Title VII of 1964 & Transgender Employment Discrimination

Author: TWS1405
transgender
SCOTUS
discrimination
legislating from the bench
Title VII

Posts

Total: 48
Topic's author
#31
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
My argument is that the wording of the law precludes setting one rule for men, and another for woman.

But it does!

When it comes to dress codes, so long as it is not sexually provocative to disparage women, it is perfectly acceptable to require men to dress as men based on societal/cultural standards and the same for women within the context of the business qualification standards. 
#32
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
But it does! 

When it comes to dress codes, so long as it is not sexually provocative to disparage women, it is perfectly acceptable to require men to dress as men based on societal/cultural standards and the same for women within the context of the business qualification standards. 
Not according to the text of title VII - specifically given in my posts above,  and the summarized in the uncontested points C1 and C2.

Your objection is also circular reasoning:

C3: asserting that having different rules for different dress codes is okay (or variations therein), in response to an argument that explains why it isn’t - is circular reasoning.


Topic's author
#33
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Wrong. I've cited detailed info & cases that prove dress codes can be different for men and women. There is no circular reasoning on my part. That's on you. 
You continue to refuse to read the OP and address the arguments Stephens made which are fallacious, as I had pointed out. 
Conversing with you is like beating a dead horse, and we both know that dead horse will never get up to drink from the trough. 
I'm done with you and your tunnel vision and pomposity.
#34
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
Wrong. I've cited detailed info & cases that prove dress codes can be different for men and women. 

The details info and cases you have shared are all invalid: please refer the post above - which you ignored. This post explained why the case you cited is invalid, BFOQ doesn’t apply, and how your explanations contradict a textual interpretation of the law.

There is no circular reasoning on my part. That's on you. 

I have explained use the laws text, and the textualist approach to explain why the text of the law precludes dress code discrimination.

Stating that dress code discrimination is not illegal, because it is legal - is absolutely circular. As explained in the post above that you ignored.

You must share a valid textualist or formal legal basis for why the dress code is legal ; which you haven’t really done.

You continue to refuse to read the OP and address the arguments Stephens made which are fallacious, as I had pointed out. 
Conversing with you is like beating a dead horse, and we both know that dead horse will never get up to drink from the trough. 
I'm done with you and your tunnel vision and pomposity.

Another ad-hominem.

You are arguing for textualist. I used textualism to show you how the law explicitly prohibits this discrimination. That’s a simple open and shut rebuttal of your position.

By all means, show me how that interpretation of the legal text is not correct; or how the legal text specifically allows for exceptions that you describe.

You’re not doing that, you’re just asserting that I’m wrong over and over again. You have gone out of your way to avoid actually citing the statutes you keep telling me allow for discrimination.  Your inability to prove me wrong is not my concern.

I have a detailed and comprehensive summary of why my interpretation is valid and yours is not in the post above (#28) which you have completely ignored.

Perhaps when you said:

Prove me wrong 

You meant:

Prove me wrong: but don’t use any arguments. Or evaluate the legal text. Or use logic. Or consistently apply textualism. Or call me out for poor logic.

Because it seems you’re more than willing to argue - until the point your position is demonstrated false - then you ignore everyone and start name along.
#35
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
Ordinary meaning of the legal text... 

HMMMM!!!!  Man is a man. Woman is a woman. Pretty simple

Man dressing as a woman IS NOT a woman.

Woman dressing as a man IS NOT a man. 

So you’ve dropped - and thus conceded that whether the law was intended to cover transgenderism, or that it was contemporaneously acceptable in 1964 - is irrelevant if you apply textualism. Awesome.


So - this is important - let’s say this loud and clear, and repeat it so that you understand it.

The legal justification I put forward is not that a woman is a man; or a man is a woman. At all. No where have I stated this, assumed it, my legal argument doesn’t require it. Nothing I have said implies, suggests or intimates this is the case. This argument is plainly and totally manufactured by you.

That you keep suggesting this interpretation is my argument - when it clearly and objectively isn’t - is a colossal raging straw man. Stop it.

Taking the ordinary meaning at the time: a man is a biological man, and a woman is a biological woman - then the clear and plain text of the law states almost explicitly that if you fire a biological man for something; but would not fire a woman for the exact same thing - this is by definition of the legal text - discrimination on the basis of sex. 

