bisexual relationships and not for monogamous homosexual relationships is extremely small, I'm guessing it will be some time before it is tested in courts.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
Page 17 of the dissent analyzes your example.

Pfhreak 6y ago

Clearly, it's not "pretty obvious" or there wouldn't be this case or ruling.

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago

Can you define homosexuality without invoking sex? Can you find a way to say "this person is straight" or "this person is gay" without bringing that individual's sex into the equation? That's basically the argument. Discriminating against a woman who is in a relationship with a woman is discrimination against (certain) women, because if she were a male, in a relationship with that same woman, she would be treated differently.

LudwigNagasena 6y ago
This sounds like a gotcha rather than an argument. Does this ruling mean gendered dress codes are now illegal in the US?
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y ago
  It has been since the late 80s, yes, when a similar ruling was made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins
  - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    This is not about dress code. Otherwise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen_v._Harrah%27s_Operating_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jespersen_v._Harrah%27s_Operat.... would have a different outcome. It sounds like a Bergeronian dystopia to deny sexed nature of humans and claim that every sexed treatment is discrimination.

cowboysauce 6y ago

You don’t need to mention sexual orientation at all. It’s illegal to fire a woman for being married to a man. If it’s legal to fire a man for being married to a man then you’re discriminating based on sex. The sexual orientations of the people involved are irrelevant.

dointheatl 6y ago

"Are employees allowed to wear dresses and high heel shoes to work?" "Well, that depends." "What does it depend on?" "..."