Some thoughts while reading the transcript:
- Can I object to Justice Robert’s question that literally makes no sense? “In other words, if the objection of a transgender man transitioning to woman is that he should be allowed to use, he or she, should be allowed to use the women’s bathroom, now, how do you analyze that?”
- Roberts pushed hard for “transgender status” as the key issue at hand rather than sex-based discrimination. “Because if it’s just biological sex, there’s no problem b/c there is no disadvantage. But if you’re looking at transgender status, there is a huge problem…”
- Bursch for petitioner (funeral home) states “What Title VII says is that sex-based differentiation is not the same as sex discrimination.” hmmmm….
- The basis of the Bursh/funeral home/anti-trans argument is to fundamentally deny the existence & legitimacy of trans people. It may work before #SCOTUS but young people will not stand for it. #future#LGBTQ#RiseUpOctober8
- EEOC/anti-trans side argued, “If you treat an aggressive woman worse than an aggressive man, you are violating Title VII because you’re treating similarly situated people differently.” Is someone going to clue him in? #AG#stud#pride
- SOTOMAYOR: “We can’t deny that homosexuals are being fired merely for being who they are & not because of religious reasons. . .They may have power in some regions, but they are still being beaten, they are still being ostracized from certain things.” #scotus#thanks#RiseUpOct8
- History shows this not to be true at all: EEOC “Everybody here agrees that Congress never thought that by prohibiting discrimination based on sex, they would also be prohibiting discrimination based on two very different traits, sexual orientation and gender identity.”