News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by ThrowawayR2 on Monday June 15, 2020 @12:29PM (#23529190)
> "You're absolutely allowed to discriminate based on hair color because it's not a protected class."

The "not a protected class" counterargument is self-defeating because it suggests that discrimination was A-OK before that protected class was created by law. If illegality does not imply immorality, as is often said on HN, then conversely legality does not imply morality.

Re:U.S. Supreme Court endorses gay, transgender worker prote... by sfkdjf9j3j on Monday June 15, 2020 @01:20PM (#23530030)
That's the inverse, not the converse, and if we're talking about propositional logic it is not implied by the original statement.