On the one hand you have Gorsuch making an argument that discrimination based on sexual orientation is by definition discrimination based on sex. He supports this claim by using a thought experiment "If the employer would have hired the person if the person's sex were different, that is sex discrimination". Basically, I refuse to hire a man because he likes other men, but if that man were a woman and still liked men, i'd hire him (in clown world). I believe it is more logically consistent to say that if the gay man were in fact a woman (in hypothetical land), he'd be a gay woman too. If gayness is not a choice, that is.

Indeed, Gorsuch's argument falls apart at a fundamental level due to the very fact that it can be interpreted two ways. Why does a gay man in hypothetical land, who magically becomes a woman, have to still like men? Why does the "gayness" fall off in his hypothetical situation, while the gender is changed to suit the argument? Moreover, why is this circus of mental gymnastics even entering the mind of a supreme court justice?

This is all so convoluted and ridiculous, it sounds like something a liberal made up to push an agenda. Liberals don't arrive at a conclusion using logical steps and facts to take them there. Rather the opposite. They have a result they want, and work backwards from that result, inventing hypothetical situations along the way. Ignoring established law and precedent is just the icing on the cake.

Kavanaugh's dissent was basically that there is no federal law protecting sexual orientation. Therefore it's not their job to create a new law to that effect, but rather congress' job. This is a fact.

So now we have judges creating laws out of thin air because of hypothetical and logically inconsistent arguments they make up in their minds. I think Gorsuch is either a plant or really really stupid.