Who could have predicted this?!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40419922)

https://constitutionus.com/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40419926)

law bort?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40420018)

Gorsuch sailed through confirmation because he was obviously qualified.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40420037)

He makes a very tight argument and very defensible as the correct conservative position (matches Roberts' dissent in Windsor). But Roberts and Gorsuch realize they'll just be overturned in 10-15 years if they're able to hold the line.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40420063)

But it will be interesting to see how they handle this question in the future on religious grounds since they have been trying to carve out religious exemptions, i.e., can Hobby Lobby fire lesbians?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40420015)

what the fuck were these cucks thinking?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40420040)

Walk me through this. If you fire a woman for dating a woman but not a man for doing the same thing, that's sex discrimination. Whether you put the word "gay" in front of them doesn't change anything: a man and a woman are treated differently than someone of the opposite sex would be for the same activity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40421107)

i'm a lawyer btw

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40421160)

This is basically Loving v. Virginia reframed. Saying "but blacks and whites can both marry within their own race" is the same as saying "men and women and can both fuck members of the opposite sex"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40426425)

i’ll concede that reality may not always play out this way. there’s probably more animus toward gay men than gay women, and if an employer fires a gay man when the employer wouldn’t have fired a gay woman in the same circumstances, that’s discrimination on the basis of sex. but discrimination against gays isn’t categorically discrimination on the basis of sex.

and keep in mind that all i have to do is show that the above interpretation is reasonable in order for the court’s decision to be wrong. as long as there’s reasonable disagreement about the statute’s meaning, we move on to legislative history and the gays instantly lose.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40423140)

the longer this discussion goes on, the more it proves that the statute’s text is open to differing reasonable interpretations.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40424565)

isn't this basically the same as if you had a policy of firing white employees for living in black neighborhoods and firing black employees for living in white neighborhoods? you can't just avoid a racial discrimination claim by saying, "well, i treat them the exact same way: they are both allowed to live in a neighborhood with a majority of residents of the same race as themselves. i fired that black guy for being 'residentially interracial' and would fire a white guy if he were residentially interracial as well. so it's not discrimination on the basis of race (a protected class), it's discrimination on the basis of residential interracialness (not a protected class)."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40426399)

Loving involved action (refusal to do something) based purely on racial grounds. Whereas here we have a private business's religious belief coming into apparent conflict with the CRA.

I just don't like the courts deciding what are clearly issues for the legislature. Congress could have easily fixed this by updating the CRA to expressly include sexual orientation. This has pretty wide popular support and would be a relatively easy win for the Dems.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40426455)

"Congress could have easily fixed this by updating the CRA to expressly include sexual orientation"

I agree that would be a better solution for lots of reasons,

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40426544)

There were gay people in the 1960s and they were definitely a minority. If Congress wanted to include them in the definition, they had every opportunity to do so, but didn't.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40426553)

Racial attraction is a different category than race

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40426709)

seems irrelevant. good one to cuck on if you need to cuck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40420105)

Personally I see almost no future in these cases. which is one reason why Roberts & Gorsuch were willing to vote for the plaintiff here; their corporate masters aren't actually afraid of these lawsuits.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40423906)

LOL. We're done. Our court is stacked with libs

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40420220)

This case was always fucked bc of roberts

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40420583)

right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40420943)

We need impeachment to be more common, we need states to nullify. Otherwise it's time to dust off the guns.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4560838&forum_id=2#40424602)