Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

angrychair

(10,907 posts)

28. This ruling

Reply to Shrek (Reply #25)

Fri Jun 6, 2025, 09:56 AM

Jun 6

Will make companies risk adverse. For them it will just be easier to hire the white person over the Black or gay one to avoid legal issues.
This is just one of those "death by a thousand cuts" principles.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supreme Court sides with woman claiming anti-straight job discrimination [View all] BumRushDaShow Jun 5 OP

Because of course they did. Scrivener7 Jun 5 #1

The decision was unanimous. Ocelot II Jun 5 #2

I just updated the OP with the latest - this is what Justice Jackson wrote BumRushDaShow Jun 5 #3

The decision just sends it back for adjudication mdbl Jun 5 #4

Right. The headline is very misleading. yardwork Jun 5 #14

This message was self-deleted by its author yardwork Jun 5 #15

Please angrychair Jun 5 #19

We'll see how it plays out in the courts mdbl Jun 5 #21

This ruling angrychair Jun 5 #23

Fragile White Syndrome is a new condition wolfie001 Jun 5 #5

Justice Jackson wrote the unanimous opinion for the Court. Does she suffer from this affliction as well? tritsofme Jun 5 #9

Oh great. Now I have to do some reading wolfie001 Jun 6 #32

Fragile White Syndrome has been around since anti discrimination laws first began yellowdogintexas Jun 5 #13

I'm tired of being picked on because I'm white. Hotler Jun 6 #29

Hey! I'm white as well wolfie001 Jun 6 #31

I'm right there with you. Another favorite is, "I'm tired of being picked on because of my liberal views.". Hotler Jun 6 #33

You too! wolfie001 Jun 6 #34

it was a 9-0 decision. all it means is she CAN sue moonshinegnomie Jun 5 #6

I think DEI is officially DOA. Mosby Jun 5 #7

This is the correct decision. WhiskeyGrinder Jun 5 #8

Especially angrychair Jun 5 #20

So...uh...why do you suppose Justice Jackson, who wrote the opinion, joined by Kagan and Sotomayor tritsofme Jun 6 #24

If the shoe was on a minority's foot, would the SC even take the case? wolfie001 Jun 6 #35

Apparently you dont understand the decision. Callie1979 Jun 6 #26

Obviously. Dr. Strange Jun 5 #22

So far, all three SC rulings that I'm seeing today have been unanimous Polybius Jun 5 #10

So you can't take sides against gays either. Am I interpreting correctly? twodogsbarking Jun 5 #11

No. I'll let DU law experts explain, but the headline is misleading. yardwork Jun 5 #16

Ah, the details. The devil isn't even hiding. twodogsbarking Jun 5 #17

To clarify, I don't really think that gays are "anti-straight". They just aren't straight. twodogsbarking Jun 5 #12

Even the courts are fucked angrychair Jun 5 #18

They still have to win the suit Shrek Jun 6 #25

This ruling angrychair Jun 6 #28

"literally" everything? Numerous lawsuits in the past prove otherwise. Callie1979 Jun 6 #27

It's like we haven't lived through the last 250 years angrychair Jun 6 #30