@Macha said in RL things I love:
I second that. ... fucking go, Gorsuch?
I wasn't too surprised that Gorsuch wrote it. He's a textualist, but a pragmatist, and the writing was on the wall. The instant the Sixth Circuit applied Title VII to sexual orientation discrimination claims, the game was over.
"An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions ... . That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.
. . .
“We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex ... . But, as we’ve seen, discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex; the first cannot happen without the second.”
This so beautifully sums up what I have been thinking since I wrote a damn paper in law school on the topic. You cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation or gender identity without discriminating based on sex. And it all comes down to the premise beyond Title VII's sex discrimination prohibition: that part of a person's identity has nothing to do with whether they can or cannot successfully carry out a job's duties and obligations.