U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker protections

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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?

[ Parent | on HN ]

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

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]