The SCOTUS ruling yesterday essentially gutted Title IX protections for women's sports.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How's that?The SCOTUS ruling yesterday essentially gutted Title IX protections for women's sports.
How do work-place protections "gut" Title IX?The SCOTUS ruling yesterday essentially gutted Title IX protections for women's sports.
Gauche.I think it’s great my daughter gets to compete against girls with dongs. She will be forced to elevate her game.
How would you have phrased it, oh sophisticated one?Gauche.
So a ruling that says you can't harass or fire people at work for being different from you is a bad thing now? Who knew?
Did the ruling require using a subjective standard for gender? I’m wondering if schools could still apply some sort of objective standard to determine whether someone plays with the males or females, ie, do you have testosterone producing testicles or not? This wouldn’t be preventing anyone from playing sports, just categorizing who plays in which category, which seems to be a fundamental aspect of Title IX to begin with.
The end game is to weaponize this ruling against churches. Women’s sports are collateral damage.
Good. So we can have as many baseball players on full scholarship as Vandy now??The SCOTUS ruling yesterday essentially gutted Title IX protections for women's sports.
If it is no longer legal to distinguish between men and women for the purposes of sports participation and competing for scholarships and we are going to allow people born as men to play women’s sports... Why HAVE women’s athletics? If there is no difference, and it all matters the same, and we cannot legally distinguish between the sexes or treat them differently... Basically they just made the idea of even having separate men’s and women's teams illegal. Right? Let the women who want to play sports and get athletic scholarships compete on an even field with men for those spots then. If there is no difference... Segregation of RACE Has been outlawed for decades.... Because “we are all the same”... Except now like 70% or more of football players are African American. So if that is the case ARE we the same? Why are more African Americans recruited to play football? Or Basketball? Is it fair for white kids to compete against African Americans for the same scholarships given that clearly people find that African Americans are athletically superior? If that is fair and if we are all equals then women should not be put on different teams from men. Going forward all teams should be integrated. If that is proposed and anyone currently arguing for the inclusion of transgender “females” into women’s athletics can explain how one makes sense and one does not, well I suspect theIr entire argument would fall apart pretty quick.
The end game is to weaponize this ruling against churches. Women’s sports are collateral damage.
How would you see it being "weaponized" against churches?
Though I don't watch much (any), it's all were good it these days.I know if women's sports did go away, i'd have a hard time sleeping at night.
Totally agree about churches.No longer could churches base employment on values or beliefs.
As Alito pointed out in his dissent, this is going to lead to a glut of court cases. Conservative churches across America have church constitutions that address sexuality. To be a member of the church, one cannot be a homosexual, lesbian, transgender, etc. Those church constitutions are going to be challenged left and right.
Just as with people walking into bakery and trying to get them to make a cake for a gay wedding, knowing full well that it violates the owner's beliefs, you'll have people trying to join churches and when denied, they'll sue.
And that would seem to be a good thing. Employees cannot terminate employment for someone solely based on them being gay. Seems reasonable. I guess also sad that a religous organization would take issue with that.
Not sure it's reasonable for the state to force churches to hire people who are at odds with church teachings.
Obviously, no one is perfect, so churches hire sinners. But churches should be allowed to deny unrepentant people who go against church teachings. At least IMO.
Not sure it's reasonable for the state to force churches to hire people who are at odds with church teachings.
Obviously, no one is perfect, so churches hire sinners. But churches should be allowed to deny unrepentant people who go against church teachings. At least IMO.
The ruling doesnt say they have to hire them. It says they cant fire them because of it.
But realistically, you and I both know this ruling based on firing can be used for hiring practices too. I mean, politics aside, supreme court rulings are rarely narrowly interpreted.
Also, I dont really think the state should tell a church they can't fire someone for unrepentantly go against church teachings either.
I think a better question for the church goer is to ask why would their church fire someone for being who they are. Certiainly sounds very un-Christ-like at a minimum.
A serial killer is “who they are”. Christ gave His life to save people from their ?In the long run no one knows how Supreme Court rulings will be interpreted. The justices job is to decide the case on the legality and merits of the case. Which they did.
I think a better question for the church goer is to ask why would their church fire someone for being who they are. Certiainly sounds very un-Christ-like at a minimum.
So naacp going to have to hire whitesNot sure it's reasonable for the state to force churches to hire people who are at odds with church teachings.
Obviously, no one is perfect, so churches hire sinners. But churches should be allowed to deny unrepentant people who go against church teachings. At least IMO.