Have fun, ladies.
We now have a mentally ill secretary of HHS.
The inmates are truly in charge of the Asylum.
Women voted for Biden....they deserve this.
I am happy that every women’s athletic record will be broken by a man.
This was unnecessary.
Trying to erase real women and invade their private spaces. I don’t want to be in the men’s bathroom, and I don’t want men dressing as women in the bathroom with me.
If a man is pursuing federal contracts, all he hast to do his claim to be a woman owned business. Say they identify as a woman, so all they need to do. If a person says they’re black, why shouldn’t they be allowed to choose?
Gorsuch, in Bostock, specifically denies that the case can be applied to any other situation such as women’s sports:
What are these consequences anyway? The employers worry that our decision will sweep beyond Title VII to other federal or state laws that prohibit sex discrimination. And, under Title VII itself, they say sex-segregated bathrooms, locker rooms, and dress codes will prove unsustainable af- ter our decision today. But none of these other laws are before us; we have not had the benefit of adversarial testing about the meaning of their terms, and we do not prejudge any such question today. Under Title VII, too, we do not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, or anything else of the kind. The only question before us is whether an employer who fires someone simply for being homosexual or transgender has discharged or otherwise discriminated against that individual “because of such individual’s sex.” As used in Title VII, the term “ ‘discriminate against’ ” refers to “distinctions or differences in treatment that injure pro- tected individuals.” Burlington N. & S. F. R., 548 U. S., at 59. Firing employees because of a statutorily protected trait surely counts. Whether other policies and practices
might or might not qualify as unlawful discrimination or find justifications under other provisions of Title VII are questions for future cases, not these.
Separately, the employers fear that complying with Title VII’s requirement in cases like ours may require some em- ployers to violate their religious convictions. We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society. But worries about how Title VII may intersect with religious lib- erties are nothing new; they even predate the statute’s pas- sage. As a result of its deliberations in adopting the law, Congress included an express statutory exception for reli- gious organizations. §2000e–1(a). This Court has also rec- ognized that the First Amendment can bar the application of employment discrimination laws “to claims concerning the employment relationship between a religious institu- tion and its ministers.” Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lu- theran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171, 188 (2012). And Congress has gone a step further yet in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. That stat- ute prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless it demon- strates that doing so both furthers a compelling governmen- tal interest and represents the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. §2000bb–1. Because RFRA oper- ates as a kind of super statute, displacing the normal oper- ation of other federal laws, it might supersede Title VII’s commands in appropriate cases. See §2000bb–3.
But how these doctrines protecting religious liberty inter- act with Title VII are questions for future cases too. Harris Funeral Homes did unsuccessfully pursue a RFRA-based defense in the proceedings below. In its certiorari petition, however, the company declined to seek review of that ad- verse decision, and no other religious liberty claim is now before us. So while other employers in other cases may raise free exercise arguments that merit careful considera- tion, none of the employers before us today represent in this Court that compliance with Title VII will infringe their own religious liberties in any way.
Gorsuch in Bostock
How’s that 50 years of lining up with cultural Bolshevism working out for you, feminists? Cry us a friggin river.
Have fun, ladies.
Someone in the room (Pelosi?): “Sign it anyway”.
Are we having fun yet?
At least they won't have to compete against them for husbands!
Who did you vote for ladies? If you voted for senile pervert tough sh!t. Suck it up.
Gorsuch held for this bs? Wow.
Now, who did you vote for?
What did she win,she was dumped from the Democrat primary first! Nobody wanted the whore.
Biden boxed himself in saying hope was going to pick a woman of color,the squad picked her,this is a bunch of garbage
Has anyone ever seen a photo or video of Biden sniffing a transgender person? Hypocrite!
In some perverse way I find myself loving this. For decades these lunatic third wave feminazis have been merrily trashing every norm in our society. It has finally come full circle and bent them over for the massive reaming they so richly deserve.
As long as Biden continues to support ABORTION ON DEMAND nothing else he does will lose him any votes with women.
Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to . . . school sports,” the order states.
_____________________________________________
and nobody has stopped them...boys can participate in boys teams...girls in girls teams...
Meanwhile i personally was never hindered by worry about access to school sports while I leant in school...I participated in everything...even as center in field hockey which our headmistress declared was a man’s sport...
and I was in high school waaaaay back when JFK was assassinated...
:)
Anxiously awaiting its (plural it) on the balance beam and uneven parallel bars.
But at least we don't have to hear or read about bad orange man.
I can honestly say that this is one piece of leftist idiocy that doesn’t bother me at all. As another Freeper pointed out a few days ago ... having separate sports leagues for men and women is completely incompatible with any principle of “gender equality” under the law.