Firing a transgender man - is firing what you call a “biological man” for doing something that is acceptable for a “biological woman”. Clear cut violation of the exact text and ordinary meaning of the law

Feel free to explain how the specific legal text allows you to fire men for doing something a woman would not be fired: or a Muslim fired for what would be okay for a Christian: or a black being fired for something a white would not.

You won’t - because you can’t - hence why you appear you have stopped even trying.

You cite BFOQ as an exception; BFOQ - as cited in the original text of the law - apply’s to cases where a specific gender or religion is genuinely required for that role in a business - which is the case in a strip club, or hooters - but clearly not the case in the funeral home.

Feel free to explain the legal / textual basis for suggesting that BFOQ applies in the case of dress codes other than “because I said so”

You won’t - because you can’t - hence why you appear to have stopped trying.

Likewise; you cite a single precedent from 1975 - an appeal to authority - which Is countered by an appeal to a higher authority.

You offer no justification as to why the reasoning of this decision is more valid than my own. Where as I have explained why the decision is faulty.

Feel free to explain why the reasoning of the decision you cite is more valid than the reasoning I have provided.

You won’t - because you can’t - hence why you appear to have stopped trying.
Topic's author
#36
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
So you’ve dropped - and thus conceded...

I have conceded NOTHING where YOU are concerned. 

You are too ignorant of legal matters to fully comprehend let alone appreciate the parameters entailed in the consequences of such judicial activism in the cited case in the OP.
#37
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
I have conceded NOTHING where YOU are concerned. 
Because of course you don’t - By all means explain why you think whether the law was intended to cover transgenderism, or that it was contemporaneously acceptable in 1964 - is not irrelevant if you apply textualism. You won’t - because you can’t.

Your angry denials are meaningless - if someone provides an argument against your position, and you refuse or are otherwise unable to address it - that point is considered conceded. Otherwise, any idiot could come in; spout a bunch of nonsense; refuse to address the issues in his arguments ;  stop replying and declare victory. That’s not how an argument works.

On that note: I away your responses to:


And 


And


Which disprove your case on its entirety and appear - for some reason - to be being ignored in their entirety.
Topic's author
#38
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
 By all means explain why you think whether the law was intended to cover transgenderism, or that it was contemporaneously acceptable in 1964 - is not irrelevant if you apply textualism. You won’t - because you can’t.
Already done in the OP. 
Topic's author
#39
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Your angry denials are meaningless...
I'm not angry. I have no emotional investment in this or any other discussion.

What I lack is patience for the uneducated who think they are pseudo know-it-alls. Like you. 
#40
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
By all means explain why you think whether the law was intended to cover transgenderism, or that it was contemporaneously acceptable in 1964 - is not irrelevant if you apply textualism. You won’t - because you can’t.

Already done in the OP.
This is a lie.

Your definition of textualism clearly precludes using intent; or social environment at the time - only legal text and ordinary meaning of the words. I explained this in my post here:


You violated textualism ; by citing social environment of the 1960s - you cannot defend that violation.

I can’t refute an argument that doesn’t exist. Please quote the part of your OP that explains why textualism allows you to use social environment at the time the law was written as a basis for a legal decision.

You won’t - because you can’t: your OP contains no such argument, you’re simply proclaiming the OP includes such an argument - even though you clearly know it does not - this is a clear lie.
Topic's author
#41
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Your desperation for attention and acknowledgement across the threads you engage in is so sophomoric. 
#42
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
Your desperation for attention and acknowledgement across the threads you engage in is so sophomoric. 
This is an Ad-hominem attack - adds nothing and can be ignored.

I will draw your attention back to my argument - which you appear to have no response to:

- The text of Title VII clearly and indisputably precludes firing a man for something a woman would be okay with.

- Legal text relating to BFOQ does not cover dress codes; and explicitly does not apply.

- Legal citations you describe are wrongly decided based on the text of the law; and are appeals to authority neglecting that a higher disagreeing authority also exists.


As a result; Title VII clearly and unambiguously applies to examples of transgender discrimination.

