News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by LudwigNagasena on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:35AM (#23528464)
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.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by SkyBelow on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:55AM (#23528769)
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.

Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by LudwigNagasena on Monday June 15, 2020 @04:09PM (#23532369)
Page 17 of the dissent analyzes your example.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by rrrrrrrrrrrryan on Monday June 15, 2020 @12:12PM (#23528976)
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.

Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by LudwigNagasena on Monday June 15, 2020 @04:24PM (#23532531)
This sounds like a gotcha rather than an argument. Does this ruling mean gendered dress codes are now illegal in the US?
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by rrrrrrrrrrrryan on Monday June 15, 2020 @04:43PM (#23532731)
It has been since the late 80s, yes, when a similar ruling was made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins

Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by LudwigNagasena on Monday June 15, 2020 @07:17PM (#23534205)
This is not about dress code. Otherwise 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.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by cowboysauce on Monday June 15, 2020 @01:05PM (#23529774)
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.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by dointheatl on Monday June 15, 2020 @01:32PM (#23530229)
"Are employees allowed to wear dresses and high heel shoes to work?"

"Well, that depends."

"What does it depend on?"

"..."

Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by Pfhreak on Monday June 15, 2020 @11:56AM (#23528780)
Clearly, it's not "pretty obvious" or there wouldn't be this case or ruling.