Having laid out this rule, Gorsuch then explains why discrimination against LGBTQ employees constitutes “sex discrimination” by laying out two examples.

Consider, for example, an employer with two employees, both of whom are attracted to men. The two individuals are, to the employer’s mind, materially identical in all respects, except that one is a man and the other a woman. If the employer fires the male employee for no reason other than the fact he is attracted to men, the employer discriminates against him for traits or actions it tolerates in his female colleague.

That is, if an employer permits its female employees to have sexual and romantic attractions to men but denies that same right to male employees, it is engaged in sex discrimination. It treats men differently than women.

Gorsuch also applies similar logic to a transgender employee:

Or take an employer who fires a transgender person who was identified as a male at birth but who now identifies as a female. If the employer retains an otherwise identical employee who was identified as female at birth, the employer intentionally penalizes a person identified as male at birth for traits or actions that it tolerates in an employee identified as female at birth. Again, the individual employee’s sex plays an unmistakable and impermissible role in the discharge decision.

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/15/21291515/supreme-court-bostock-clayton-county-lgbtq-neil-gorsuch

This entire case falls apart if you get rid of the SEX protection lol. I love this because it should make everyone happy (but it probably won't). LGBTQ people get their protections and we still get to respect biology. Male/female are determined at birth.

One thing this doesn't do (like Tim Pool suggested) is that you can't claim to be a different species because this is about SEX. Tim Pool suggested you could identify as a tiger or something but that really doesn't apply.

Let's say Person X and Person Y identify as a tiger. If person X is a female and Person Y is a male and you fire them both then it's not sex discrimination.

The only way that would be sex discrimination is if you allow a male to be a tiger and not a female (or vice versa).

Ultimately, this ruling means that as a human you have equal rights and your sex/gender can not be discriminated against regardless of what it is.

Do nothing democrat libtards have no idea what they've unleashed and will work very very hard to frame this in a way to hide the reality of it
This ruling completely squashes quota hiring, bias hiring and any type of hiring that uses immutable traits to preferentially select.
All it needs is for someone to send a test case to set the precedent

The entire ruling actually makes specific points of not making it about gender, and instead makes it very clear that a persons gender/sex/identified preference can not be used to deny or give advantage to anyone

This is actually great, as it means that men can use these rulings in places like custody cases, access to gender based programs and anyone charging men more money due to muh wage gap.

I'm seeing far too many people making claims about implications of what this means, but really just pushing an agenda into the commentary.

This video reading by a lawyer is a straight reading of the ruling, with mild commentary.
The video is an hour and a half long, but if you want to understand it, without prestitutes putting a huge amount of agenda and spin on it, this is the way to go.

My takeaway is, the legal concept being used is "but for", as in, but for the sex/gender label this would not happen.

Basically, the ruling means using a persons gender to deny OR GIVE ADVANTAGE is discriminatory and thus not permissible

It's not freedom oriented. Private citizens should be able to choose who their associate with. The government has decided, that instead you are OBLIGATED to give your labor (paycheck, product, service, etc) to other people because of their arbitrary characteristics.

Well I'm not exactly sure how that applies to anything that I've said, but I agree with you that we shouldn't do this but I would make one stipulation. I do think Trump was right that we should help people based on class e.g. his healthcare bill provided free care to the poorest American citizens.

I'd be interested in hearing how you think it applies to how people dress or otherwise. What do you think is going to happen? It's not like strip clubs and places like Hooters are going to all of a sudden start being forced to hire trans employees https://www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9