In addition - The history of Title VII is clearly intended to apply to examples where one sex is held to a different set of rules than another - of which this is an example.

While it is certainly the case that the writers may not have explicitly intended this example of discrimination to be covered  - nonetheless it is covered by the text and the broader intent - if an exception is needed, it should be added to the law by Congress. It is not the judicial branches Job to fix faulty legislation where congress didn’t correctly write the law with all required exemptions - to do so would be indeed legislating from the bench every bit as much as allowing the law to cover cases that where explicitly not intended and have to be based on clear interpretation.


But please - feel free to ignore the legal argument - and call me names.
Topic's author
#43
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
- The text of Title VII clearly and indisputably precludes firing a man for something a woman would be okay with.
No, it does not. Legal standards are different for biological men to biological women based on longstanding commonplace gender characteristics/roles as dictated and expected within society. And that includes dress codes and grooming standards expected from biological men and biological women. 

Women are protected from a different kind of discrimination than men precisely because they are women and the only one of the two genders that can get pregnant. Same for breast feeding, as it is a "gender specific condition" protected by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

SCOTUS held in Rostker v Goldberg that it was constitutional to only require men to register for the draft. Again, based on longstanding commonplace gender characteristics/roles differentiating societal expectations between men and women. 


- Legal text relating to BFOQ does not cover dress codes; and explicitly does not apply.
Yes, it does. Case in point, male clothing designers could legally advertise for male models only, where female models wouldn't be able to model men's clothing as intended. Same also goes for the Hooter's case I cited. Seeing a man in the server uniform just doesn't work. 


- Legal citations you describe are wrongly decided based on the text of the law; and are appeals to authority neglecting that a higher disagreeing authority also exists.

LOL!!! You, who has ZERO experience in any field of the law, claim to know what cases are wrongly decided and my certain use of them is an appeal to authority. 
Ridiculous. There is no appeal to authority here when citing cases. That is what one does when arguing matters of law, cite case precedence. That is not an appeal to authority. And you claiming such without proving how and why the citation is wrong is nothing short of a genetic fallacy. And I know full well what the hierarchy of the courts are. You clearly do not, nor do you understand how case law is applied. 


Bottom line, when men pretend to be women win legal cases like this one, it not only makes a mockery of women in general but destroys everything women have fought to achieve over the centuries to still, in the end, benefit men. Men are invading women's spaces across all fronts. It's pure insanity, or in your case, pure idiocy. 
#44
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
No, it does not. Legal standards are different for biological men to biological women based on longstanding commonplace gender characteristics/roles as dictated and expected within society. And that includes dress codes and grooming standards expected from biological men and biological women. 

Circular argument.

I have provided a justified textualist based explanation of how the law precludes firing a man for something a woman may do.

This response is saying that the law doesn’t preclude the discrimination - because the law allows the discrimination. Your response assumes it’s own conclusion.

Show me:
  • how the text of the title VII allows for dress codes.
  • what other superseding law, or text allows for this.

Bare assertions are not arguments.


Women are protected from a different kind of discrimination than men precisely because they are women and the only one of the two genders that can get pregnant. Same for breast feeding, as it is a "gender specific condition" protected by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Correct. But completely irrelevant. Only females can breastfeed or become pregnant, or need abortions or birth control; or need time to pump; but males aren’t asking for those rights - and if they did, then you could very well argue that the gender specific condition means title VII doesn’t apply.

What you wear, or how you identify is not a gender specific condition dependent solely on your physiology and so isn’t covered by that unberella.

SCOTUS held in Rostker v Goldberg that it was constitutional to only require men to register for the draft. Again, based on longstanding commonplace gender characteristics/roles differentiating societal expectations between men and women. 

There is so much wrong with this argument - it’s hard to know where to begin. So let’s start off by explaining some basic legal stuff - I’m going to simplify this, as it seems you have issues with - it’s a lot to ask of you specifically - but please try not to go for ridiculous straw men. 

The constitution sets the limits of governmental power. The argument in Rustier v Goldberg was constitutional - that such discrimination was outside the governments power to legislate due to due process and equal protection. IE: plaintiff: constitution says you can’t make that law - Supreme Court: no it doesn’t.

