The Supreme Court Just Turned A Law
To Protect Women Into A Weapon Against Them
The Federalist,
by
Jessica Prol Smith
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
6/17/2020 11:50:10 AM
There are few things more ruthlessly differentiated “on the basis of sex” than the maternity ward at a hospital. (Snip)
Fifty-six years ago, lawmakers passed a federal employment law — Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — to help ensure women wouldn’t be fired “because of sex” or conditions biologically tied to being a woman (specifically, pregnancy and childbirth). On Monday, however, a majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices retroactively redefined that federal law and the words “on the basis of sex” to be interpreted to include the more fluid, subjective, and personal notions of “gender identity” and “sexual orientation.”
Reply 1 - Posted by:
earlybird 6/17/2020 11:55:22 AM (No. 447527)
The recounting in this article of the test case - a male funeral director who wanted to start dressing as a woman and was let go - will make you sick. That six justices could make such a sweeping change, with such far-reaching consequences, on the basis of this case is sickening. Highly recommended read...
11 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Ida Lou Pino 6/17/2020 12:15:27 PM (No. 447552)
When the law was first passed - - "sex" meant your biological makeup.
But now - - these doofus judges are defining "sex" as how you behave. Behavior now determines sex - - not biology.
Insane? Yes - - very much so.
12 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Highvoltage 6/17/2020 12:17:09 PM (No. 447557)
I suppose now a if a church hires a minister who wants to 'change his gender' and preach a different gender from the pulpit then he cannot be fired. However, church members can walk out. ha ha ha.
3 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
mathman 6/17/2020 12:19:30 PM (No. 447562)
Now we know why Google cut The Federalist. We cannot have facts. We must rely on the narrative from ValJar.
5 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Felixed 6/17/2020 12:21:32 PM (No. 447566)
I'd like to know two things:
1) when (or if) the Federalist will be able to restore their comments section.
2) exactly _what is it_ that they have on Chief Justice John Roberts?
12 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 6/17/2020 12:24:54 PM (No. 447570)
Its a ruling we have come to expect from years of balck-robed demigod gopberment employment! I'm glad to see men can now compete in women's sports. Maybe the WNBA will get entertaining now
3 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
JunkYardDog 6/17/2020 12:28:21 PM (No. 447575)
I think do should have a do-over here. Lots of women will see this law used against them. Why didn't that crone Ginsburg, or Kagan or Sotomayor, see this as an attack on women? What are THEY hiding under their robes?
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
LeeBertie 6/17/2020 12:37:54 PM (No. 447587)
It's MUCH more than "The Law", Jessica Prol Smith. While you may not completely quite understand the full consequences of this decision quite yet, but your great-granddaughters will define you as a misogynistic traitor to the "idea" of womanhood and remove your photos and all references to you from the virtual family albums of the future.
It's the Culture.
2 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
earlybird 6/17/2020 1:07:32 PM (No. 447622)
About the author:
FTA:
Justice Samuel Alito clearly said as much in his dissent: “There is only one word for what the Court has done today: legislation. The document that the Court releases is in the form of a judicial opinion interpreting a statute, but that is deceptive.”
My employer, Alliance Defending Freedom, represented R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes in the case dealing with the question of “gender identity.” The Harris case centers on a family-owned business in the Detroit metro area.
Smith makes it clear that she understands the law, disagrees with the SCOTUS’s making law, and the dreadful effect this will have on women and girls.
Good idea to read the article.
4 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
SnowQueen 6/17/2020 1:13:15 PM (No. 447629)
As women, we simply need to learn that men make better women than women. In sports, male women are taller and stronger, and that's what determines the winners. On stage, male women are prettier -- in no small part because they wear wigs and pancake makeup and prosthetic breasts, butts, and hips, judiciously applied over long, lean muscle mass. When it comes to daily life, male women are obviously better at managing female hormones -- because imaginary periods and pregnancies and motherhood are definitely easier to pull off than the real thing. I guess we should thank the Supreme Court. It's never been easy for biological women to accept our role as second-class citizens, but eventually, if they make enough laws, we'll learn.
11 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
whyyeseyec 6/17/2020 1:17:19 PM (No. 447634)
Congress could pass a law tomorrow to fix this SC decision - but they won't.
5 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
wilarrbie 6/17/2020 1:36:18 PM (No. 447660)
The crux of the article is not just the faulty logic of the decision, but what the SC did to acknowledge it. They did not INTERPRET the law - they redefined meaning of the word of the law, thereby changing the original intent of the law. in other words, the judges became legislators. It's like a step-child of the process wherein legislators who cannot get a certain law to pass, they then resort to making Regulations for the same effect.
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
msjena 6/17/2020 1:50:37 PM (No. 447679)
Chief Justice Roberts was a swamp-dweller before he was named to the Supreme Court. He lived in the DC area, worked for a prominent DC law firm, was a judge on the DC Circuit. He had a history of representing gay rights activists and other liberal causes pro bono. He is a DC Republican, first, conservative, second. It is shocking, in retrospect, that he voted with the minority in the gay marriage case, because his ruling on churches in the pandemic and now this, indicate he has gone over to the liberal side.
5 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Timber Queen 6/17/2020 1:54:36 PM (No. 447683)
I like the quote from J.K. Rowling, "But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head...or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive."
Our culture has come to recognize that black-faced whites are an offensive caricature of another race that can only be seen as derogatory presentations. Yet, we are to accept men "presenting" as women as "real" women. What would be the outcry if black-faced whites insisted that they be considered, treated and spoken to as if they were blacks?
It is long past time for our country to repeal all the special Civil Rights legislation; all quotas for minorities and women, and all affirmative action regulations. This Marxist garbage was designed to weaken our Constitution and our coherence as a society. I'm sure it has performed its function even beyond the dreams of its designers. The American Restoration depends upon the dismantling of these extra-Constitutional "rights". Repeal all special set-asides. Our Constitution speaks only of rights for all U.S. citizens with no special language for each special group. The big propaganda line today is "We're all in this together." Well, if that is to be true then we all have to be Americans first and only.
8 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
mathman 6/17/2020 2:04:35 PM (No. 447698)
In biology we learn that there are two sexes needed for procreation. One is called male, and produces sperm. The other is called female, and produces eggs. Without both, most species do not reproduce. That is still true today.
To "identify" as a sperm producer or egg producer without the appropriate biological organs is sheer nonsense. Testes = male. Ovaries = female. Simple.
I can identify as Napoleon, but that makes me crazy. Once such persons were locked up.
Similarly "transgender" persons are suffering from a delusion.
It is time we stopped letting them run things.
9 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
tomatonut 6/17/2020 3:37:18 PM (No. 447805)
This is exactly why I left law school years ago: Congress no longer legislates--someone might be offended!-- and the courts, especially the Supreme Court, has happily stepped in to legislate for them. This judicial activism is applauded by dolts, nearly all of them "educated" by our nation's public schools. Finding a thoughtful, independent-minded graduate from those schools is now like finding a needle in a haystack. As Richard Mitchell wrote years ago, "American public education is a remarkable enterprise; it succeeds best where it fails."
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)