Clarence Thomas: SCOTUS Protects Abortion, 'Looks Other Way' on 2A
(www.breitbart.com)
🔥 FIRE & FURY 💥
Comments (339)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
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
Too bad he didn't make it apply to race, too. Could have ended Affirmative Action without the Left even realizing it.
"using a person's race to deny or give advantage is discriminatory and thus not permissible" would have shot the Democrats in the face.
This ruling the justices specifically state they are only dealing with sex/gender
To make a ruling on race of a similar type a new case would need to be brought referencing this one as precedence - and I'm sure it would give the same outcome, but it needs to go to court for the specific topic of race
Isn't that what the sex part of the 1964 civil rights act already did?
sure did!
But very few people could be bothered to understand this, bringing about this newer ruling the reinforces the previous rulings but brought up to a modern day understanding
Ultimately this case is just a "yeah the original ruling still holds", but in a legal context it's important as it makes it much harder for special interest groups to argue against it, and makes it much easier for anyone fighting discrimination based on gender (especially if they were denied employment for being male)