The title VII decision was based upon what title VII says. That law says you can’t discriminate against transgender people (see above posts)

Rustier v Goldberg is irrelevant because the decision was effectively that the government is allowed to pass laws that include this specific types of sex discrimination. It does NOT mean that other laws that explicitly preclude sex discrimination must now allow it - that’s not how constitutional rulings work. 

That the constitution does not preclude some forms of sex discrimination does not mean that explicit prohibition of such discrimination in title VII is not valid: in the same way that the constitution no longer precluding certain limits to abortion does not mean that laws banning, or legalizing abortion are invalid.


If title VII was used as a basis of the draft decision (IE it was a ruling on title VII text or meaninf), or if the constitution somehow was deemed to require specific types of discrimination - this ruling would be relevant. But it didn’t.

You should know this with all your law knowledge.


Yes, it does. Case in point, male clothing designers could legally advertise for male models only, where female models wouldn't be able to model men's clothing as intended. Same also goes for the Hooter's case I cited. Seeing a man in the server uniform just doesn't work. 

This argument is circular.

You assert BFOQ applies because: hooters 

I explain in detail, citing legal text, why it doesn’t.

You assert that I’m wrong - because BFOQ applies because hooters 

I explain again - in detail - the reasons the law doesn’t apply.

You assert that in wrong - because BFOQ applies because hooters 

What is wrong with you. This is retarded. Do you not understand how an argument works? 


Again a BFOQ - as I explained above and you have not bothered to challenge; applies only when you want to hire an individual; and allows you to hire on the basis of gender only when the gender of a given role is genuinely important to the business. Being male or female has no relevance to a funeral parlour - so does not apply in this case - and doesn’t apply to general dress codes across the board - this interpretation is baseless nonsense without my support in law - and essentially pulled out of your ass.

I asked you to show me:

  • Why gender is a BF qualification for a funereal parlour or 
  • How you conclude - using the text of title VII - how BFOQ applies on cases where gender is not a bona fide occupational qualification.

You can’t do that, obviously - so you’re just restating the same argument.

There is no appeal to authority here when citing cases. That is what one does when arguing matters of law, cite case precedence. That is not an appeal to authority. And you claiming such without proving how and why the citation is wrong is nothing short of a genetic fallacy. And I know full well what the hierarchy of the courts are. You clearly do not, nor do you understand how case law is applied. 

You can’t cite a lower court precedent as a reason why the Supreme Court precedent that overrides it - is invalid.

That’s not how precedent works. Which is as my point.

The Supreme Court decision was either rightly decided or wrongly decided. If it was rightly decided - your precedent is an invalid interpretation of the law. If it was wrongly decided, then your precedent is valid.

The mere existence of the precedent has no weight on the argument - you have to explain why the conclusion of this precedent is more valid than that of the Supreme Court decision.

I have justified why it isn’t above. And like everything else - you’ve just completely ignored it.


Holding up this specific precedent as sacrosanct - that its decision is valid and rightly decided; because it is a precedent is demanding that I accept your argument as valid based solely on it coming from an authority. as opposed to you explaining why the argument is valid : that is the argument from authority. 

It’s not a genetic fallacy as I’m not rejecting it on the grounds of where it came from - (ie: that judge is an idiot - that ruling is wrong) - I’m rejecting it as an argument on the basis you’re using its authority as the reason the argument must be accepted - rather than justifying the argument it makes.

You confuse these two a lot it seems.

Bottom line, when men pretend to be women win legal cases like this one, it not only makes a mockery of women in general but destroys everything women have fought to achieve over the centuries to still, in the end, benefit men. Men are invading women's spaces across all fronts. It's pure insanity, or in your case, pure idiocy. 

No it doesn’t. It effects literally no one. The contents of ones pants should have no bearing on coworkers or corporations; and a man deciding one day to dress and act like a woman because that would make them happy - has no negative impact on anyone.






Topic's author
#45
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
No, it does not. Legal standards are different for biological men to biological women based on longstanding commonplace gender characteristics/roles as dictated and expected within society. And that includes dress codes and grooming standards expected from biological men and biological women. 

Circular argument.

I have provided a justified textualist based explanation of how the law precludes firing a man for something a woman may do.

