2304
Comments (162)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
tgwbd 1 point ago +2 / -1

That's literally the exact opposite of what Gorsuch's ruling says.

He goes to great lengths to avoid the "protected class" bull and focus on how the law applies to an individual. He backs this up by pointing out that the text of the law itself speaks to an individual right, not a protected class.

If you really read his opinion I think it's pretty clear he just intentionally and very slyly decimated the whole "protected class" regulatory mindset that has perverted the original intent of the 1964 Republican-passed law. It was always supposed to be an individual right to not to be discriminated against for an enumerated list of physical characteristics one cannot change. It was never supposed to be a way for assholes to run around screaming they are part of a protected class so you can't touch them. That interpretation has always been utter bull.

Don't fall into the trap of interpreting the law the way the Uniparty executive branch has chosen to interpret it for the past 50 years. Interpret the law as it was actually written. Gorsuch firmly did that today.

Swamp BTFO.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
tgwbd 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't know about you, but I would fire an employee for lying to me for any reason.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1