6 ms·
The crux of the argument is: "Pretend that you could magically change a person to the opposite sex but leave everything else the same. If that changes your deci
by defen 6y ago
The crux of the argument is: "Pretend that you could magically change a person to the opposite sex but leave everything else the same. If that changes your decision to fire the person, it's sex-based discrimination."
- rayiner 6y agoI don’t think that quite explains it—try applying that thought experiment to a man or woman fired for being bisexual. I think the Price Waterhouse precedent of conforming to sex-based norms is an indispensable part of the puzzle.
- areyousure 6y agoThe majority opinion doesn't mention the word "bisexual" ... perhaps indeed because their argument doesn't work? 'defen seems to summarize the crux correctly. "Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague."
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 6y agoYes, the fight for explicit protection via legislation does need to continue, because this decision (potentially) leaves a loophole open to fire bisexuals, asexuals, etc. Still a step forward, though.