This response is saying that the law doesn’t preclude the discrimination - because the law allows the discrimination. Your response assumes it’s own conclusion.

Show me:
  • how the text of the title VII allows for dress codes.
  • what other superseding law, or text allows for this.

Bare assertions are not arguments.
It is NOT a circular argument. Your rebuttal is a strawman argument and an appea to ignorance.

"United States Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
Title VII is the seminal federal law impacting employer dress codes and appearance policies. "

"Generally federal courts have held that an employer may adopt a grooming/appearance policy in accordance with generally accepted community standards that differentiates between men and women (specific requirements may differ) provided it is applied in an even-handed manner and does not impose an unequal burden on one sex over the other. For example, employer grooming policies requiring male employees to have short hair and imposing a make-up requirement for female employees have been upheld."

"The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (the federal agency charged with enforcement of Title VII) takes the position that employer appearance policies generally must be neutral, adopted for nondiscriminatory reasons, and consistently applied to persons of all protected groups. "


I have provided a justified textualist based explanation of how the law precludes firing a man for something a woman may do.

No, you have not. Nowhere in Title VII (plain reading of the text) does it mention that a man can dress as a woman, or a woman can dress as a man and be protected under that law. 

What you wear, or how you identify is not a gender specific condition dependent solely on your physiology and so isn’t covered by that unberella. [sic]
Yes, it is. 

"Generally federal courts have held that an employer may adopt a grooming/appearance policy in accordance with generally accepted community standards that differentiates between men and women (specific requirements may differ) provided it is applied in an even-handed manner and does not impose an unequal burden on one sex over the other. For example, employer grooming policies requiring male employees to have short hair and imposing a make-up requirement for female employees have been upheld."

Yes, it does. Case in point, male clothing designers could legally advertise for male models only, where female models wouldn't be able to model men's clothing as intended. Same also goes for the Hooter's case I cited. Seeing a man in the server uniform just doesn't work. 

This argument is circular.
No, it is not. Both are independently true and do not depend on the other to be true. 

It is becoming clearer you do not comprehend what a circular argument is. 

You assert BFOQ applies because: hooters 

I explain in detail, citing legal text, why it doesn’t.
And you are wrong. They won that case precisely because of BFOQ.
More evidence you are ignorant of the law, how to read statutory law, how to correctly apply the law, and how to research and apply case law correctly and effectively. 

There is no appeal to authority here when citing cases. That is what one does when arguing matters of law, cite case precedence. That is not an appeal to authority. And you claiming such without proving how and why the citation is wrong is nothing short of a genetic fallacy. And I know full well what the hierarchy of the courts are. You clearly do not, nor do you understand how case law is applied. 

You can’t cite a lower court precedent as a reason why the Supreme Court precedent that overrides it - is invalid.

That’s not how precedent works. Which is as my point.
You spun the discussion off track which required other rebuttals. The OP doesn't cite lower cases in rebuttal to SCOTUS. I used the arguments Stephens made and discredited them based on the Court's implicit responsibility to consult legislative history when reviewing laws that are in question, and to avoid judicial activism while doing it. That's not citing anything other than the responsibility of the Court, which Gorsuch failed to do when he legislated from the bench.

Bottom line, when men pretend to be women win legal cases like this one, it not only makes a mockery of women in general but destroys everything women have fought to achieve over the centuries to still, in the end, benefit men. Men are invading women's spaces across all fronts. It's pure insanity, or in your case, pure idiocy. 

No it doesn’t. It effects literally no one. The contents of ones pants should have no bearing on coworkers or corporations; and a man deciding one day to dress and act like a woman because that would make them happy - has no negative impact on anyone.
Yes, it does; and the fact that you cannot see that glaring fact with everything going on in the legal world where liberal progressives and the Biden-Harris Administration pushing for total acceptance of transgender basket cases (yes, it is a mental disorder, and that discussion can be had another time), barely (roughly) 0.7% of the population, through legal force. Which is precisely what Gorsuch did in this case. And it was a wrong decision. Legally UNSOUND. As clearly stated in the OP. None of which you have proven factually inaccurate. You've merely taken this off on your own red herring train track, and an uneducated one at that. 

#46
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
It is NOT a circular argument. Your rebuttal is a strawman argument and an appeal to ignorance.

