3026
Comments (309)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
155
deleted 155 points ago +156 / -1
58
deleted 58 points ago +58 / -0
16
CitizenPlain 16 points ago +16 / -0

Thanks Gorswitch!

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
6
deleted 6 points ago +6 / -0
2
when_we_win_remember 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well, female sport is discrimination based on sex. The text of the law says so. Checkmate TERFs

38
chuckachookah 38 points ago +40 / -2

The evidence is now "cause I said so" or "that's how I feel".

Let that sink in.

Our Supreme Court is now accepting feelings and proclamation as facts and they are allowing that to be the basis of a finding for someone else's wrong-doing.

AAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA [Deep Breath] AAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA

Sigh.

[Start crying. Realizing it's not a joke] < I am right here.

Additional Gun Purchases & FUCKING BOATLOADS of ammo

More target practice

Revised security operations in/around properties

Forging of new alliances based on Rule of Actual Law

????

20
Italians_Invented_2A 20 points ago +20 / -0

Just like in the UK, where something is a hate crime only if it's perceived by the victim or by any other person

I'm not joking, the law actually says perceived

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
7
walt 7 points ago +7 / -0

What if I perceive that law as hateful?

9
Italians_Invented_2A 9 points ago +9 / -0

Technically lots of things on left wing media like the guardian or the BBC are hate crimes. They commit hate crime all the time.

But the laws are used only against white men.

3
BattleToad8999 3 points ago +3 / -0

What you just said was deeply hurtful to me Italians_Invented_2A. I would venture to say it was even ... criminally hateful ... (pinky to mouth corner) MUHAHAHAHAHAH!

2
Chopblock 2 points ago +2 / -0

Technically that’s not true.

The ruling specifically mentioned that the perceptions or self-identified gender ideas were immaterial to the argument, it was employers’ basing discriminatory actions dependent on their biological sex that triggered the law.

2
chuckachookah 2 points ago +3 / -1

Yeah, yeah... wait until the circuit courts interpret this ruling. They will interpret this however the fuck they want. And, it will all come at a cost to white, christian, men.

Mark it down.

Tell me how I'm wrong.

1
Chopblock 1 point ago +1 / -0

You’re technically wrong, is how.

8
Kekistani 8 points ago +8 / -0

Story time.

At a pharmaceutical company that's developing "the vaccine," a lady got fired for refusing to use the same locker room as the man with a penis claiming he was a woman. She lost a good paying job. This was years ago.

This year, the man is still a man and got married to a woman.

5
mugwump 5 points ago +5 / -0

I mean we can use it to our advantage too. There’s plenty of “sexual identities” where you could be married but be “non-straight”

3
nothingberg 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm a citizen of the US in another dimension, so laws don't apply to me--outside of their jurisdiction

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0