Thank you! I think I understand what you’re trying to say here, and it also clarifies why I found this response confusing. I think this idea of a loophole is t

Thank you! I think I understand what you’re trying to say here, and it also clarifies why I found this response confusing. I think this idea of a loophole is too caught up in actions leading to discrimination; and also the specific setups of the tests that the Supreme Court laid out in their ruling. There need not be a specific counter-example within an organization to compare against when determining if an action was discriminatory or not. And moreover they weren’t really talking about “actions taken that are incongruous with sex stereotypes.” My understanding of the ruling (after reading it) is that if an employer fired you for being gay/bisexual, even just for stating the fact that you are, that would still amount to discrimination based on sex stereotypes. Then again, I’m sure finer legal minds than mine will find any such loopholes that do exist over the course of the next two years. >_<