False. The reasons for it being circular are explained above. That the law supports this form of discrimination is both conclusion and premise of your argument. 

Saying it is not without any explanation is an argument by assertion; you also claim it’s a straw man with no explanation as to why:  argument by assertion and also claim it’s an argument with ignorance without explaining why: argument by assertion

Generally federal courts have held that an employer may adopt a grooming/appearance policy in accordance with generally accepted community standards….

Argument by Repetition. Citing lower court law has already been refuted in posts: #28. #35, #44 - this argument is unchallenged.

Lower court precedent is overridden by what we’re discussing. If my (and Scotus) interpretation of the law is right - then the lower courts interpretation is wrong. You cannot therefore cite the existence of lower court precedent to explain why my textualist explanation is wrong, unless you can explain why it’s better decided

No, it is not <circular>

False. Recall:

You assert BFOQ applies because: hooters 
I explain in detail, citing legal text, why it doesn’t.
You assert that I’m wrong - because BFOQ applies because hooters 

The argument that BFOQ applies here due to the hooters example is your original conclusion - and a premise in why a rebuttal of that conclusion is wrong : using it both a conclusion, and a premise that supports the conclusion.

Both are independently true and do not depend on the other to be true.

This is hard to decipher; as my point didn’t have “both” of anything that were independently true; this must mean you are arguing that your citation of hooters and models are independent true. This is not my basis for calling your argument a straw man, thus you have misrepresented my argument - and attacked that misrepresentation: A Strawman.

It is becoming clearer you do not comprehend what a circular argument is. 

Ad Hominem.  Attacking me instead of my argument.

Red Herring. I point out exactly why BFOQ doesn’t apply in posts #28, #35, #44: instead of replying to the argument - you distract away from the issue at hand by attacking the circular reason claim - not the BFOQ claim

And you are wrong. They won that case precisely because of BFOQ.

My argument is not that hooters didn’t argue BFOQ in their case, or that BFOQ doesn’t apply to hooters; but that BFOQ doesn’t apply in the reference case in the OP, nor to dress codes in general - or any case where an employee being a given gender is not critical to the business - things you claim are true. You misrepresented my argument - then attacked the misrepresentation: Strawman.

More evidence you are ignorant of the law, how to read statutory law, how to correctly apply the law, and how to research and apply case law correctly and effectively. 

Ad hominem. Attacked me instead of my argument.

You spun the discussion off track which required other rebuttals. The OP doesn't cite lower cases in rebuttal to SCOTUS. I used the arguments Stephens made and discredited them based on the Court's implicit responsibility to consult legislative history when reviewing laws that are in question, and to avoid judicial activism while doing it. That's not citing anything other than the responsibility of the Court, which Gorsuch failed to do when he legislated from the bench.

Red herring. You cited Supreme Court constitutional decision as to why male-female discrimination is supportable to a degree. I explained why this irrelevant to the case being discussed. You have now completely ignored this line of defence and are now trying to change the subject to the original post, instead of addressing the primary issue of your cited Supreme Court precedent.

Yes, it does; and the fact you can’t see….

Argument from the stone: dismissing the argument as absurd 

None of which you have proven factually inaccurate. You've merely taken this off on your own red herring train track, and an uneducated one at that

This is a lie. You claimed that this case has a big impact on woman’s rights and the world. If this portion of the post is a red herring, it’s because you’ve taken it off on a red herring track.

Also, you are shifting the burden of proof. If you wish to assert harm from this case, you have the burden to show that it causes harm; you cannot demand that I must disprove harm.

This is so attacking me rather than my point; so another Ad hominem


Note: you ignored my central argument that BFOQ doesn’t apply; you ignored my argument that you cannot use lower court precedent. You continue to ignore my textual justification for the original Supreme Court decision, and you continue to ignore my argument of the basis on why lower court precedent is wrongly decided.
Topic's author
#47
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ramshutu
Your level of legal ignorance, lack of reading comprehension skills and delusions of grandeur knows no bounds.

You are incorrect on each point, yet again, and I have proven such. One word for ya: denial. 

This is my last response to you in this thread. You will never 'get it.' Never!

Adieu 

#48
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TWS1405
Your level of legal ignorance, lack of reading comprehension skills and delusions of grandeur knows no bounds.

Ad Hominem:  attacking me, not my arguments

You are incorrect on each point, yet again, 

Argument by assertion: claiming something without showing it is true. 

and I have proven such. One word for ya: denial.

Argument by assertion again: claiming something without showing it. No such proof exists in any of your posts thus: 

This is an outright whopping lie.

The text of the law as applies by textualism prohibits transgender discrimination - this has been rigorously shown in my precious posts. You have yet to contest this point, or provide any argument as to why the textual interpretation is invalid. You have relied instead on assertion, repeating your claims, circular arguments, denial, and pretending this argument doesn’t exist. All of which I have explained and justified above.

You provide two arguments to support your contention: 

1.) that BFOQ applies here. This is false. It doesn’t, the text doesn’t support this case, and the examples you cite don’t support your case - as shown. You have not contested this point or provide any argument as to why the text of BFOQ in title VII supports your position: you have relied instead on a series of straw men, assertions, repeating your claims and circular arguments : All of which I have explained and justified above.

2.) That precedent allows for discrimination. This is also false. If the Supreme Court ruling correctly decides the case on the law - which it does, as I have shown - this renders all lower court cases irrelevant, as they were wrongly decided. One cannot cite lower court precedent as if it overrides Supreme Court decisions unless you can show the reasoning is better - which you don’t. You have not contested this point or provide any argument as to why the lower court decisions are better interpretations of the text of the law; using textualism. Instead you rely on, on repeated assertion, changing the subject, ignoring the argument - and repeating your claims.

This is my last response to you in this thread. You will never 'get it.' Never!

I absolutely get it. You have a strong opinion based on emotion, not logic, you have not thought out your argument, or explored it thoroughly. You don’t know it’s weaknesses or strengths; all you have is a superficial claim with superficial support. You merely have a set of points that you have practiced - rather than a set of good points that you can defend 

Thus - when your claims are challenged, as you’re argument has no depth to it - it’s merely a number of points you can parrot off - you rapidly fall out of your intellectual depth as you run out of comfortable, practiced legitimate responses to make and have to defend the deeper logic of your claims with the appropriate intellectual tools to do so

Hence, you start off with claims and arguments; and get to a point where you can no longer defend your argument honestly. 
When you feel and believe someone is wrong but don’t have the tools or words to explain why - it generates frustration and hostility. You lash out with ad-hominem attacks - blame them for being obtuse: if you believe you’re right and they’re wrong, the reason you can’t explain it must be because they’re argument is bad or they’re arguing dishonestly.

You fall into a fallacy trap - asserting what you believe rather than showing it; calling people names, you ignore the arguments that make you feel so uncomfortable and pretend they don’t exist to focus on other things you can contest. You restate the same arguments again because while you can’t explain why they’re correct - they feel like they are. Everything becomes emotional - not logical.

Your argument loses coherence; the discussion comes off the rails as there’s no longer any discussion about the points being contested; and all would be well - unless someone keeps dragging you back to the important points of the thread - the key contested issues that drove all this initial frustration and emotional reaction in the first place.

It’s not possible to avoid; so you go from arguing, to the fallacy trap, to looking for an escape route to make that frustration go away - instead of turning the focus inward at your own abilities - again you lash out, and blame the others.

This is all to say that your issue is that you very much over estimate the validity and strength of your own argument due your emotional investment in it; you don’t have the intellectual tools, or maturity to properly explore your position in depth; so you keep getting caught with your pants down after the first page or two of arguments - you get all angry and lash out; and reach an end game of trying to avoid the very discussion you started. 

Addressing everything. Justifying everything. Explaining everything. And consider modifying your opinion or beliefs in cases when you can’t - is the only way to make your opinions and beliefs better. It allows you to expose and correct your weaknesses; and helps improve your reasoning skills.

Serious question though. Is all this anger, all this vitriol; lashing out, calling people stupid; or questioning their legal credentials. Spamming threads about racisms: Is continually stoking that obviously negative visceral feeling; that anger - improving your mental health, or making your life better? Because it seems to be the level of anger or vitriol that can eat away at someone, and end up taking over someone’s life.